« Seen On The Streets of Curitiba Parana Brasil | Main | Give Em Props!... Saft on Espo »
June 9, 2005
Noah From Critical Massive Reponds
The articles we posted earlier this week about the Axe ads getting painted over in Chicago have certainly hit a nerve with people. Every event has two sides to the story. Today we received an email from Noah, the CEO from Critical Massive, responding to what we wrote. Our intention was not to get in the middle of a dispute, but rather to use this incident to point out the complexities of graf and advertising intersecting on the street. What we found interesting about this story was not so much what happened, but that it was about actually artists on the street, not about the advertisers. One thing we did want to do however was to offer and apology to Noah and Critical Massive for taking a cheap shot at them. We do apologize for this.So here are some of the things Noah said in his email to us...
"You are already aware that the people who painted over the mural were obviously not the artists who painted the mural itself. Actually, the people that painted over the mural were not even graffiti artists. This is not a war between graffiti artists and has not caused a major rift in the Chicago graff scene. This is a case of a few people that don't want graffiti used for commercial purposes and have taken matters into their own hands. Fine. But it's a shame that someone would destroy another persons creation for those reasons. Especially when most of the people that live in the neighborhood appreciated the mural for it's artistic qualities and were upset that it has been painted over. Of course the artist was pissed when he rolled up and saw his work, which he took time and care to paint, had been buffed out in 15 minutes. For the record we did not call the cops on these guys and nobody was arrested."
"Critical Massive is a small company I started a couple of years ago that works with graffiti artists and helps them get paid for their talents. We work as a liaison between the corporate world (ad agencies and such) and the artists. When an art form such as graffiti becomes popular among mainstream culture, there is no doubt that it will be used in the commercial world, and when it is, they should at least use real graffiti artists to do it. What's wrong with an artist getting paid to do what he loves? We employ graffiti artists and other creative types and pay them well so they can support themselves and their non- commercial art.
It's not like we're some big advertising conglomerate putting up posters over public art spaces and more huge billboards around the city. We are appreciators and supporters of public art in it's many forms. We'd rather see an artist get paid for painting a commercial mural than have a computer digitally print out another vinyl billboard.
People are going to believe what they believe, and they have every right to their views, but that does not give them the right to destroy an artist's work (whether it is commercial or not) for their own cause and publicity.
In the last couple of days we've realized that this story is so damn confusing that it's impossible for us to know what really went down. For us, again, the thing that we find interested about all of this is not the event itself but the issues that it raises. Graffifi that shouldn't be buffed because it's an ad vs graffiti that get's buffed and artists get arrested because it's not an ad. Which one is more acceptable?
Again, we're not trying to take sides here, only to expose all of the issues that are woven into this debate about the intersection on the street of graffiti and commerce.
Okay, onto other things....
Posted by marc at 6:12 PM in | Recommend this! |
|