Wednesday 20 November 2013

Art For Art's Sake: DALeast

A rather strange choice, this one, especially for anyone who has heard me rant about graffiti 'artists' on this blog.

Because this month's choice is just that - the secretive 'DALeast', whose work can be seen in various locations around the world, including this astonishing work in London:

It might be that his works are apolitical, as so many lesser talents are not, or it might be that I'm a sucker for any sort of wildlife art, but his work is breathtaking in scale and accomplishment, the subject seeming to burst out of the wall...

You can keep your politically-correct Banksy, my contempt for which is nicely expressed by this dog.

And yet, as David Thompson points out, it's still up to the building owner to consider as 'art'. In just this one case, I hope they do.


wiggia said...

It is very good, the final one appeals the most, but using someone elses property even with permission is not without its own problems as this comment made clear.
"What’s also interesting is the obvious lesson for those who indulge graffiti practitioners. If, like the owner of the warehouse above, you allow such people to do their thang on your property, you at most buy a few years peace. After that, you become a villain, The Man, The Enemy Of Art. When the time came to redevelop the site, the owner of the building found himself faced with howls of protest and attempts at legal obstruction by graffiti “activists.” Some imaginative souls wanted the place declared a protected landmark, a cultural shrine, on account of its graffiti. So much for it being a temporary art form. And not much of a thank you for the owner’s decade of indulgence. "

MTG said...

It could easily be mistaken for a Hirst...were it not for DALeast's staggering talent and the absence of any intention to criminally dupe others.

JuliaM said...

"...but using someone elses property even with permission is not without its own problems.."

Oh, indeed. It'd be a pity if real art were whitewashed over, along with all the criminal daubings, though. In a just world, this chap (woman?) would outsell Banksy easily..

"...and the absence of any intention to criminally dupe others."

Just so...

Tim Almond said...


I'm not sure how Hirst could dupe people. A painting with spots on is a painting with spots on. If you pay $50K for one, more fool you.

MTG said...

@ Stigler

"I'm not sure how Hirst could dupe people."

You are no economist but smart enough to part with a couple of grand for a part-eaten jar of genuine pickled gherkins, I wager.