Historicist: Life in Wartime
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
Once a week, Vandalist features some of the most interesting street art and graffiti from around Toronto. You should contribute.
BY MOTEL, RASR & KASPER
AT COLLEGE AND GRACEPHOTO BY POST
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTIP US OFF
Most Popular
Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge (88)
Over Time, How Fairly Have TTC Fares Fared? (37)
Enza Anderson Eyes City Council Seat (30)
Drop Fees, End Poverty! And Also Do All These Other Things! (22)
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved (18)
Sign of the Times (17)
Boo, Yeah! (16)- Newsstand: November 3, 2009 (15)
Reel Toronto: The Tuxedo (15)
Hog-O-Vision (15)
This week's entry undoubtedly makes an ugly structure even uglier.
Shame on Torontoist for giving these thugs a platform for self promotion. This doesn't even approach the already somewhat questionable artistic qualifications of your regular vandalist posts. All these people do is make our city look uglier - even if you're against the billboards they're vandalizing, you have to agree with that. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Wow, they scrawled their names on a billboard. So newsworthy.
There's some amazing unique graffiti plastered all around Toronto. This column to go to better use to showcase a wider spectrum of talent.
Who was it who said "If you can't make it good, make it big. If you can't make it big, make it red."?
Seems to apply here.
Please put this "feature" out of its misery. Wooster Collective, you're not.
It's called Vandalist. This is vandalism. Man, was I ever caught off guard reading this (Haha, no I wasn't!)
This billboard was an eyesore to begin with. I'm indifferent to the "improvement", I wouldn't really classify it as "most interesting", like the blurb says, but still. You want to exist in public space, you get to deal with the public. Someone's ownership of a building shouldn't give them the right to visually assault me every chance they have, so they deal with the backlash.
Visually assault? Oh, that is precious. Yes, because a billboard that you are not forced to look at is the same thing as someone beating the shit out of you.
The billboard is not in the public space. Using your logic, if there is something I don't like in the "public space" I should just vandalize it.
Ironically, one of the most frequent criticisms of graffiti and street art is the assertion that the selfish artist is forcing people to look at their work.
you meant to say 'forcing people to clean/fix after the work'? If it's not, I find that the same camp that hates advertising is also the same camp that loves graffiti.
Which is richer in it's irony then unpasteurized whipped cream.
What a childish worldview you have, IHATEREGISTERINGFUCK
If something doesn't look appealing to you, you feel you have the right to destroy it.
Does this apply to someone's house? Car? Coat?
You need to grow up, little boy.
Also: this Sleeman work is ridiculously close to the recent Canadian work, where they built Canadian landscapes out of beer bottles. Is this crap the best work Dentsu can come up with after winning the business? Fail.
Then TRex writes "Ironically, one of the most frequent criticisms of graffiti and street art is the assertion that the selfish artist is forcing people to look at their work."
This is so fucking ridiculous. The "work" shouldn't even exist in the first place since the artist had no permission to put it on someone else's property that was bought and paid for. The most frequent criticism of graffiti and tagging it the asshole act of fucking with something that belongs to someone else.
Some will attribute that great adage to Paul Rand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rand
He also said "The visual message which professes to be profound or elegant often boomerangs as mere pretension"
Thanks!
I can have it both ways, it's not either/or.
The ad and the graffiti vandalize the public view and are both a blight on the city, in my opinion.