« J.P on the Sony PSP Graffiti Ads | Main | More.... »
December 6, 2005
The Dialogue Continues
We've received some interesting emails this morning continuing the dialogue about the Sony PSP ads. We've included them below.But before we get to them, here's some additional thoughts of ours:
1. The debate about the intersection of graffiti/street art and advertising is very complex. It's not so black-and-white. For many reasons. It seems to us that if you stand at one end of the debeate - either side - then you are limiting your view on this. We think that the view "advertising has every right to be on these walls" then your thinking is short-sighted. But the same goes for the view - "All advertising is evil and there is no place for brands and graffiti to co-exist" then you're thinking is short sighted as well. Perhaps this is a debate that doesn't have a "right" and a "wrong" answer. Perhaps it's somewhere in the middle - where we are.
2. The issue with the Sony ads is not that they blasted cities with their cute characters. Rather, it's that they made it look like it was done by artists on the street illegally and uncommissioned. They faked it. They made it seem that they had illegally taken the walls, when what they actually did was to purchase them. It seems that none of the ads were done illegally. All of the walls were rented from various owners. But what was interesting is that they picked walls that made it seem like the ads didn't belong there as ads, and this appeared to be, at least at first, as real graffiti done illegally. It wasn't. If they had done all of these characters on billboards and bus shelters then it wouldn't have been so devisive. But because they faked it, and made it seem like the ads were done illegally, it smacks of corporate invasion of a space that they shouldn't be in.
3. A lot of people think that all of the attention the campaign has received from debates like ours on the Wooster site only makes the campaign more successful. We disagree. The only reason you invade a sub- culture or mindset is to be accepted by that sub-culture. It's clear that the subculture that Sony tried to penetrate with these ads, rejected them. Press alone doesn't sell PSPs. Strong positive word-of-mouth does. Not a lot of positive dialogue has resulted from the campaign.
4. Do we think that this campaign, and the resulting discussion has "hurt" Sony and PSP? No. Not really. They'll still sell a ton of them this Christmas. (And perhaps they should) But rather, we look at it from this standpoint. It was more of a waste of money and effort than anything else. They tried something daring and ambitious and it didn't work. It's money wasted more then anything else. Most of the people who are pissed off wouldn't have bought the Sony PSP anyways. So for us, other than sparking a lively debate, it's a net zero loss.
5. We get emails every day from various brands and companies asking for help and advice and connections to artists. And with a lot of them, mostly the smaller ones, we help out all the time. But never do we get contacted by the big companies like Sony. We know that they read the site each day. But they never contact us. What we can't understand is why more big brands who are getting involved in this space - the Sonys of the world - don't just email us asking for thoughts and advice. Success in this space is knowing the details. It's more about what not to do, rather than what to do. We give free advice to people all the time. It's strange to us that the bigger the companies the least interested they are in getting new perspectives and opinions. They always seem to feel that they "know it already." Very rarely do they.
Anyway, enough of this - here are some more thoughts from Wooster readers.
From Renato in Brazil:
hi, just to drop in my 5 cents on the sony discussion. I personally dislike the campaign and strategy, but it is an interesting discussion.
Companies have been capitalizing on street art and culture for a while now, and no major complains there up to now. It was as everyside was benefiting from the "mutual apropriation"(or "my money for a bit of your style"). What seems to me is that with this, Sony has crossed some sort of line, messing with other issues by not explicitly mentioning itself on the pieces, like pretending to be someone else. However in the end, what we are seeing in my humble opinion (and I mean humble, for I am just a small stenciler in my spare time) is the shift of direction, where instead of artistis apropriating from brands and industries, companies are finding it profitable to apropriate back. From what I understand, it is their right as a participating part of our society to experiment with it, as well as deal with the possibles reactions and consequences, just like we all do. In time, I wonder how the issue between the contractor (sony) and the "invasion and degradation of public and private spaces" stand...(i don't know whether or not the wallspaces were paid for)
From Chris:
I've been keeping up on all the posts on your site about the sony spaced out kids sort of conceptually unsound and nobody's actually brought up how kind of lame looking they are street art vs. advertising debate of the century.
