January 25, 2008
Vandalist: Fruit That Sparkles
Once a week, Vandalist features the best street art and graffiti from around Toronto. You should contribute.
By Carbomb
AT SHOAL POINT ROAD & BAYLY STREET EASTCarbomb sez: "This was billboard advertising a new flavour of juice, but my wheat pasted poster fit perfectly over the label. Since the name of the beverage was entirely located on the bottle label, I effectively made this billboard into my own advertisement."
|
Advertisement: Torontoist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
What redemptive messaging and illuminating social commentary.
good stuff, although i think it can be improved. (conceptually)
own advertisement for WHAT?
or am I reading the ad copy wrong?
Covering a brand does not make a new ad.
I'm all for turning advertisements in on themselves, but I don't get how changing the bottle's label makes this ad something new. Maybe if the text were altered to refer to the new label?
So, Vandalist fails its first test. Is this a forum to present legitimate "street art", or to encourage illegal defacement of property? Clearly the editors have chosen to highlight the latter. Just because the subject is a billboard for a large company doesn't mean it is right. I trust that Toronto Police Services will be contacting Vandalist for the name of this particular vandal.
This street art could use a little more "art." Maybe I'm just used to fauxreel's awesome billboard interventions, but aren't these things supposed to be clever?
I do like the column idea, though.
Was the only criteria for this street art that it happened to fit the poster you wanted to use?
Much like Karen, I'm just confused why this is on here. It's not clever, it doesn't appear to be making a point, nor does it seem to be displaying any high level of artistic talent.
And I don't buy that any billboard defacing is making a point. Why Dole? Do you have something against them? Are they a good example of excess advertising? Do they tend to advertise illegally?
If you're just against advertising in general, why not pick a better example of bad advertising and make a statement on that? Wouldn't a Telus ad be a better advertisement to deface?
"Once a week, Vandalist features the best street art and graffiti from around Toronto. "
Does this honestly really classify as an example of the best street art around Toronto?
I don't really get what the poster is supposed to be. Some sort of riff on Shepard Fairey?
Hopefully these folks will get tired of expressing their outrage soon.
"Does this honestly really classify as an example of the best street art around Toronto?"
If it does, Toronto is rightfully mocked by other cities for its shitty output :(
It would have been cool if it was an illegal ad.
What a total jackass - messing with property that doesn't belong to him/her. But maybe that's supposed to be cool with the hipsters.
Oh, wait, he/she uses "wheat pasted posters". Wow! That's so charming!
Where does "carbomb" live? Can I go to his/her house and plaster crap on his/her private property?
No?
Why not?
Ahh, I get it - he/she's just another immature hypocritical tagger asshole.
tag: crying
"If it does, Toronto is rightfully mocked by other cities for its shitty output :("
According to the link, this billboard is actually in Ajax, so maybe it's not a strike against us after all.
"fruit that sparkles" in ajax is a victory for sparkley fruit everywhere . toronto carbombers will never triumph.
Might have had some relevance if the logo was an image well known for activism. If I would not have seen it here doubt I would have even noticed if I drove by it. And if you want graffiti it usually involves destroying someone's or some entities property. Now if it was an illegal sign I would think it was a great idea just poorly executed. Although some great street art is done with a subtle context, this just isn't one of those occasions.
At least there was some constructive thought amidst the hostility....
You all can direct your comments directly at me, (the artist) and not Vandalist.
Don't shoot the documenter.
Anyways this is my (initial) attempt to defend all of your critiques. I do ask, for you not to petty, cause I have no time for immaturity and stubbornness. And if I didn’t respond to you directly, feel free to send me a message, or pm me.
To: Uskyscraper
If Vandalist posted one of my pieces recently featured on Juxtapoz: http://www.juxtapoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2380&Itemid=59 Would you still call it a failture?
Since you clearly are against any form of street art, why did you bother commenting at all. Clearly Vandalist wasn’t created for people like you, and likewise doesn’t care about your catty comments. Take your beef elsewhere.
To: YSDN
Thank you, I agree. This was one of my first in the early stages. The original concept was that I took a billboard advertisement and de-activated it. Yes is is subtle, and many if not most would not notice that anything indeed had been done to the billboard. However if anyone stopped to look, and think, the would start to question what the billboard was about. And there lies its purpose, creating a dialogue whether internal, external, positive, negative...
To: MarkO
When I gave the descriptions to Vandalist, I did not expect to be taken word for word. An oversight in my own fault. It was more of a brief description to get a vague idea. My idea wasn’t necessarily to ‘jam’ the add, or turn it onto itself. It was to distinguish the ad, and to create a dialogue for anyone who took the time to look and notice the ‘image’ I installed.
Out of context this doesn’t make sense, but if you said to yourself, “I know I’ve seen this before.” It makes a lot more sense.
