Slashdot Mirror
Reverse Graffiti
glawrie writes "UK Graffiti artist 'Moose' thought he had come up with a perfect socially friendly approach to his art - to trade paints for cleaning fluid. An article in the UK's Independent Newspaper describes how he has created graffiti by taking '... any dirty inner-city wall or pavement, place a template over it, and scrub the concrete clean, revealing an image as sharp as any spray paint which fades with time.' Moose was commissioned by a subsidiary of drinks manufacturer Diageo to create some 'clean' graffiti in Leeds to promote their vodka brand Smirnoff to local students. However, this work was subsequently condemned by Gerry Harper, a Leeds councillor, as 'sheer vandalism'. With wonderful irony, the council demanded that the artist 'clean-up' the graffiti that appeared in one of the city's gloomiest underpasses. Maybe all those senseless vandals out there will now think twice in future before scrawling 'Clean Me' on the back of vehicles overdue for a wash... But perhaps the state is now going too far - surely it is only a matter of time before rainfall is similarly targetted by the good guys."
In my town (Halifax, Canada) we have a few walls which are owned by local companies which have been 'donated' to local grafitti artists. You can go down there any time and see a lighted wall of absolutely amazing artwork, and it changes almost every day.
I don't see what the big problem is.. just give the artists enough places to paint and the problem will reduce if not disappear. What's the problem with that?
Why do some people think that they have the right to deface property they don't own in any way?
Some buildings benefit from a hundred years of "patina", and marring that affects their value.
Not only that, but it reduces the presentability of the neighborhood, reducing property values for everyone.
And it's just selfish, stupid, and ugly.
I just hope that anyone about to defend this consider how much you hate what you think of as unwanted commercial messages all over the place. Besides pop-up blockers, many /. readers block banner ads and the like as well.
It's not their place to be placing these messages. It's not a matter of betterment of public spaces, that's just a distraction from the fact that these are unwanted commercial messages placed where the advertiser wants them.
-PM
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
You'd imagine the corporate world would have enough avenues for subjecting us to a continuous barrage of advertising without the need for graffiti, no matter how cleverly disguised as "cleaning", or illegally flyposting (hello Sony). Ads on TVs, in newspapers, on billboards, in trains, on the windows in trains, the bottom half of the "mind your fingers" warning on the train doors, the entire train, the front of the steps leading from the platform, stickers on the ticket gates, the windows of taxis, one side of my commuter pass, at the bottom of my shop receipts... it never stops. I dunno, my office is the most advert-free environment I see during the day.
But perhaps the state is now going too far - surely it is only a matter of time before rainfall is similarly targetted by the good guys.
Sorry, but I agree that "clean graffiti" is still graffiti. No, this is not like the rain. If you don't believe me, then consider this situation: I make some "clean graffiti" in the shape of a swastika or making racial slurs. Are you offended, or are you happy that I'm cleaning a few selected parts of a gaffiti-covered wall? Personally, I would be offended if someone did this. So how do you these type of messages if you don't acknowledge that "clean graffiti" really is an unauthorized message (graffiti).
Except that he cleaned the wall, he didn't add anything to it, it just so happened that he cleaned in a pattern and then stopped, if you don't like it, you can keep cleaning the wall, since by definition, a clean wall can not be "disfigured" by the addition of more cleaning.
I don't consider it vandalism or graffiti, it is an ad, but it is also a public service and unique. He should patent the idea and then sue the city whenever they try to clean a wall.
The problem here is that the pattern itself conveys information independent of the medium. It doesn't matter much whether the pattern is formed from clean spots or spray paint.
If instead of spam, the guy had used cleaner to write offensive obscene or racist messages, nobody would be trying to defend him on this technicality.
But perhaps the state is now going too far
I'm sorry, but did I miss a meeting? Is this now an obligatory inclusion in all articles? Must all articles now declare the state is going too far, our rights are trounced, or privacy is at dire risk?!?
I won't even attempt to argue the rights of property owners, the state's responsiblity to protect property, social mores, etc...
davejenkins.com |
you mods are kidding, right? A 5 for insightful?
Should be -5 for painfully obtuse.
A blatant advertisement on public property and you have trouble with the concept of removing it because it was made by a removal process rather than a painting process?
Who cares how the advertisement was put there or how they had to remove it. It is not graffiti when it is an advertisement. And it is not anonymous when it is an advertisement, so the party responsible has to remove it.
end of story. Please mod parent down.
