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….