And yes, anyone reading this can say, “I’ve never seen that.” And I respond, I haven’t been to your area yet.
To: paigesix
You are right it doesn’t make it a new ad, it removes the old ad. Now this billboard isn’t an advertisement at all.
To: Karen Whaley
This is just a small portion of a large project. You are seeing this out of context, so the idea itself does not seem complete. There is a LOT more involved to this.
To: Ryan L
Again, out of context. I am sending you both a link so you can understand more what this is about.
To Arcadia:
I thank you for constructive criticism. And my response is, that all “well known images of activism” must have a starting point. This, is one of those points. I will be sending you a link as well.
To davedave:
I never declined anyone pasting anything on my property, and if you choose to seek my out I invite you to come wheat paste something. If you claim I am a “immature hypocritical tagger asshole.” I can say the same back to you by replacing “tagger” with, “blogger” or “net junkie” etc, etc, but I won’t because I have no interest in verbally abusing something for the sake of feeling mighty. If you don’t like something, you can be constructive about your thoughts.
To: Antiboy
Vandalist JUST started, and I was the first to submit something. I submitted many different documenting photographs, but this is the one they chose. I have ton of other work available if you wish to view.
And also, if you feel, “Toronto is rightfully mocked by other cities for its shitty output :(“ Then why don’t you get up, and put up. Contribute, or don’t complain.
To Tyrannosaurus Rek
Tag: Don’t care.
Write something of value, your blogger wit is irrelevant.
lol, every kid wants to be Banksy these days.
You can easily argue that everyone wants to be someone else.
And no, I don't want to be Banksy, but I do respect him tremendously.
"I do ask, for you not to [be] petty, cause I have no time for immaturity and stubbornness."
Reading your responses, however, indicates that you're willing to be precisely what you ask your critics not to be.
carbomb - Do a search and you'll find I'm the biggest supporter/defender of graffiti and street art on Torontoist.
"Tag: crying" was directed at the whiners complaining about how the poor poor multinational corporations are being irrecoverably harmed by graffiti.
My sincere apologies Trrann
I misread you, and I do feel bad. Thank you for correcting me.
I agree they need to start somewhere, but at targets that should be targeted. This company paid for their sign, although I hate most ads they do have the right to have their property protected if done in a legal manner. Attacking corporate lies and deception is a wonderful cause, but this does no such thing. Neither does it attack the content, the message nor the legality of the sign.
What is the purpose of the coverup? To make yourself known? If so I might suggest doing in such a way that has some relevance, which this clearly is lacking. Multinationals have legal and property rights also. Now if you find disagreement of direct lies or attempted deception, I might think you have a point. We are talking Fruit that sparkles here. Now if the farmers are being taken advantage of you might have a cause.
Nothing infuriates me more than when people see any kind of street/intervention art and immediately say, "Oh, that artist just wants to be Banksy." So one guy is really famous for it. Okay. I don't see how that negates the value of the work they're doing.
Just saying.
In order to negate the value of the "work" done by an "artist", one must be commenting on or criticising an artist doing work.
I think most people here see this "piece" for what it is - simple, not at all provoking, without deeper meaning, and essentially a tag (in the form of a graphic logo) that covers a legitimate corporate logo.
This is sloppy tagging, not art.
I don't see anyone "defending multinational corporations", as rek suggests, I see people calling it like they see it: shallow, pointless vandalism.
To the creator/perpetrator, I expected some bullshitty justification, but "creating a dialogue whether internal, external, positive, negative..." is more ridiculous than anything I could have come up with if I was attempting satire.
And then you reveal that your real purpose is self-adoring wankery ("look at my logo! its everywhere"). Narcissism doesn't become a coherent political philosophy because you chose to express it by defacing the property of others.
Take your beef elsewhere? This is the site that posted your vandal-ism for all to see, so why should anybody have to go elsewhere? As for constructive criticism, try doing this on your own property, and then poster over the previous "work" periodically to see if people start looking for the newest enlightened social commenatary. Invite them to leave comments if you like. At least that that way your neighbours would grasp the context.
X the x
You are precisely proving my point. You have taken the time to express your distaste for what I do in the form of an elegantly worded comment post on several occasions today.
I believed the Vandalist section of Toronotist was self explanatory, but apparently your knowledge on street art is limited. Apparently you have overlooked the fact that modern street art is narcissistic by nature. That people both expressed themselves, and expressed their image, or “tag” in one single act of defiance. What I am doing is no different than countless others artists tagging, bombing, pasting, painting murals, or setting up installations.
Regardless, I’ve come across many of your type in the past and I know there is no stopping your intelligently worded forum posts, shouting to the heavens how wrong I am. I don’t do art for everyone (yourself included) I do it for myself. Vandalist was kind enough to showcase something I did, and I am gracious for it. If you don’t agree, get in line, but I’m not moved in the slightest by your negativity.