Art is evocative. The best is provocative. Consider that when making judgements on the works of others
** Keep Music Evil **
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
After all is said and done all you have there is a vodka advertisement in a place where did not use to be a vodka advertisement. And that is just more mind pollution.
It is just another thing that catches your attention, forces you to read it, etc, etc. That is why billboards, for example are considered pollution no matter how clean they are. Its not pollution in the strctest meaning of the word, but it does make the landscape look cheaper and dirtier.
People say "it would just be dirty nevertheless". Well it sucks the city has not cleaned this stuff up, but even if the wall was covered with dirt, it will not be so bad, because it would be unform dirt, that just fades into the background, does not call attention to itself, and thus does not bother people.
And also when you clean some letters into a wall, you are not really doing any cleaning. When someone cleans "wash me" into a dirty car, is the car any cleaner? Not really.
In deciding whether or not you support people "cleaning" their message onto property that does not belong to them, ask yourself the following question::
How would you like it if representatives of Coke, Smirnoff, Pepsi, etc - kept their eyes open for your dirty vehicles, house windows, and actively posted their messages
i.e. "buy our products, or at least clean up your stuff"
all over your property? Would you say that it is your own damn fault for not keeping your stuff cleaner, or would you protest?
Interested in Canadian Stocks?
What is even funnier is that the only reason the city wanted it "cleaned up" is becuase they weren't paid for the adspace.
Yeah we would. Because our objections are based on principles, not emotions.
A simple way for both sides to win in this dustup would be to require the advertiser to completely clean the surface after some reasonable period has elapsed. That way the city gets cleaned up and the advertiser gets their message out.
And the most provocative art of all is created when a set of keys is your brush and a car door is the canvas.
Condemning graffiti isn't making an artistic judgment; it's standing up against the malicious defacement of public and private property.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
You know, spammers use arguments a lot like that. Reaching out to unwilling audiences and all. Even committing crimes in order to do so.
Good company there.
Congrats.
There's a reasoning behind this practice that those outside the culture don't readily understand. An unspoken rule of bombing is that you do not paint over anyone else's graffiti unless you can do better (or want to start a fight). If a business pays a known, respected, talanted graff artist to paint a masterpiece on a wall, no two-bit tagger is going to spray over it, or they will be ostracised (if not targetted) by the local crews. It's a bit like having a lion piss in your yard to keep the cats away.
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
Nice sounding words, but unless you have permision by the owners, all you are doing is damaging the property of others. Using property you did not pay for. It's not art at all, it's just vandalism. It's roughly of the same morals as writing a computer virus.
It's possible to achieve shock and suprise in art through legitimate means. but what your doing is no different if I went to your home while you were gone and peeled out in your yard, t.p.ed your trees and broke your windows. I could claim it was performance art, but somehow I don't think you'd be any happier or less willing to press charges if I were caught.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
but calm logic was a more efficient way of getting rid of that power-mad bitch than explaning my motives and the validity of my art to her (though I did try, but she wasn't smart enough to understand any of it), then a string of equally dense bureaucrats. I was pretty disapointed to be forced to censor my art though.
:-)
:
*rolls eyes* art students, god bless 'em
It goes like this
One person's "Art" is another person's "Crap".
You may have been making an artistic statement about garbage and the way people treat their environment.
The guard was also making a statement about garbage and the way people treat their environment.
Seeing as the guard was employed by the school to keep *their* walls the way *they* like them (to whatever asthetic standard they desire), your art and its associated statement (which, by the way, I have difficulty extrapolating from a bit of cigarette paper stuck on a wall above a bin), had no place there.
Had you truly been a sensitive artist, you would have understood this. It's not about The Man trying to Crush your Expression and Artistic Freedom, it's about their stuff and the way they want their stuff. Leave them be.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Brit jargon? Isn't that called english?
Szo
Red Leader Standing By!
In my opinion the devil took Bush to the mountain top...and he said yes. 2000 years ago Christ rejected greed, power and dominion to serve humbly. Our president when asked says his only mistake in his adult life was trading Sammy Sosa. troll Sickening that no part of being a drunk driving, draft dodging, C student, womanizing, coke snorting, trust funded brat never registered in his memory in the ooops column./troll
Cut from the same cloth, Islamic Fundamentalists spew hate and perverse interpretations of Islam.
One can only hope that the voice of peace and tolerance will erode the powers of hate and fear that predominate today...it can happen...people just need to take a chance and unclench their fists.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.