Torontoist: Faux Hung

DevonOstrom

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:18:19 -0500

I don't see ads that question themselves in this way? Quite self-reflexive no? Does it matter if there is a corp behind it in consideration of the other pieces that we have canonized as art? (Just a question - not a statement.) “The greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed, and the truly new is criticized with aversion.” Walter Benjamin “Quotations in my work are like wayside robbers who leap out armed and relieve the stroller of his conviction.” Walter Benjamin

OhYouKnow

Thu, 29 May 2008 12:51:01 -0500

Interpretation doesn't even come into play when it is known that a corp is behind the ads. A lot of advertising has a subversive context intended to appeal to the weak minded hipster. This is just another case that happens to take a very intrusive and misleading direction.

DevonOstrom

Thu, 29 May 2008 11:29:32 -0500

I dunno guys -- the pieces are pretty ripe for interpretation. i.e. the locus of consciousness (the head) replaced with a product - reducing the person to an animal. Wheeee! Cognitive dissonance.

tyrannosaurus_rek

Thu, 29 May 2008 10:36:44 -0500

I don't see how you can be angry at Vespa alone for the intrusion into the streets. Fauxreel knew what he was agreeing to do. At what point does "everyone needs to eat" become "I was just doing my job"?

watt29

Thu, 29 May 2008 10:24:08 -0500

I agree with tripper - it's not that Fauxreel took a corporate gig that's the problem, it's that the context of that corporate gig was intentionally misleading. Do a print campaign with photos of the same pasteups, and I'd feel differently. But this is a corporation making money off public property. My annoyance is definitely aimed more at Vespa than Fauxreel; I agree that artists need to live & that sometimes involves taking money for advertising work. But surely this wasn't the only paying project available to him?

DevonOstrom

Thu, 29 May 2008 08:53:40 -0500

Hya -- I am in love with both Rami and Dan so this is difficult for me...here are my views: - As stated it is Vespa - if anything people need to be riding more of these things. What is truely obscene is people driving large vehicals alone. - His name is Fauxreal. Faaaaake Reeeeeal. People need to dig a bit deeper. - The vast majority of graffiti is, or is a reflection of advertising already -- albiet the poor man's. Market penetration and views are interchangeable with props and getting up. (i.e. Kids are so bombarded with logos that they compulsively create thier own logos and reciprocate onto the built environment.) - If you don't want artists in bed with commerce than start electing governments that will fund art better. (Lots of developing nations have better per-capita rates.) - Alternatively, go back to believing in god or something. (The Sistine Chapel is an ad for god.) We are a market fundamentalist society, art will tend to reflect that and all its foibles.

OhYouKnow

Thu, 29 May 2008 01:32:28 -0500

His very early pedestrian series stuff was great. But as soon as Fauxreel started to hack billboards, altering them to display semi-political one-liners, he's been selling out. Whenever he has been interviewed in the media for these stunts, he completely sidesteps any political agenda one might think he had. In The Post, he claims that while his work has a political flavour, he is “not out to make a statement”. In The Globe, he maintains that he is “not trying to make [himself] out as someone who is against big corporations.” Instead, he says, he is “reaffirming how powerful ads are.” I've always seen Dan as self promoting: an ad-friendly guerrilla marketing exec for hire. I pulled those quotes from his own website.

ShowTell

Wed, 28 May 2008 21:50:11 -0500

"I guess paying rent means selling out." Quoted for truth. If you are mad at the act you should be complaining to Vespa. If you dont like the image then complain to Faux Reel. Getting mad at an artist for trying to pay his rent is ridiculous.

UnionStayshyn

Wed, 28 May 2008 21:47:29 -0500

"But when the work he creates looks like cool guerilla art, and we initially THINK it's cool guerilla art, but then it turns out to be an illegal marketing campaign to sell scooters ... well, that's just creepy." Please take a look at the book "The Rebel Sell". Good stuff and highly recommended reading for many of you.

