Plato, the Greek philosopher, tried to classify the art starting from his teaching about miming of reality. Most emphasis was on two categories of so called productive art: one that create reality – architecture and the other one that imitate reality – painting/visual art.

On top of that Leonardo da Vinci in his famous Trattato della Pitura, is saying that artist is nothing else then collector of “things” stolen from various sciences, in our case psychology and geography, and that is how fictional, creative, composition is made.

That bring us to the >psycho<geography> playground.

What do you think, is this true?

“To answer the question whether urban art could be one of the most significant movements in recent art history we must take a look at the concept of urban art.

~ Urban art is concepts that is particularly hard to define. Most commonly urban art is seen as art that originates from urban environments, it relates to the cities and is created by artists who live in the cities, thematize urban lifestyle and consider cities their working environment. ~ Urban art is new, exciting, subversive, bold and highly democratic because of its rootedness in public, urban space. The social, political aspects and critical connotations is widely praised among those who got annoyed by the fact that contemporary art has lost its sense of the social surroundings”. →more by Anika Dačić