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.