Can We Compare Arman with Art Is Trash Sculptures?
The history of contemporary art is filled with figures who transform ordinary objects into extraordinary statements. Two names that often spark curiosity in this context are Arman (1928–2005), the French-born American artist associated with Nouveau Réalisme, and Francisco de Pájaro, better known as Art Is Trash, the Spanish street artist from Zafra who works mainly in Barcelona. While they are separated by decades, geography, and artistic circles, the question arises: can we meaningfully compare Arman’s sculptures with the ephemeral interventions of Art Is Trash?
Arman’s Sculptural Language
Arman, whose real name was Armand Pierre Fernandez, developed a career that blurred the line between object and artwork. His most iconic series are accumulations (collections of identical or similar objects presented in transparent cases) and poubelles (works made from discarded, broken, or destroyed items). His practice often revolved around consumer culture, industrial repetition, and the destruction of objects to reveal new meanings.
Sculptures such as Long Term Parking (a towering arrangement of cars encased in concrete) or his “colères” (objects deliberately smashed and presented as art) capture the essence of Arman’s challenge: confronting society with the waste, abundance, and violence hidden in everyday consumption.
Art Is Trash: Street Sculptures and Ephemeral Life
Francisco de Pájaro, under the pseudonym Art Is Trash, works in a radically different context. His art emerges directly from the streets of Barcelona, London, Miami, or any city he passes through. Instead of marble, bronze, or transparent Plexiglas, his materials are discarded sofas, broken furniture, cardboard boxes, old mattresses, and trash bags. With spray paint, tape, or quick brushstrokes, he animates these abandoned objects into grotesque, humorous, or tragic figures that comment on poverty, consumerism, and the fragile state of human existence.
Unlike Arman, Art Is Trash rarely preserves his sculptures in galleries or museums. Their life is ephemeral: they might last a few hours or days before the garbage truck clears them away. This fleeting presence makes them simultaneously powerful and vulnerable, reminding viewers that art itself—like life—is temporary.
Points of Comparison
-
Materiality
Both artists share a fascination with discarded or everyday objects. Arman collected and multiplied them in systematic ways, while Art Is Trash reanimates them in situ. In both cases, the artwork emerges from what society rejects. -
Destruction and Transformation
Arman’s “colères” involved smashing violins, chairs, or pianos—acts of destruction that created a new sculptural presence. Art Is Trash, too, uses destruction as a base but transforms it with humor, anthropomorphism, and irony. -
Critique of Consumer Society
Arman came from the post-war boom, when mass production was reshaping lifestyles. His work was a response to abundance and overconsumption. Art Is Trash addresses a similar critique but in the context of 21st-century neoliberalism, inequality, and the mountains of waste left by global capitalism. -
Ephemerality vs. Monumentality
Perhaps the biggest difference lies here: Arman’s works often sought permanence, ending up in collections, galleries, and even monumental public spaces. Art Is Trash thrives on impermanence—the sculptures exist on the street, exposed to decay, rain, and removal. This divergence in intent makes direct comparison complex.
Can We Compare Them?
Yes, but with caution.
-
Conceptually, both are deeply rooted in objecthood, waste, and transformation. They share a lineage of Dada, Duchamp’s readymades, and the critique of consumerism.
-
Aesthetically and institutionally, they diverge: Arman operated within the art market, exhibiting in prestigious galleries, while Art Is Trash embraces the raw, anarchic spirit of street art, rejecting the commodification of his street interventions.
In other words, comparing Arman and Art Is Trash reveals a dialogue across generations about society’s relationship with objects, consumption, and waste. Yet, one sculpts for posterity, while the other sculpts for the present moment.
Final Reflection
If Arman turned the trash of industrial society into monumental memory, Art Is Trash turns the trash of urban life into temporary poetry. Both artists hold a mirror to humanity’s excesses, though one places the mirror in the museum and the other in the street corner.
The comparison is less about sameness and more about continuity: the artistic impulse to reclaim, reframe, and reimagine what others throw away.