I've been thinking about it off and on for a bunch of days now, because I work in advertising, and I also love the idea of street art/your site/a ton of the artist's work that I see everyday in new york city. I've also had some experience in dealing with a few of the artists in a partnership capacity on a few projects for the agency I work for. None of it was for anything on the scope of the sony work, and it was all very much in the spirit of a partnership. I wanted to hire/work with these people because I thought that they were amazing artists, and I feel that part of any project involving an artist that one respects and admires, whose work flat out kills, is giving them as much room to work as possible. And even given that the opportunities that I contacted people about were for good, even non-profit causes, and even though it was made clear that most if not all of the creative process would be in the artist's hands, some turned us down. Some were just uncomfortable being hired by an advertising agency, and didn't want to involve that aspect of the art business in their lives. Some we couldn't hire because they wanted too much money. Some thought it sounded like a good time. Nobody ever told us to fuck off. Nobody ever emailed us a rant about art vs. advertising. It was always all very civil, and not that big of a deal.
I bring this up because after a lot of thought, I don't really think it is that big of a deal. Maybe this ugly ass sony stuff is a sort of a milestone in street art's timeline, because of the scale, and because it's causing such a stir, but I really see it as more of a normal continual evolution.
What a number of street artists, and fans of street art, are seeming to say, is that this is an unwelcome and unsavory intrusion by corporate culture into a world, lifestyle, and aesthetic that is very important to them. The sentiment of "KEEP YOUR DESPERATE CORPORATE LONG ARM OUT OF A MOVEMENT THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS OURS!!!!!" and that the Tats Cru is a bunch of cabbage heads for helping them spray up the cabbage patch. My take on it is some what in agreeance, but I guess also a lot more laid back.
Street art is an intrusive art form. It's usually unwelcome by the majority of cities, and also probably the majority of citizens. That's what gives it much of it's cache, as well as what is responsible for much of it's ingenuity and variety. Street artists are people who regularly intrude on property, laws, and people's visual landscape. I love street art. I also think that, the same as every other subjective
medium, a lot of it is shit. And I don't want to look at shit. But it's on the way to work, or the bar, or a friend's house, so I do look at it because somebody put it up there. That's just street art. You can't really change the channel or leave the gallery or put down the magazine to get away from it if you don't like it. But then it's like an amazing surprise when you look over and there's something that totally blows your mind that's not really supposed to be there. But it for sure is an intrusive form of expression. And it seems to me, that a lot of artists that are used to being the intruders are now completely pissed off and mortified that their lifestyle is being intruded upon. To me, that just seems like the breaks. The artists intrude upon everyone that walks by their piece. If you can dish out, you should be prepared to take it a little bit. Everything eventually gets coopted. The artists coopt the city to make their art, ad agencies coopt the art to coopt the city. Everybody's bounderies and buttons get pushed, and everybody is forced to take stock and adept/react. That's what makes it all so interesting.
I don't think Sony necessarilly went about things the right way. More than anything, it just seems sort of dorky and lame. Like the nerd who buy's the same cool jacket as his friends thinking that it will make him cool. But a watershed moment? I'm not so sure. They could have done it in a more responsible way. They could have done it in a way that better involved street art, that was smarter and less of a dork manuever. And I think a lot of agencies do. Probably the ones that legitametely love street art and everything that it entails. I think that J.P is right. Everybody should try to " DO IT WrIghTE". But not everybody will. I think that the people who don't like it are right in writing over it and covering it up. It's on the street, that's what ought to happen. But treating this like some kind of pinnacle moment seems a little dramatic to me. To me, it seems like some people got offered some money to draw some shit. They're artists, it's good that they get offered money. They decided to take the money, probably because they could use it, and they did some commissioned advertising. If people find that intrusive on their neighborhood, or lifestyle, or
principles, then cover it up and get it out of their. The same way you would change the channel or close the magazine. And what's the worst that will happen? Maybe some people will cover it up with some real hot shit, maybe some people walking by will see a sort of conversation about advertising written on a wall and think a little bit. Good. It just seems like if we want to believe that the streets are fair game,
that we ought to realize that they're fair game for everyone. What's the big deal. No public medium can expect to remain insular. Artists tag up advertising, now advertising is starting to encroach on street art. I don't think it's an enormous moment, so much as I think it's the beginning of a conversation. I think the best thing that seems to be happening is that a lot of people are arguing their points on the walls, which will make any neighborhood interesting.
Posted by marc at 2:08 PM in | Recommend this! |
|