November 20, 2005
Opinionist: Corporate Graffiti Sucks Balls
On Sundays, Gothamist publishes opinion pieces by its contributors and friends. The opinions expressed in this piece belong only to the author, who, in this case, is me.
I've written about this so many times on Gothamist that I'm worried about sounding like a broken record-- but apparently the big corporations have not gotten the message. This week, Sony Playstation graffiti pieces have been popping up like cancer all over Manhattan. The pieces are sometimes drawn by hand-- others are wheat pasted to walls all over SoHo and NoLIta. It's clearly a large campaign, and deserves a thoughtful, measured response. Here's mine: corporate graffiti sucks. Sucks! Sucks! Sucks! It sucks for a variety of specific reasons:
1. It's exploitive: the local streetartists that are hired to paint these pieces risk arrest, and it's almost guaranteed that Sony's ad agency won't be bailing them out if they get popped. When a major corporation hires poor artists to commit a crime (and let's be honest, even if they are painting on legal walls, often times the cops don't care), that's majorly exploitive. That's terrible, SONY.
2. It's fake. It's possible that some children will confuse these pieces for actual graffiti, but most adults will see them for what they are: advertising. Appropriating the authenticity of streetart 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 Executive. The 24 to 36 year old demographic you covet so much knows the difference, and we are not fooled.
3. It's deceptive: if you are going to do this stuff, at least have the balls to sign the ads, SONY, so people know who to blame. Of course, that would undermine your fakery, so it's probably not going to happen. Lying to people to promote a product is wrong! wrong! wrong!
4. It is not positive brand association. What do we mean? Well, take a look at the Sex in the City campaign recently done on the streets of SoHo-- notice how bad these things look after they get smeared with dog shit? Think about how your precious PSP posters and pieces are going to look when they start getting buffed, crossed-out, and covered with the clever commentary "SONY PSP 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.
5. 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 and on our TVs and in our magazines and newspapers. Do you really need another avenue to sell your product? Let it go!
6. It's illegal. Microsoft and HBO have already been fined for these campaigns. SONY, 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: WoosterCollective has a variety of opinions on the campaign, and also captured a shot of some artists working for SONY in action. And someone has gone ahead and made the Corporate Vandals Not Welcome sticker.]
Jake Dobkin is the publisher of Gothamist. From 1992-5 he wrote graffiti under the tag "JUGZ ICF". From 1997-9, he created street stencils. Since 2000, he's been documenting streetart at Bluejake and Streetsy.
|
I am normally against lawsuits, I think the property owners should sue Sony while the city should prosecute them to the fullest. I'd love to see the Sony suits at the perpwalk.
Check out this post about a recent Momo corporate co-opting. The guy who posted it seems to really dig Momo's corporate funded posters.
like i said over there-- momo definitely isn't getting paid by the new yorker to do posters-- so your accusation is totally unfair to him. that's messed up.
i take issue with the bio at the end of your article. instead of saying:
Jake Dobkin is the publisher of Gothamist. From 1992-5 he wrote graffiti under the tag "JUGZ ICF". From 1997-9, he created street stencils.
it should instead say:
Jake Dobkin is the publisher of Gothamist. From 1992-5 he vandalized city and personal property by painting what he considered to be art but what others considered to be a public nuisance under the tag "JUGZ ICF". From 1997-9, he continued to contribute to urban decay by taking it upon himself to paint on the sidewalk.
furthermore, it's ok for you to do it but it's not ok for corporations to do it??? that's crap. you state that neighborhoods don't like it and that it's illegal... but somehow that only matters if you're doing it for profit? you also state that it's deceptive because sony doesn't sign the ads. does it say "JUGZ ICF" on your birth certificate? if you're so brave and think you're so entitled to do what you do, how 'bout signing your name to your art?
Momo may be getting paid, but Momo's snipes serve the same function as the SONY pieces. People see the Momo poster, think "The New Yorker" and possibly go buy a copy.
Unpaid advertising is still advertising.
So the question is: if SONY had not paid for these paintings, would that suddenly make them "art" and not suck?
joe: get your facts straight-- i've never painted on the sidewalk. only on walls, private and public property, etc. sidewalk stencils are a waste-- who wants to have people stepping on their work? and yeah-- i believe streetart is okay when artists make it and not okay when corporations make it. that's my opinion-- you may disagree if you like.
stephen: yep, as i said above, there's a huge difference between an artist making an artistic comment about a corporation (like momo's meta-poster, which can be read as a media critique or whatnot) and a corporation paying an artist to advertise their products. if you can't see that, there's no point in arguing about it.
my mistake about the sidewalks - but the rest of your argument is totally hypocritical... and saying "if you can't see that, there's no point in arguing about it" is a really good way to get out of a debate when you don't have logic on your side.