And Guest:
The difference between “tagging” and “art” is negated by opinion, and even though I don’t share yours I still respect your right to have it.
I encourage you to click on my name at the top to see some of my other work.
I just really don't like your logo, I think that's the problem.
I did, and my comments stand. Placing a sticker or painting a face on a hydro box is tagging, and not a form of art I can apprecaite, condone, or endorse.
Your message is not clear, your work not provocative (in any way other than inducing distaste, which is not a form of response worthy of praise), and your attitude here isn't at all surprising.
If you tagged my property, I'd paint over it immediately.
Acadie
The purpose of the cover-up was a combination of reasons. The location of this billboard is in a residential area, where right across the road is a subdivision, and a farm. The advertiser wasn’t the target, the billboard itself was.
My reasons are not driven against the multinationals, their right or wrong doings, or sticking it to any particular man. To be honest, I generally try to steer clear of that completely both because a) it’s overdone to a considerable degree, and b) most of the overdoing is strongly uneducated shouting about every company on the planet being “evil”.
My reasons are on the visual surrounding of the suburbs, and how the only images you see are that of advertisements. This billboard is a prime example, where the people in the adjacent subdivision look out their kitchen windows to see a glowing sign 24/7 telling them to buy something. Ideally I would have liked to have done something grander and more artistic, but my means at the time were only able to dismiss the advertisement entirely by removing the product.
Antiboy, I can respect that entirely.
Would you consider pasting up a picture of a gay dude wearing sparkly eye makeup? I think that'd be kinda funny. And stuff.
more sparkley.....
Carbomb,
I see your reason now and makes it more interesting. You need to mention these particulars in your postings here. I think for me anyway it now makes some sense and has some context to put the effort in. It now has a cause, could have saved me all that typing lol. Or even a second photo putting the sign in some perspective to the area it is in and whom if affects. It look like a sign that is just along some abandoned stretch of road. Now it has merit and is justifiable. I am sure not for everyone but I think acts of civil disobedience can have artistic merit. I do really think a photo of the placement of the art and the perspective where if like this bill board has some bearing on what your trying to show us.
I hate my view being polluted with graffiti, postering and advertising - at least one of these eyesores is covering another.
Skippy, for you, I would consider anything :D
Banksy is interesting. Put a $200,000 price tag on graffiti and it becomes legitimate art. Magic!
I don't think its the graffitti that is worth the money, I think it is the idea behind it.
That, and the fact that he made it difficult to ever purchase anything from him, which created an ever snowballing demand for his work.
all hail banksy.....
carbomb..cool thing you did. it fit perfectly.
cocktail?
Carbomb, what is the significance of the face?
The face is a number of things:
A recognizable symbol of a face, skull, mask, head, etc. I wanted to create something that made sense, people could connect to, but upon first look had no idea what it was. Part of this is the concept that the eyes, are the window to the soul.
The reason the symbol is predominantly white, is to encourage it to be defaced, added to, changed, etc. Nothing better than installing something, and have someone put their own ideas into it. The majority of the time, people like to add their own facial features. I've found pirates, drag queens, frogs, donkeys, and a ton of other doodles on the faces.
Third, the concept that someone is watching and listening but does not have the ability to speak. Whereas instead, I want the art to speak for itself, but without using language, but instead using ideas.
Take my beef elsewhere? It certainly could be considered rude for one to scrawl one's name and comments all over someone else's domain. Tell you what - I'll stop commenting against graffiti if you stop doing it.
Every day on my walk to the (graffiti-scarred) subway, I pass a lovely piece of graffiti, a brilliant mural that was done on a side wall. The problem is that all around this mural are tags on the apartment building next door, on the retaining wall of the adjacent park, on the steps and asphalt walkways of the park -- graffiti done by those without the artistic skill of "carbomb" who felt that if one piece of grafitti was ok, all kinds were ok. It looks like crap and makes one feel violated. It creates an environment of lawlessness. Unfortunately, this art form cannot be supported without harming the greater good, and for that reason I will be continue to be vocally critical of all vandalism.
Carbomb, you have great talent. I hope you can find a way to express it legitimately.
Personally, the only kind of graffiti I like is the kind that announces that a certain area, or "territory," is controlled by a certain street gang. Also, the kind that announces that a member of a rival street gang has been recently murdered.
That, my friends, is real art.
KR1PZ 4 LYFE
To whom it may concern:
You know what's a real sign of social decay? Car lanes. Landfills. Corporations suing cities to force them to blanket every surface in ads. Not youth born into a horrifyingly bleak existence seeking to express themselves through art. That's growth.
You're old and on the internet, and no one in the streets cares. The new world is growing underneath you, and whether you like it or not, it's blooming.