When we consider art through the lens of evolution and language games, it’s clear that the medium has continuously adapted, mirroring societal shifts and the way we communicate. Art, much like language, is a system of symbols, gestures, and interpretations. As societies evolve, so do the symbols, the visual metaphors, and the codes embedded in art. These language games—a concept that suggests meaning is derived from how language is used in particular contexts—apply just as much to visual art. The interpretation of a piece depends on the cultural context, the artist’s intention, and the viewer’s perspective.

In this evolutionary framework, art moves away from static definitions and rigid forms. What was once seen as pure rebellion or "non-art" evolves into something revered, even classical. The graffiti that covered urban landscapes, for instance, was initially dismissed, but as the world of art evolved, the language surrounding it shifted. It became a mode of communication, a language game where the rules were rewritten. The symbols, phrases, and abstract figures took on new meanings depending on who was observing, where it was displayed, and what context it was placed within.

This is where the evolutionary aspect* of art becomes fascinating—it’s not just about the development of techniques, but about the way meaning itself mutates over time. Art becomes a living dialogue. For example, what once was a spontaneous action painting, seen as raw and unrefined, evolves into a deeper conversation about chaos, control, and human expression. The lines, splatters, and symbols form a new kind of syntax, where the "rules" of interpretation are flexible.

The role of power and authority in art’s evolution is a crucial factor that shapes not only what is considered “art” but also how art is interpreted, disseminated, and valued. Throughout history, the evolution of art has often been dictated by the forces of authority, be they religious, political, or institutional. These gatekeepers have the power to either suppress certain forms of expression or elevate others, thus shaping the trajectory of artistic movements and their eventual place in the canon of art history.

When we examine art’s evolution through the lens of power dynamics, it becomes clear that the approval and endorsement of authority—whether from royal patrons in the Renaissance, state-controlled art academies, or contemporary art institutions—often play a determining role in whether an artist or movement is embraced, ignored, or suppressed. Art movements that challenge the status quo, such as early street art, are often initially rejected by these authorities, only to be absorbed and institutionalized when they become too powerful or popular to ignore.

This process raises fundamental questions about who gets to define what is art. Institutions such as museums, galleries, and auction houses have long been the arbiters of artistic legitimacy, controlling the narrative of art history and, by extension, the market value of art. The very act of displaying a piece of art in a prestigious gallery confers upon it a sense of importance, thereby legitimizing it within the broader cultural and historical context. Artists who do not conform to these frameworks often find themselves marginalized, even if their work resonates with broader social movements or popular culture.

Semantic value in art refers to the capacity of a piece to carry meaning that shifts or evolves depending on the context in which it is viewed, produced, or interpreted. This concept is particularly relevant in the analysis of contemporary and abstract art, where meaning is not fixed but is instead fluid, contingent on various factors such as the viewer’s background, the social or political environment, and the medium itself. In essence, semantic value acknowledges that art does not have an inherent, singular meaning but is part of an ongoing dialogue between the work, the artist, and the viewer.

For example, consider how a piece of street art, which might originate as a subversive or anti-establishment message in a public space, takes on a different semantic value when it is displayed in a gallery or museum. The shift from street to institution alters its context and, therefore, its meaning. What was once a rebellious act of expression can become a commodity within the art market or a critique of that very system when viewed within the confines of an art institution. The contextual shift—from public space to private gallery—imbues the work with new layers of interpretation.

As such, the relationship between art and power becomes one of co-option and negotiation. Take, for instance, the transition of street art from a subversive, outsider practice to a respected, high-value art form. Originally dismissed as vandalism, street art thrived in urban spaces where it was unconstrained by traditional authorities. However, as its cultural impact grew, galleries and institutions began to embrace it. This shift marks a transition in the language game of art—from rebellion to acceptance—where art that was once marginalized becomes part of the mainstream, but in doing so, it often loses some of its original radical edge.

This phenomenon also highlights the tension between authenticity and commodification in art. When institutions and the art market embrace a once-subversive style, the power structures that previously rejected it now define its value. This commodification alters the meaning of the art itself, shifting its role from a form of resistance or social commentary to a commercial product. The same institutions that once suppressed these movements may later play a pivotal role in their commercial success, thereby reinforcing their own authority over the narrative of art history.

These language art games are not just confined to the relationship between artist and viewer, but also within the broader conversation of what is accepted as art. Just as language changes in different social contexts, so does art’s meaning. What once was considered avant-garde becomes canonized; the street-level rebellion enters galleries and institutions. This transformation isn’t linear but cyclical—new movements emerge, challenge the norms, become integrated, and are eventually replaced by something even more radical.

This constant play between rebellion and acceptance mirrors the natural selection of ideas—art forms that resonate survive, while those that don’t are left behind or reinterpreted through new lenses. And just like evolution, this doesn’t mean art "improves" in a traditional sense, but rather it adapts, responding to its environment: political climates, cultural revolutions, and technological advancements.

In this evolutionary game of art, every stroke, every symbol, is part of a larger conversation about human identity, freedom, and the very act of creation. The language of art is no longer confined to a singular style or method but is a constantly evolving code that reflects the complexity of human life and expression.

The urban influence is undeniable. Picture a visual language that grew from the streets, using bold, vibrant colors and layered forms that reflect the rebellious energy of underground movements. The art merges imagery with abstract symbols, hinting at deeper meanings while leaving enough ambiguity for individual interpretation. There is often a mix of cryptic writing, cultural references, and stark contrasts in color, giving the work a sense of urgency and raw emotion.