I didn't think we were arguing. I thought this was a discussion in your comments section. I usually perceive someone saying "there's no point in arguing about it" as meaning "I'm a hypocrite caught in my own double standard" but I am hoping that's not the case here.
As you have a better grasp on Momo's work - specifically his New Yorker magazine snipe ad - please explain what is Momo's artistic statement behind an exact copy of the New Yorker magazine cover, with an image that (while site referential) looks exactly like any image the New Yorker's art department would place on a cover, sniped multiple times on a construction barrier in much the same fashion as any other magazine sniping campaign.
I am seriously trying to understand how the average person could possibly separate the Momo poster from the SONY campaign? My starting point is your post against corporate funded paintings/posters/stickers. Everything you claim within that piece applies equally to the Momo poster. We're not talking Banksy, Bast or Swoon here. We're talking a poster clearly functioning - as far as the general public is concered - as advertising, not art.
Your qualification is the payment/funding aspect. Better Momo perhaps lives in poverty (I don't know if he does) than take any money from The New Yorker or a corporation. He's still advertising the New Yorker even if he believes there to be some quasi-pseudo-meta-post-pre-modern-ironic-inverse-referential-sie-specific-artistic message. You may see a media critique or whatnot. I see an ad for The New Yorker.
So the question still stands: had the SONY paintings gone up without payment, would they not suck? Even Wooster admits to liking the campaign at least from the painters getting paid standpoint. Wooster's criticism was SONY's missing of the target market for this campaign. In fact, it's Wooster who missed SONY's target market for this campaign.
By the way Jake, you missed that as well.
While I'm generally in your camp on this one, Jake, I have to say that your point that it's "fake" is a little weak. Are corporations co-opting a largely grassroots art form to make profit? Yes. Does that change the intent and spirit of the "art?" Yes. Does that make it "fake?" Dunno. It's done by "real" street artisits, no?
Claims to authenticity always fall apart in my book because it forces us to ask, "What *is* 'true' street art? What's its 'essence?' *Who* creates 'real' graffiti? And who gets to adjudicate its authenticity (i.e., who has claims to expert knowledge)?" Ooph, too mucky. Stick with exploitative, deceptive, counterproductive, and illegal; bracket fake for now.
Besides, I would imagine claims to authenticity are a vibrant, constitutive element of graffiti subculture itself; applying the label "fake" to corporate graffiti only draws it further into graffiti discourse instead of marginalizing it, as you're attempting to do.
Hypocrite!
Say, uh, Jake, where are the offices of Gothamist again? I can't seem to find the address anywhere on this site. I'd like to practice my street-art skills and my right to freedom of speech.
"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." - William Shakespeare
I want one of those PSP things.
I want one of those PSP things.
Jake, why did you just diminish De La Vega? (ie sidewalk chalkings) Seriously, what's wrong with you? Hypocrate
No one seemed to have a problem when Cope bent over for Henry Luce.
@stephen, re: the Momo piece
So by your definition, Andy Warhol was advertising soup? Maybe art should come with instructions.
Jake, I like that you post stories on graffiti, against corporations and stuff on Gothamist and on Streetsy, so that you can sell ad space and make money, yaaaay! You are like so anti-corporatey postive, you're like a vegan who eats meat, YAAAAAAAAAAYYYY!!!!!
You wrote: "Neighborhoods don't like it. It's bad enough that we have to put up with all the regular corporate advertising in our neighborhoods."
Hmm, yeah, what neighborhoods really like is regular, non-corporate graffiti that they have to spend money and time removing, only to have more pop up overnight. What the F is your point? Is braindead vandal doe's "FMOB REP" or whatever the fuck idiots write on the wall really more poignant or worthy than Sony's admittedly shitty graffiti advertising effort?
Really, man, you are on shaky ground when you make your arguments.
mk
Jake, I can't understand why you'd support "streetart," as you call it. When I read that line in your bio, I lost a lot of respect for you and Gothamist. It's illegal for a reason. You were obviously a kid when you did it--why are you still proud of it? If you'd lived in New York in the seventies, when the city was on its knees and (for example) before the MTA had figured out a way to keep vandals from defacing the subway cars, I think you might feel a little differently. It's not art. It's public defacement, and its proliferation is one of the first indications that a city is in trouble.
