New Yorker Cover, by Momo

Every time someone says "meta" it makes me want to vomit.

"Meta" as in an art form adressing or reference itself. Writing about writing. Paiting about painting. Putting up a poster about putting up a poster. Extra meta points for addressing the very thing you are doing as you do it.

Corporate graffitti sucks. Sucks! Sucks! Sucks! It sucks for a variety of specific reasons:

It's sad that The New Yorker exploited Momo in this way. It's almost guaranteed that The New Yorker's ad agency won't be bailing Momo out if s/he gets popped.

It's possible that some children will confuse this piece for actual street art, but most adults will see it for what it is: advertising. Appropriating the authenticity of street art to promote a product is totally lame. Some marketing agencies might try to position these campaigns as "cool" or "real" or whatever, but don't believe them, Mr. Major Corporate Publishing Executive. The 24 to 36 year old demographic you covet so much knows the difference, and we are not fooled.

It is not positive brand association. Think about how your precious Momo New Yorker posters are going to look when they start getting buffed, crossed-out, and covered with the clever commentary "THE NEW YORKER SUCKS DICK!" etc. That is most definitely not something you will want to see, and you will have absolutely no control over it. I give it at most three weeks before most of this stuff starts to look really bad.

Neighborhoods don't like it. It's bad enough that we have to put up with all the regular corporate advertising in our neighborhoods. You've got ads on bus stops and telephone booths and walls and billboards. Do you really need another avenue to sell your product? Let it go!

It's illegal. Microsoft and HBO have already been fined for these campaigns. The New Yorker, you are most definitely next. Even if the cost of the fines is built into the campaigns, having all those articles written about how you are breaking the law-- that can't be good for your corporate reputation.

In conclusion: please cut this crap out. Quit it!

[Related: Here's another astute commentary on how corporate graffiti sucks. And someone has gone ahead and made the Corporate Vandals Not Welcome sticker.]

Actually Jake, I wasn't accusing Momo of anything. I simply took your screed against corporate graf and replaced SONY with The New Yorker and dropped in Momo's name. You are apparently friends with or familiar with Momo's work. That obviously colors your preception of this particular poster sniping.

Funded or not, it is advertising for The New Yorker. I see no reason to apologize to Momo. It's a great poster promoting a magazine Momo obviously likes. If anything, I find it sad he's not getting paid for his efforts to snipe for The New Yorker and promote their brand.

There is absolutely no difference between this poster, a sniping for Lucky magazine or the Sony PSP paintings. They all serve to promote and brand a specific product. That is the very definition of advertsing. I saw this poster and took it to be a sniping campaign for The New Yorker anfd figured they were trying to capture the street poster aesthetic for a New Yorker campaign. I like the poster but "wasn't fooled" into believing it was "cool" or "real" or whatever.

So how does the line get drawn? By your definition, Momo's New Yorker snipe is cool. The SONY drawings suck. Is it because Momo promotes the New Yorker without getting paid and the SONY painters are getting paid? Which do you really believe the vast majority of poeple walking past Wooster and Grand say to themselves when they see this Momo poster:

"Wow, lovely new piece by Momo. Look at the incredible detail and - hey - it's a poster of someone taking down a poster on this very corner." [Alternately: "Wow, lovely piece of street art. Look at the incredible detail and - hey - it's a poster of someone taking down a poster on this very corner."]

OR

"Hey - there must be a new issue of The New Yorker on the stands. I'll make sure to stop by the newsstand on the way home and pick one up." [Alternately: "Hey - there must be a new issue of The New Yorker on the stands. Sad how badly it has gone down hill in recent years."]

I'd be willing to bet large it's the latter far more often (in the 99.9999% range) than the former.

As such, that makes Momo's piece advertising. As advertising, it then also must fall under the criticisms you level at other forms of street art/graf advertising. Simply because you know or are a fan of Momo or Momo did not get paid by the New Yorker (foolish Momo) does not change the fact there is no difference between this New Yorker snipe and the SONY paintings popping up around the city.

Given the extreme departure from the portfolio work shown at the link provided by Dorothy, I am now more convinced than ever this is an ad campaign for The New Yorker. It looks nothing like any of the works Momo features on his site.

God, I hate angelfire. Try the image at the upper right of this page