David Topping

Wed, 28 May 2008 21:36:16 -0500

I've appended a correction to this post, which can be seen here.

cg

Wed, 28 May 2008 21:07:39 -0500

There is nothing wrong nor surprising about Fauxreel's commission to create advertising. As previously alluded to, he no doubt enjoys eating and having a roof of some sort over his head. Advertising agencies (good ones) have their ears to the ground, know their target market and what they like. No crime there, that's just business. However, in this particular instance, one might argue that it's not the creation that's at fault but the canvas. A commercially sponsored campaign that hijacks space, public or private maybe 'on trend' but it legitimizes irresponsibility and sets a precedent for others to copy. One only has to recall in the past year or so, Absolut ads painted on downtown sidewalks or more recently, stylistic, fibreglass 'T's scattered vicariously in city parks to advertise an automobile. Other agencies have created 'trendy' campaigns in other eras that at least limited their medium to legal (or perhaps illegal, if it was an unlicensed billboard) venues. Specifically, 'The Legend is Black' campaign created in the late '80s(?) for Black Label beer.

AJB

Wed, 28 May 2008 20:30:52 -0500

You also misspelled 'It's' and 'semantics'.

wardnikoff

Wed, 28 May 2008 19:46:58 -0500

wow - I so spelled 'guerilla art' wrong...this site needs spell check

wardnikoff

Wed, 28 May 2008 19:44:15 -0500

I love these debates! Its all no more than somantics really because the point of selling art is to be able to make more art, and making the art makes the artist. Perhaps the days of gurillia art where the medium is the message is over. I'll never forget the day I heard Baba O'Reilly in elevator music format, hell - even the Clash are shilling for some car commercial. And as the late great Joe Strummer said: "It's ALL a con."

tyrannosaurus_rek

Wed, 28 May 2008 19:28:02 -0500

x_the_x - If you can reply intelligently I'd love to see it.

spacejack

Wed, 28 May 2008 19:26:02 -0500

I can sum up this whole thread in three letters: LOL Also, selling out isn't earning a living from your craft. Selling out is flipping burgers while letting a skill that can earn you a better living go to waste. Actually, "selling out" is an archaic term from decades ago that should've died a long time ago.

Joshua E

Wed, 28 May 2008 18:58:57 -0500

Yes, but couldn't someone stage the same "intervention" for Jonathan's work? He was formerly an independent blogger and activist, but now working under the supervision of one of the bigger corporations in Canada. (...and, unless you scroll through the archives, none of that is very up front here, is it?) My point is, you gotta feed the monkey. And I think Fauxreel is doing that in a fairly honest way. Vespa isn't Wal-Mart, after all. And unless I find out he's received some kind of blood money or babies in Saudi Arabia are dying as a result of his work, I can't see any reason why this guy needs to offer rationalization or what requires the "intervention." I think if (and in Jonathan's case that's when) a big corporation comes around and wants to pay you for something you do anyway, it's understandable to say yes (no baby deaths, tho). Anyway, glad I came here today. Feels like old times mixing it up on the TOist comment boards. Keep it up.

Jonathan Goldsbie

Wed, 28 May 2008 18:34:11 -0500

Style: these things look more like Banksy than FReel's previous work. My knowledge of Banksy's oeuvre is limited to only some of his most famous pieces, but if you go to Fauxreel's site, and then click on "pasted" and then "paper," many of the works shown are indeed quite similar in style to the commissioned ads. I doubt many people know the guy doing this Vespa stuff and the guy who did Kanye West billboard are the same guy. Nah, probably not too many. But I do direct you to this comment from Gary on the blogTO post: Huh. When I saw these around town, I just assumed they were another Fauxreel stunt... something making fun of hipsters. So props to Vespa for a campaign that actually made me think, "Yeah, hipsters and scooters ARE stupid." Guess that's the wrong message, eh? So not, in the end, the intended message, but when Gary initially saw them, he assumed they were regular Fauxreel pieces. That's what I meant by the advertorial analogy: a trusted source is being coopted for the purposes of selling you something, without immediately letting you in on that fact. And I would definitely say that, in their own marketing of their marketing, the ad agency is clearly trying to cash in on Fauxreel's cred. From the April edition of Strategy Magazine (link courtesy of blogTO's Jerrold): "[They're unbranded] to create curiosity and intrigue," says Glen Hunt, creative catalyst at Toronto-based Dentsu Canada, adding that the images were done by Toronto-based street artist Fauxreel. "The idea is to bring something attractive to the locations - it's more like art, so people appreciate it." Hunt describes Faux Reel as "the Banksy of Canada," referring to the renowned British graffiti artist.

Marc Lostracco

Wed, 28 May 2008 17:55:04 -0500

I think the more money Fauxreel can make, the better for him. I don't have a problem with artists "selling out" that much because the people making that judgment are either usually jealous struggling artists themselves, living with their parents or a million roommates, or comfortably judging from their corporate desk jobs and dental plans. The concern should be focused on Vespa, who unless they got widespread permits (not bloody likely), are knowingly paying someone to break the law for them.

fantasygoat

Wed, 28 May 2008 17:51:54 -0500

Having done some corporate work in the past myself, I can say that something of this scale would be in the five figures in terms of compensation.

Jonathan Goldsbie

Wed, 28 May 2008 17:49:08 -0500

why you're targeting the artist instead of the corporation? Mostly because I feel that Spacing did a pretty good job explaining why it's wrong on the latter level, and that that was the focus of almost all of the initial debate. Indeed, in the extensive email interview that the Spacing writer conducted with me (to learn my thoughts as a representative of the TPSC), I exclusively addressed the matter on the corporate level, except for the one question wherein she specifically asked me how I felt about Fauxreel working with a corporation in this way (and even then I held myself back). I'm writing about it on the personal level now because, well, that's precisely the subject of this intervention on Fauxreel's latest work.

Joshua E

Wed, 28 May 2008 17:18:48 -0500

So inconsistent careers need rationalization? How do you know Fauxreel wasn't angling to get into corporate advertising this whole time? And I think it's a jump to say he's trading in on style, rep, and trust. Style: these things look more like Banksy than FReel's previous work. Rep and trust: What rep and trust? I doubt many people know the guy doing this Vespa stuff and the guy who did Kanye West billboard are the same guy...And, after two references to how much he's being paid, I have to ask: how do you know he's getting so much money for these ads? I think what you're trying to argue is that the corporation using this street-level campaigns is disingenuous, because corporations are by nature not street-level. And by using a street-level artist (or whatever) to wage this campaign, there's an added level of sneakiness on behalf of the corporation. My objection - in the spirit of debate and not cause I'm outraged or anything - is why you're targeting the artist instead of the corporation? FReel's just out there trying to eat, no?

Jonathan Goldsbie

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:52:20 -0500

David: What I meant was that he is no longer respected as a culture jammer. I don't doubt that he's still respected as an artist.

Jonathan Goldsbie

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:40:35 -0500

I think tripper has it exactly right. I don't begrudge Fauxreel for taking a corporate gig, and I even respect and admire him for finding a way to be generously compensated for doing things that are, in form if not content, essentially the same as what he's been doing for years for presumably no money. But I think there's an element of dishonesty to this particular campaign; he's trading on and exploiting the style, reputation, and trust he's cultivated over many years for purposes contrary to what his work had previously stood for — and not being up front about it. The effectiveness of the campaign seems premised upon the very idea that it's something of a Trojan horse. Josh: You were a co-founder of Torontoist, kicked around in journalism for a few years, and are now blogging for Now Magazine. I don't think there's anything inconsistent about that. If you were, however, to author advertorials without disclosing that fact (that is, advertisements disguised as editorial content, trading on your name and credibility), then, yes, I'd ask you to rationalize it.

x_the_x

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:33:51 -0500

"I condemn Fauxreel for being an accomplice to the corporate abuse of public space, and trying to trick our immune systems by passing off commercial expression as personal expression." This is a pretty good illustration how this "debate" is sub-intellectual.

David Topping

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:32:45 -0500

And while I'm sure that Fauxreel's "credibility and reputation [took] a hit," I'd very much disagree that he is only formerly respected. Also, to be more correct, Torontoist (Posterchild, to be exact) contacted Dan in April, who confirmed that he was behind the ads, but he did not reply to a request for an interview. He didn't "refuse to comment"; he just didn't.

Kevin Bracken

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:29:59 -0500

HEAD ASPLODING!!!!!!

tyrannosaurus_rek

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:28:19 -0500

I'll never tire of the moral indignation some paint or adhesive can ellicit from the reactionary conservative corner... I condemn Fauxreel for being an accomplice to the corporate abuse of public space, and trying to trick our immune systems by passing off commercial expression as personal expression. At the same time though, I like the pieces.

David Topping

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:25:24 -0500

As I've said before, I'm pretty torn about how I feel about the Vespa ads. I might as well just quote my own comment on Spacing's Wire:I like Fauxreel’s work...his old stuff is quite great. He's continuing to do exactly the same kind of stuff that he did before, except now he’s getting paid. And technically, what he was doing before—hacking billboards, wheatpastes elsewhere—was illegal, too. I don’t think that art isn’t art just because there’s commercial value or a corporation attached to it. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I can’t quite figure out why—I think it’s not the fact of these ads themselves, but the precedent they set.As for the vandalism itself being vandalized—well, that makes sense: no-one expects (or should expect) a piece installed on a street to be permanent or remain untouched. One of the things I really love about street art (or street-installed art) is that it's a conversation.

Ben

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:21:11 -0500

Is this post gone? It was removed because it violated the editorial policy of Fauxreel asskissery I presume.

mark0

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:14:41 -0500

"You gotta work for the Man at some point." I wouldn't say that's entirely true. I think it's just extremely hard to avoid forever.

friend68

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:12:56 -0500

I find myself sighing now when I see the early stages of these marketing campaigns that are supposed to get us wondering what is coming. What is Obey? Who cares? You realize after a while that it is just another ad trying to get into your head. I like the approach of illegalsigns.ca - it's just another ad, and therefore it's illegal. I wonder if the culture-jammer police will take away his membership card.

tripper

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:04:16 -0500

If an artist needs to take a corporate gig to make some money, then fair enough. We all have to eat. But when the work he creates looks like cool guerilla art, and we initially THINK it's cool guerilla art, but then it turns out to be an illegal marketing campaign to sell scooters ... well, that's just creepy. We was tricked. Why not just be upfront about what you're doing and why?

Joshua E

Wed, 28 May 2008 15:44:40 -0500

Why would he have to "rationaliz[e] his involvement"? If someone asked me to rationalize my employment, I'd tell them to go F themselves. You gotta work for the Man at some point. That's why the M in Man is capitalized.

x_the_x

Wed, 28 May 2008 15:44:38 -0500

The links in the piece evidencing numerous attempts to the contrary, there is really no intellectual content to this argument - whether a piece of vandalism becomes more or less legitimate when the "artist" is getting paid to do it - at all. Its "your favorite band sold out" played out among self-adoring and self-styled urban policy wonks inhabiting the far left, wherein the "artist" is being flaggelated for not adhering to their ideological dogmatism. Its about as interesting.

tripper

Wed, 28 May 2008 15:40:24 -0500

Do you even know what we're talking about, Pickletoes?

friend68

Wed, 28 May 2008 15:35:25 -0500

So, is art/vandalism (depending on your definition of un-requested marking of structures that aren't yours) when it is done for art's sake... but it is evil when he is getting paid for it? At least now maybe the owners of the walls in question will have a corporation to sue to recoup their clean-up costs.

PickleToes

Wed, 28 May 2008 15:34:17 -0500

If he's vandalizing then he should be punished. But on to what really interests me: Why is "selling out" frowned upon so much? Silly commies...

Rajio

Wed, 28 May 2008 15:30:37 -0500

Oh noes, my vandalism got vandalized!

chenyip

Wed, 28 May 2008 15:24:11 -0500

I guess paying rent means selling out.