Susan,
Momo ain't no Warhol.
If Warhol had plastered his soup prints on construction barriers in Soho - the answer would be yes. He did not. He took the soup can and brillo box and placed them within the gallery/museum setting thereby changing their context. He also screen printed them using fine art techniques rarely used in conventional advertising at the time. The stacked can installations were a direct link back to Duchamp's found objects, but also a critique gallery art in general.
Given Warhol's background was advertising, it is also possible he actually was advertising soup. It's certainly not ouside the realm of possibility for Warhol.
If the Momo piece had been in a gallery, there would be no discussion here. Momo chose to snipe this New Yorker poster on a construction barrier in the fashion of typical New York advertising. Unless one is well familiar with Momo, this is nothing more than a New Yorker sniping campaign.
Perhaps Momo's intention was some sort of poster advertising critique, but the results simply appear to the passerby to be nothing more than another corporate ad campaign.
Sorry about that. The Momo/Warhol post should be from me - Stephen - not Susan.
Beth, I disagree: streetart is a sign of vitalism in a city. It's a sign that there is an active community of artists living there, who want to share their art with average people on the street. I did live in NYC in the 1970s, and through the 1980s, and I have a clear memory of what the graffiti in those days was like.
I'm not such a graffiti fundamentalist that I'd want to return to the days of dirty subway cars, but I believe it's possible to find a balance. That is, to keep the city relatively clean, but allow artists to practice their art without fear of being thrown in jail. This could be accomplished in a variety of ways-- decriminalizing graffiti (giving out tickets for it, instead of arresting the artists), creating legal walls in every neighborhood, etc.
i like what the guy a few posts up had to say – jake, why don't you share with us your home and work address so we share our art with you? c'mon, it's a sign of vitality!! if you have a car, please also let me know your license plate # so i can share some art there too.
and what is this 'balance' you speak of? what does 'relatively clean' mean? who decides? you? other "street artists"? do the property owners get to weigh in on this?
oh, and the day my city spends money creating "legal" walls for graffiti is the day i announce my candidacy for mayor... we already have legal walls – they're called CANVASSES and you can buy one right now at pearl paint!
Jake, would the majority of graffiti "artists" still be interested in practicing their "art" on legal walls? Doesn't part of the attraction lie in its being illicit? And while I'll agree that sanctioned *murals* can be very beautiful, I have never seen any "tags" that I'd consider even remotely attractive. I still can't grasp how someone spray-painting his or her name (or handle) can be considered art. To me it seems more the height of selfish vanity. And really, what's wrong with canvas or other surfaces?
i admit that tags are an acquired taste-- and are mostly done badly. but if you've even seen a cost or frank151 tag, you know they can be done very well. my personal favorite is a guy who writes faust-- beautiful calligraphy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluejake/6024185/
and yeah-- even if there were legal walls in every neighborhood, artists would still hit things illegally. my guess is that there'd be less of that, though.
there's nothing wrong with canvas-- but it's a different medium, like sculpture or printing. it's apples and oranges.
Jake--sorry (truly: I prefer agreeing with you), but I'm unconvinced. And I think most urban anthropologists would disagree with your position that graffiti is the sign of a healthy artistic community. Also, aren't you 28? Which, okay, would put you in the city during the seventies, but not quite yet graffiti-aware, correct?
"there's nothing wrong with canvas-- but it's a different medium, like sculpture or printing. it's apples and oranges."
MY property is not YOUR medium!
i agree with jake. when i was in yokohama, they had designated some walls under bridge overpasses as graffiti zones and the work was really uplifting. it attracted tourists to an otherwise desolate area (incidentally helping local business) because it did feel very alive and vibrant. and there was very little graffiti outside those walls. granted it's an entirely different culture steeped more in cleanliness and respect than nyc, but still, there's nothing wrong with providing an outlet for determined artists. why can't that be part of the solution, how would it hurt? it seems all too typical to declare war on a problem which emboldens the 'enemy' instead of thinking out how to use the problem to our advantage.
I saw the exact same graffiti shown above on a wall in downtown Atlanta this weekend. Wooster points out the reproductive nature of this campaign in their photography post that you linked above, but I didn't expect examples 900 miles from each other to be so similar.
By the way, have any of you read Walter Benjamin?
By the way, here are the flickr photos with tags "sony" and "graffiti":
http://flickr.com/photos/search/tags:sony%2Cgraffiti/tagmode:all/
Billtron, I'd never heard of Walter Benjamin, so I went looking for what you might mean. He had a lot to say on many topics. Is this what you were referring to?
http://pages.emerson.edu/Courses/spring00/in123/workofart/benjamin.htm#reproducibility
Hijiki,
The problem is exactly as you state. It IS a whole different culture. Americans and New Yorkers in particular are extremely competitive and (erroneously) consider themselves non-conformists. There are always going to be those who want their "work" to stand out, and that means not putting it where everyone else does. So it's back to square one. Honestly, legal or not, it all comes down to respect for other people's property. It's not for would-be "artists" to decide someone's property needs "brightening." If you have any respect for others at all, you ask first, and if they say no, you walk away. If your work is as great as you think it is, there will be a clamor and a market for it. If nobody wants it, then obviously you're just too full of yourself, same as in any other field.
so the writer used to tag for 2 years....whoopdey doo.....fuckin art fag....fuck sony and fuck soho
People need to stop analyzing shit all day, and saying oh this person shouldn't be doing this and that. Yo artists need to make money too and if a big ass corporation wants to do a campaign, and some starving artist can make some loot, why not. Half of you work for a corporation, and have friends who are probably borderline Yuppy so stop kidding yourselves. Stop setting all your bullshit boundaries on everything. I hate all the judgements people have in the street art and graff worlds. People need to stop hating so much. This is why I hate any kind of scene and I avoid being into one scene. People just gossip and hate. Noone owns the street, and it's a free for all on the walls so go out and make your statement, go over that shit. Personally, I don't love it or hate it. It is what it is. Just like so many art school kids jumped on the "street art" scene when it became all trendy and cool, so did Sony. We are all in the same boat. If you don't like the ad campaign, go diss it. Better yet, let sony hire you to do it, get paid and then go diss it on your own. Now that would be a real statement.
I find it funny that you are so vocal on a subject you are relatively new to. I mean you claim to have written graff, but I checked out your ummm "graff" stuff and it looks like you barely wrote. I can tell style right away and it was dated 1996 and a VERY beginner style. I mean taking a few tags and throwies and claiming you wrote for 3 years sounds like it was more of a phase than any heart put into it(I can also tell you put that in there just to show people you repped graff way back in 1991...hoping people will think that is really cool, but graff writers know better) And then seems like you did some stenciling in the late 1990s when graff was already dying out and this street art phenomenon started. I just find it hard to swallow that new people to this game probably think you(and a lot of others) are some authority on the subject of vandalism,graff, and "street art" when from what I see you(and others) are pretty much newcomers whether you want to admit it or not. Yeah maybe when you were 14 or 15 you thought COST was really cool and what not blah blah blah. Looking at graff and thinking it was really cool in 1991 doesn't make you an authority on it. It just seems like you are a graff writer when it is convenient to say it and a street artist when it is convenient. And that is the problem with a lot of the new generation of "street artists". It is so trendy and cool but don't call them "graffiti artists" ohhhh noooooo, it is so different. Please, it is all the same, stop trying to justify "street art" as some higher form of art. It really isn't. Some of you need to start being yourselves and get off this whole "hard life of an artist vibe" ......Most of these artists travel all over the world and then act like they are living some hard ass life. Please, you take planes all over the world and then whine how unfair life is. Be grateful for what you have and what you can do. Take this whole graffiti and street art shit a little lighter and have fun. You want to be political, voice your opinions, take it to the streets...this whole internet shit is becoming more ego-driven than it was before the net. Kids bringing camera phones everywhere and then posting their flicks 2 minutes later on the web(a little hippocritical in itself).....so then everyone thinks they are up all over the place(30 pics could be on one block or less than a block).Half these people would not even do their "street art" if it wasn't for the interent which makes it even more fake because they are not even doing it out of pure love of it. Then before you know it, they have "street cred" and they get a gallery show based on that. Taking pics is cool, but I mean come on, every tag and sticker, you gonna post up.......PURE EGO!!!! worse than ever now with the internet.....
Ok people let me break it down for ya, I'm hailing from good ol' Grand Rapids MI and I totally agree corporate graffiti is not only fake but shallow.... Being a chick and all it's allready hard to get the respect your graf deserves but let's compare and contrast shall we... 1) Your unique style and graf is your own if you want to get paid earn the respect and get the credit your art deserves.... 2) Selling your work is ok you get the cash as well as the satisfaction.... 3) representing for a corporate office or world dominating brain buster of a company not only makes you look like a sell out to the true meaning that is being a graf artist but you make the rest of us look bad.... Take my advice and stop hitting the streets you allready have been looked over and compared....
