Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Thunderstorm
31°/17°		 It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Partly Cloudy
22°/18°		 It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
22°/15°

16 Comments

news

Statues Care

By David Topping

statuescare_smaller.jpg
Reader Mia Taylor took this photo on the way to work this morning, of the statues on Queen and
University all wearing Fashion Targets Breast Cancer tees.
A clue for why the statues are decked out in sweet, sweet tees could be that today is “Fashion Targets Friday,” the day on which, according to Rethink Breast Cancer (creators of the shirts), “thousands of men and women across Canada show their support by wearing a Fashion Targets Breast Cancer T-shirt or lapel pin to work to engage in the fight against breast cancer.” We’re not sure if the organizers put them on the statues themselves, but whoever did it has the right idea; it definitely gets our attention.
If you have statue envy and want to buy a tee of your own, they’re available at most Roots locations across the country, as well as in “select boutiques.”
If you spot the tees on any other downtown statues, take a pic and send us an e-mail at tips@torontoist.com.

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • Patricia

    Very cool. I’m seeing these shirts everywhere today. Nice to see Torontonians supporting such a fantastic cause.

  • Lifetimer

    So if I understand this correctly: it was completely wrong for a car logo to be placed in public parks (with some sort of permit) but completely appropriate for a fundraising T-shirt to be placed on public memorials honouring people who fought in a war? It may a good cause by why is bastardization acceptable in some contexts and not others? Is there actually a principle at stake or just subjective response? If you objected to the one, you should object to the other.
    (and no, conspiracy theorists, I have no connection with the Audi campaign.)

  • http://www.newmindspace.com Kevin Bracken

    #2: I think it speaks to our interpretation of the object of each campaign: while the first encourages us to consume new automobiles, whose manufacture will require immense resources and continue to pollute the earth, the second encourages us to fight breast cancer, which in some places (like my Long Island home) can affect as many as 1 in 8 women.
    I hardly see how the two campaigns are alike.

  • GH

    So in-park ads for environmentally friendly products, resales of condos or for services such as divorce lawyers (no significant impact there) should not worry about invoking the wrath of Torontoist? Good to know.

  • David Topping

    There’s absolutely no connection between Audi’s illegal (and deceitfully-done) advertising campaign for a new car, and shoving a few t-shirts on statues to raise awareness and money for breast cancer (are veterans pro-cancer or something?). My justification, unlike Kevin’s, has nothing to do with the environment: we’re talking about selling a car vs. solving a disease here. It’s a pretty fundamental difference.
    Find another bridge to hide under, trolls.

  • GH

    Bad comments insult the writer of the post, other commenters…

  • dave

    How disrespectful and immature to put t shirts on a memorial to our war dead, regardless of how wonderful the cause is.
    And how hypocritical of people to suggest that Audi’s installations (placed WITH permits) are somehow a crass and evil marketing ploy while disrespectfully (permits? I doubt it) placed cancer t shirts are not.
    Right.

  • David Topping

    Audi faked their permit: “Audi illegally obtained a commercial filming permit from the City to flash if questioned, even though no filming was taking place and no compulsory notice was given to neighbourhood residents….Audi knowingly avoided the proper, lengthly permit process, which is to obtain permission through Council and the Parks and Recreation department. Audi pays the City of Toronto nothing for the alleged permission to place ads everywhere.”

  • james a

    Why is that relevant? Deceitful permit or not, it’s still more than the cancer shirt folks got I’m sure.
    Honestly, the double standard here really kinda tiresome.. It’s wrong to deface a park, but right to deface a war memorial. It’s wrong to erect illegal billboards, but it’s right to deface legal ones with drawings, etc..
    (for the record, i attended and enjoyed art attack, and think the cancer shirt idea is kinda cool.. i also quite like a lot of billboards, illegal or not)

  • David Topping

    James, you should read our editorial policy; all the articles you’re talking about are from different authors, all of ‘em with different perspectives. “Double standard” is a messy term to apply to a site with a staff of dozens of unique individuals.
    That being said, in my opinion, you’re right — there is good and bad advertising, legal or not (!!). I think this is an example of good. I think Audi’s was an example of bad. I think Art Attack is a cool idea. I don’t mind the ONESTOP screens (my photos are being featured as part of Transit Stories next week). I think that some billboards are o.k.. This all might make me, personally, hypocritical, but I don’t believe that the corporate world is a black or white thing, especially when you look at such huge categories; advertising, in my opinion, can be amazing or shitty, or somewhere in between.
    We’re talking about shirts that raise money for cancer being put on a statue (war memorial or not). I think it’s a neat idea. (I have another article coming up soon about a [probably-]rogue advertising installation in Toronto that I think is neat, too, and it is nothing but a creative ad for a for-profit company.) If the t-shirts on the war memorial were from Bluenotes and said “NO MEANS HAVE ANOTHER DRINK,” I might not feel the same way.

  • nate

    Judgment on this seems to depend on whether you are focused on the action, or the intent/author. This is really the same conversation that’s been played out over the validity of corporate sidewalk graffiti.
    Personally I’m more interested in whether the art (graffiti, tshirts on memorials, sculpture placed in parks) looks swell or is otherwise aesthetically engaging. Whereas other people prefer to place a high value on who’s behind it, before making that aesthetic judgment. I think that’s odd, but whatever — it’s fine that they have different priorities.
    I don’t have a problem with random temporary appropriation of public space by corporate (audi) *or* other (ftbc) interests, as long as the art is stimulating. I enjoyed the guerrilla nature of the t-shirts *and* the TT sculptures. [whereas others would say that both actions were wrong as they were unauthorized]
    As to intent, note that ftbc is still to a certain degree about corporate merchandising. Roots (and ftbc/rethink’s many other corporate partners) have definitely calculated the marketing value of donating a third of their proceeds.
    Also with respect to the intent of the t-shirts, it’s still ultimately about marketing. This event is a key promotion/awareness tool for FTBC itself — the reality is that it directly competes for funds with the many other breast cancer charities out there (that have made different choices about the amount of money they’ve decided to spend on marketing, which research institutions to fund, etc). It depends how much you value having a t-shirt that proclaims you care.

  • David Topping

    I should mention that I worked at Roots for about six months, like three years ago. I was a lowly sales associate. I didn’t like it. (If anything, my work experience would make me want to boycott all Roots merch, not pimp it.)
    Roots sold the t-shirts when I worked there, and I know that there is definitely a big corporate backend to the shirts and that people — people not in charities — are making money from them, indirectly (by stuff like positive press for the companies involved) and directly (that other 2/3 of proceeds). It’s not a perfect system, but I think that the shirts on statues is a creatively-done attention grab for what is, ultimately, a good cause.
    (Seriously, though, don’t ever work at Roots.)

  • Gloria

    And in 1902, the South African War ended when the British soldiers finally overcame their deadly foe: breast cancer. Today … we honour them!

  • rek

    I’m conflicted about this. On one hand it’s breast cancer, on the other hand it’s a war memorial. Isn’t it akin to putting the shirts on strangers’ tombstone angels?

  • SH

    Rek, I agree with you… I think it’s disgusting and shameful. And while it may be promoting Breast Cancer research there are certainly 1001 other places they could have put them and still had the message get across.

  • hinley

    Fighting breast cancer is a very noble cause and putting these t-shirts in public places is generally a good idea. The organizers certainly have their heart in the right place.
    However, I hope the organizers never again place their t-shirts on a war memorial. That showed very poor judgement.