This art style emerges from a tension between raw physical expression and the structured chaos of urban environments. It's about the act of creation being just as important as the result—where the brush or spray can becomes an extension of the body. The movements are spontaneous, fast, and full of energy, leaving marks that capture the intensity of emotion or thought in that moment. The idea is to let go of control, allowing the motion of the body to shape the outcome, creating layers of splatters, lines, and drips that speak to the immediacy of human expression.

At the same time, there’s a distinct influence from street culture—an aesthetic that originated in public spaces like subways and alleys, where art was often a form of rebellion or self-expression. This influence brings bold, often clashing colours, stylized symbols, and abstract forms that feel alive, almost as if they are racing across the canvas. There’s a rawness to it—symbols and cryptic words emerge, often hinting at social messages or personal struggles, without ever fully revealing themselves.

The combination of these two worlds—the spontaneous, physical act of painting and the gritty, rebellious spirit of urban art—creates a style that feels urgent and intense. Colours don’t just complement each other; they clash and vibrate, demanding attention. The whole work is layered, with meaning often embedded within the textures and forms, requiring the viewer to engage deeply to decode the underlying message. It's less about polish and more about capturing something visceral, something that speaks to the speed and chaos of modern life.

In this context, the work challenges traditional definitions of art, bringing what was once seen as marginal into the mainstream. But it retains its edge—there’s a rebellious undertone, a challenge to authority, and an insistence on staying true to the roots of raw, unfiltered expression.

This art style embodies a raw, dynamic form of expression that focuses on spontaneity and movement. The emphasis is on the physical act of painting, where sweeping motions, splashes, and drips capture the energy and emotion of the creator in the moment. Rather than controlled precision, the style thrives on chaos—letting intuition and the natural flow of paint dictate the outcome. Each stroke becomes a visceral mark of action, capturing the essence of a moment in time.

This aesthetic brings the tension of the streets into the gallery. It confronts traditional views of art, blending high and low culture to create something intensely immediate. The work isn't simply "made"—it’s performed, bringing out the speed, energy, and unpredictability of a subculture that pushed boundaries. It's not about fitting into the mold of convention but about breaking free from it, using art as a tool to communicate raw experience.

Historically, graffiti art, for instance, began as a form of urban expression often dismissed as vandalism. It operated outside the traditional bounds of the art world, speaking to marginalized communities and addressing the realities of urban life. However, as the language game of art expanded, the symbols, phrases, and visual elements of graffiti were integrated into the mainstream, evolving from acts of rebellion into celebrated forms of artistic expression. This shift can be seen as an example of how art evolves not just in technique but in its semantic value—its capacity to carry meaning within different contexts.

In an evolutionary sense, art functions like a biological organism. It adapts to its environment, where new forms and ideas compete for survival in the cultural milieu. Some forms of art are quickly forgotten, while others adapt, becoming part of the art historical canon. Jackson Pollock’s action painting, for instance, was initially radical—emphasizing the artist’s physical movement as a form of expression. Over time, this raw, vigorous technique evolved to be understood as a legitimate form of abstract expressionism, a shift driven by the changing cultural and intellectual environment. What was once a chaotic collection of drips and splashes became part of a broader conversation about the unconscious, human freedom, and existentialism.

Here, the concept of language games becomes essential to understanding art’s evolution. Wittgenstein’s idea suggests that the meaning of words—or, in this case, symbols and artistic gestures—depends on how they are used within specific contexts. Similarly, visual art communicates through a shared system of signs, but the meaning of these signs is contingent on their context. Basquiat’s integration of cryptic symbols and phrases in his work functions as part of this game. His use of crowns, masks, and abstract figures created a visual syntax that required interpretation—a language of symbols whose meanings shifted depending on the viewer’s cultural literacy and the work’s environment.

This evolutionary process in art is not merely a linear progression toward complexity or refinement. Rather, it is characterized by mutation and adaptation—art forms rise, evolve, and sometimes regress or are reinterpreted. The transition of street art from subversive, unauthorized expressions on public walls to curated gallery installations exemplifies this. As street art moved from the streets into the galleries, the rules of the language game changed. The work, while retaining its original visual elements, acquired new layers of meaning based on its institutional context, viewership, and the commodification of rebellion.

Moreover, this process calls into question the role of power and authority in art’s evolution. Just as biological evolution is shaped by environmental pressures, art’s trajectory is influenced by cultural gatekeepers—curators, critics, and institutions that define what is “valid” or “worthy” of preservation. The process is speculative at its core: we cannot predict with certainty which movements or styles will endure or which will fade into obscurity. However, art that resonates with contemporary cultural discourses often persists, adapting to new interpretations and remaining relevant in changing environments.

In this light, we might speculate about the future of art, especially in the context of digital media and globalization. As the lines between high art and low art continue to blur, and as technology democratizes both the creation and dissemination of art, the language game of art is becoming increasingly fluid. The next evolution may lie in the hybridization of traditional and digital forms, or the incorporation of artificial intelligence as a collaborator in the creative process. These speculative trajectories reflect the constant adaptation of art to new cultural, technological, and philosophical environments, reinforcing its role as both a mirror of human experience and an agent of change.

The result? A style that conveys rebellion, a clash of identities, and the blurred line between what's considered "art" and what's considered "outside the system." It's a reflection of shifting perspectives in society, where the line between expression and resistance can be seen in every stroke. This approach mirrors the broader tension between traditional systems of control and the uncontainable force of cultural evolution.