Over and out Nos of Grand Rapids has said her opinion..... *flips peace sign*
SONY PSP SUCKS DICK
SAY NO TO PSP!!! SAY NO TO PSP!!!----but I will walk around with my $400 IPOD NANO...WOOHOOOO...I'm so coool and artsy!!!
You soggy flamers missed it big-time. Sony got into commercializing graffiti by BUYING space and HIRING writers to hit up for them to SELL products. ...By definition, this is no more "graffiti" than King Kong is a real gorilla - 'look & feel' is not enough. And now - have a look at all the graffiti websites - they sell spraypaint, custom spray nozzles, spraycan caps, t-shirts, hats, you name it. They are every bit as commercial as SONY. But, here is the delicious part - it was SONY that jumped into the deep end all by themselves - they played at writing graffiti, and just like real graffiti, it got bombed on - tagged over by real writers. Nevertheless, the saddest of all is even this notoriety will give Sony the attention it seeks.
Thanks for all the fish...
Mor
PSP ROCKS!
YOU FU*KING DS FANBOYS NEED TO GET A FU*KING LIFE!
PSP OWNS DS GET THAT??
IF U CAN'T AFFORD ONE OR JUST BCOZ U GREW UP PLAYING A CHEAP PLASTICY GB/GBA U R SO MUCH BIASED!! REALISE THIS IS THE 21st CENTURY FOOLS!!
SUPPORT PSP. IT'S HERE TO STAY!
Awesome entry. Dobkin's really understands the concepts of artistic integrity and moral responsibility. He's also has a strong sense-of- self. Holla.
u know what fuck all you people who hate graffiti it is an art if the fuken city were to devote one big ass wall some unused out of servece train cars and truck trailers graffiti would go down alot because we like to have our stuff seen and we will never stop i mean never at all i will continue to hit. and also graffiti is not gang affiliated fuck all that gang bullshit they took our style and put it to work for them and thats what most of the problem is its not us or me should i say i hit under train tressles you know not really seen places im not out here to destroy only to create open your mind soak in the colors and different teqniqes and give it a try just to look at feel the love for it all dont hate us hate the ones that fuck it up for everyone thank you for listening and maybe you can help put up some walls and make it legal to do graffiti in certain areas feel free to write me back at teamoverdose88@yahoo.com once again thank you
and fuck you jeffrey goines you stupid eliterite ass muther fucker the whole graffiti world would fucken hate ur stupid ass why dont you go fuck youself your not the one doing the crime so fuck off asshole
team sequense
team overdose
bwsk blue ever am tk dk
straight up fuck you
Taggers are just idiot's, retarded young individuals who wants attention, why dont they graffiti thier own house instead of a business, what do they gain from this?? I dont see what they gain, popularity that you can draw on a building(not your own) and get away with it??
To stupid to me. BUY A CANVAS!!!! Ya Dorks! Stop defacing property thats not your own!!!
And Get A Life! GROW UP! You'll be driving on the streets one day wondering why the sign was painted over. Its stops when you stop!
Arrested over 20 taggers and still counting!
Started 2006
votre assurance en ligne sponsorisent(Ci2i) être le pan-européen marqué du numéro un commoditised l'assurance en ligne sponsorisent d'ici 2010.
Uw online verzekeringsmakelaarEerst Europa Doelstellingen: De Ci2i Verzekering (Ci2i) zal het nummer een gebrandmerkte pan Europese commoditized online verzekeringsmakelaar door 2010 zijn.
FirstEuropa.com - tu corredor de seguro en línea Primera declaración de la misión de Europa: El seguro de Ci2i (Ci2i) será el pan-europeo calificado del número uno commoditized el corredor de seguro en línea antes de 2010.
Isango - Australia Travel and tourIsango aims to be your site of choice for planning and booking holiday activities & excursions.
ahahah. BOMB THE SYSTEM! PAINT YOUR CITY! PISS OFF ROBOTS! ey yo tag killa... fuck you you pig. i'll do abomb on the side of your stupid cop car. and it's not a suprise you "don't get it"...YOUR A ROBOT!
YOU SUCK MAN GRAPHN IS DA ART OF THE STREETS FOOL CANT YOU SEE WE AS GRAPHERS ARE SIMPLY PUTTING OUR OWN INDAVIDUAL INSPARRATIONS UP FOR THE WORLD TO SEE