Aksjologia „dzikiej typografii” (o specyficznym nurcie łódzkiego street artu)

Abstract

The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild.

The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild.

The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild.

The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild.

Tematem artykułu jest nowe zjawisko sztuki miejskiej określane jako „dzikie typo”. Jest ono specyficznie lokalne, łódzkie, ale jednocześnie pozwala uchwycić złożoną problematykę doświadczenia postindustrialnego miasta — i w tym sensie jest uniwersalne. Sam termin jest zastanawiający, ponieważ wydaje się wewnętrznie sprzeczny. Mimo iż pojęcie dzikości ma pewną tradycję we współczesnej teorii sztuki, to nie przystaje do zagadnienia typografii. Różne przejawy „dzikiego typo” w przestrzeni miasta uwikłane są w szereg zależności podważających status autorstwa, narażających twórców na naśladowanie i instrumentalne wykorzystanie ich prac. Jeśli chodzi o fizyczną przestrzeń miasta i jej walory dzikości i autentyczności — to „dzikie typo” użycza tej przestrzeni wieloznaczności i także przejmuje jej wieloznaczność, co wraz z ingerującą przyrodą oraz zaniedbaniem sprawia, że użytkownik miasta nie ma jasności, z czym ma do czynienia. Interesujące jest, dlaczego i z jakimi intencjami lub nadziejami artyści wikłają się w ten splot sztuki, wandalizmu i degradacji krajobrazu. Potraktowanie tych przestrzeni i praktyk jako heterotopijnych pozwala wyjść poza schematyczne wartościowanie legalne/nielegalne, estetyczne/antyestetyczne, kulturalne/zdziczałe.

The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild.