So, for a point of clarification, was the above sidewalk drawing done by the same guy who does the Superman/Mona Lisa/etc. all around town? The writing looks different to me than I remember, although I haven't seen one of his pieces in a while.

Vitamin Water is pixellated, but the ubiquitous Tapeminatti stencil isn't?

Amanda: I have no idea what artist was responsible for the ad. Part of what I like about the "grassroots gone corporate" message is that it could be interpreted as referring to the artist or to the medium of sidewalk art itself. But, yeah, it is probably talking about the artist, although it doesn't necessarily imply that he or she is a well-known or established figure. (The Absolut ads I linked to were done by OCAD students recruited by ad agency TBWA\Toronto.)

rek: The pixellated portion is indeed the product name.

If I might be permitted entry into the echo chamber, I'd like to make two points.

(1) The hypocritical position is to cheer non-corporate defacement of property and to malign the same done when it is part of an ad campaign. If your view is that public spaces should be free reign for art and graffiti messaging, there is no basis to excluding messages you don't like.

(2) re: "Some people's speech is apparently considered more equal than other people's speech", this is a humourous conflation of different types of rights. There is no guarantee of an equality of freedom of speech (either constitutionally or otherwise), nor should there be. In other words, your point is ridiculous.

But is an advertisement the same thing as art? That is the crux of the issue. I think if we do restrict the commons and private property from permit-free defacement, vandalism, and graffitti, then we make it solely available to those with money. Is that a good thing? Is that the only outcome? What if we apply the reverse, and say there are no rules, and people may spray-paint willy-nilly where and when they like? Will the ensuing visual clutter make advertising without benefit? Will the sheer outrage on our senses be worth the relative freedom from advertising?

As our - Canadian, urban - senses become adjusted to increasing forays into our sensory awareness, advertisers must make their product increasingly intrusive. At what point is this something that we can draw a line and say, no farther? x, perhaps you'd care to weigh in on this - and without the snideness. You too can reverb away; this ain't no dub.

No Rek, I don`t like either. How about billing the company for removal?
F--k, I knew I shouldn`t have turned on this damn computer.
I`m going outside.

x: The hypocritical position is to cheer non-corporate defacement of property and to malign the same done when it is part of an ad campaign.

No, 'the' hypocritical position is to say nobody should be allowed to plaster their art/messaging on property they don't own (repeated ad nauseum here by certain readers), unless it's advertisers doing the plastering (the gauntlet thrown down).

x: If your view is that public spaces should be free reign for art and graffiti messaging, there is no basis to excluding messages you don't like.

You've introduced so many straw men in that last sentence I'm not sure I can address them all.

As advertising is neither art or graffiti, of course I exclude it from being in the category of art/graffiti I like. Similarly, I exclude rants shouted in my ear by drunks on the subway from my list of favourite songs.

There's advertising I like, I still don't want to see it sprayed on the sidewalk; just as there's graffiti I don't like, nor would I want to see every single surface covered in street art anymore than I'd want to see them covered in ads.

x: Sorry, I don't think we can privilege certain forms of expression on the basis of [...] the financial means of the person making the expression.

But that's exactly what 'we' do. Corporations are given the privilege of billboards, bus sidings, transit shelters, construction hoarding, television/radio airtime, magazine ads, direct mailers/mail drops, newspaper supplements, fliers, kiosks in malls, and event sponsorship. Regardless of your preference to believe financial ability plays no role in this, corporations have these opportunities and Joe Citizen does not, for no other reason than money.

This inequality is what makes advertising on sidewalks and other public surfaces so unacceptable to me. (It's also part of the reason I believe street art/graffiti should be extended certain protections as forms of our Freedom of Expression.) Advertisers already have access to a dozen ways to get their message across in volume, but Joe Citizen does not. The advertiser receives the same benefit as an ad on a legitimate surface, but pays a fraction of the cost while Joe Citizen foots the bills for maintaining/cleaning off the sidewalk, and the city is denied whatever fees or taxes it would have received if the ad was put on a licenced surface.

x: Convenient, because if the thing being sold isn't deoderant[sic] or tampax, but a band or an art fair, the express commercial objectives of the expression is not just tolerated, but celebrated.

Not by me; I've spoken out against 'street teams' here plenty of times. Most recently in the Spiral Beach comments, iirc.

Rek and cheerleader:

(1) No, 'the' hypocritical position is to say nobody should be allowed to plaster their art/messaging on property they don't own (repeated ad nauseum here by certain readers), unless it's advertisers doing the plastering (the gauntlet thrown down).

Actually, they are both hypocritical positions, neither of which I hold (speaking of straw men ...). I haven't seen much support for non-conforming/illegal ads by graffiti opponents, but I have seen plenty of support for graffiti by the anti-ad crowd.

(2) If your view is that public spaces should be free reign for art and graffiti messaging, there is no basis to excluding messages you don't like.

The ad on the pavement you are maligning is graffiti or street art. Your view is the 16 year old street punk should be able to litter his expression all over the pavement, but wish to exclude other messages (read: ads) you don't like. If you want to get in a twist and suggest that the ad isn't true graffiti or whatever, suit yourself, but if you are a proponent for free expression in public spaces (a broader category than graffiti and art), you can't, in my opinion, seek to exclude certain types of expression.

(3)x: Sorry, I don't think we can privilege certain forms of expression on the basis of [...] the financial means of the person making the expression.

But that's exactly what 'we' do.

No, "we" don't. All forms of expression on walls and sidewalks etc. is proscribed. This operates without regard to the financial means of the person who wishes to graffiti or place an ad. You are arguing for an exception to this law on the basis that the "artist" doesn't have the financial means to afford the legally permissible forms of public expression. You are the one making distinctions based on financial means.

Again, there is no guarantee of equality of speech, which is what you are really arguing for. That those with money might have opportunities that those without money might not have is not limited to the sphere of public expression and the hardship suffered as a result of financial inequality is much greater - and thus, a much more compelling argument for government intervention and social justice - in other spheres.

There are many good reasons to use law to correct for injustices suffered by people without financial means, but forgive me if I don't think that permitting them to scrawl their nickname in paint on my garage is one of them.

(4) Apologies for lumping you in with those who cheer illegal postering and malign illegal ads. I think your cheerleader disagrees, though, since his special interest group was formed in opposition to anti-postering by-laws.

I don't care if it's artistic, clever, ironic, political or advertising - it's all a brutal punch in the face to whoever tries to keep their home or business clean and tidy.
On my walk last night I noticed 3 trees and a large rock that were tagged - mindless morons.

This post + this post = this post. Discuss.

mmmmmm.... 4chan /b/ much? eh goldsbie?