Against Streetart: Tale of the Paint Splasher

so, throwing paint on someone else's paint on someone else's property is not art?

Take a stand, dobkin!

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is kind of like watching 2 retarded kids have a rap battle.

at least someone's willing to admit celebrity street artists are as lame a development as celebrity chefs.

The splasher is a total schmuck, as evidenced by his inane, poorly written screeds and the fact that he puts glass in the wheatpaste he uses to glue them to the wall.

Funny how these street artists go over graffiti pieces and nothing gets said. A few splashes of paint and the artist community is up in arms. How does that taste?

along with a headline, can we start putting the author of posts before the article so that it's easier to figure out which posts I want to avoid. I can't remember the last thing that Jake wrote that didn't just annoy me.

I don't agree with destroying street art, but I DO agree that many prominent street artists are more interested in cashing out than changing society. Ditto to the fetishism of dada's objects, in particular Duchamp's urinal and stool pieces. I think it's the height of irony that pieces famous because of their deconstruction of the art viewing experience are now symbols of "fine art" printed on advertisments and the cover of museum brocheurs.

I would also say that since street art is transitory, always about to be painted over with/covered up by something, it's better for it to be destroyed by someone with an artistic agenda than some disgruntled city councilmen.

From the link:

Flower Face Killah says:
All I know is his first name is Zack and he's a former Columbia student, believe me if I knew more I'd tell the world, I despise his fascist behavior.

1. Of course it's "fascist behavior." That's the only major insult Flower Face Killah could come up with. Somebody should ask him to define his terms, and then explain by what criteria the Splasher is a fascist.
2. Run-on sentences and comma splices annoy me.

Couldn't this retarded doofus at least splash some on the annoying and ubiquitous advertectures all over the city? At least do some good before the cops corner him and give him the baton beat down he deserves.

what difference does it make who the artist is?
does 'white bourgeoisie' somehow make a statement illegitimate?

I cannot rule out the possibility that the Splasher's motivation arises less from deep-seated conviction than it does from deep-seated psychosis. (The rambling, screwball notices are the clue.)

i like it. think the splasher may be brilliant or just a fuckup. either way, this has been a long time coming.

long live the neoist impulse of the splasher!

I like the splasher.

i like bunnies!

To # 14:

You said "the interesting thing about street art is precisely that it problematizes the notions of ownership that (Jake's) question presumes."

Isn't The Splasher "problematizing" street artists' own notions of ownership? And art?

It also seems to me that street artists are reacting in exactly the same way that people opposed to street art react: "Don't give this issue any press. It'll only encourage whoever is behind it."

The bottom line is, street art is all about the creators' egos. And their sense of ownership.

Seems a silly protest though. He thinks street art is too corporate? His manifesto is so odd that it's hard to read and understand.

I think that he uses a Super Soaker instead of "splashing".

I've seen murals with dripping paint on them that are far too high for anyone to reach with a brush.

My bet is that he uses a Super Soaker instead of "splashing" with a brush.

I've seen murals with paint on them that are far too high for anyone to reach.

wouldn't it make more sense to splash billboards and print ads? how can street art possibly be worse than the constant proliferation of ads? i personally enjoy it when i see something on a wall that wasn't produced by an ad agency, and could care less if it was some rich kid that created it. if the splasher is going anti-corporate, he's hitting the wrong pieces.

and regardless, in his rally against big-name street artists, this coverage has made him nothing more than a big-name tagger. time to splash the splashes!

I am waiting for the Minimalist..
with his painted squares and use of greys..

This thread should have ended at at post #11.

the splasher should have an adjunct art critic/co-splasher to judge which graffiti works get splashed and which do not! some suck ass graffiti looks more interesting with splashes, some are good and can be left alone - no matter, that splasher is one badass muthafucka ya dig?

I gonna splash the splasher.... over the splashes.... with a different color

Jake, wasn't this story posted yesterday? Look at the comments. They pre-date today's resurrected posting.

Deja vu all over again?

So rich kids cannot be artists? If someone is deemed "privileged" and can afford to attend art school or live in a nice apartment they are not to be taken seriously? (note: I am not at all rich, just to squash the "Oh another rich kid" response) The only true art is created by people who live in dumpsters and drink paint thinner and have lost their families in industrial accidents and have to wear plastic bags for shoes? They know REAL LIFE. Now THAT'S punk rock! Get off your high horse, Splasher. The high horse you use to reach the 13' high subjects you splash.

ROCK ON

i love street art, but it's time the spoiled hipsters got a taste of reality. old school graffiti writers have to worry about their murals and production getting dissed and crossed out by toys constantly-- why should so-called 'street artists' get any preferential treatment? that kind of attitude draws a distinction between high and low street art, which is exactly the kind of bullshit that most artists would claim to be subverting. welcome to the streets.

To #33:

You ask (rhetorically, of course, but I'll answer to it nonetheless): "Isn't The Splasher 'problematizing' street artists' own notions of ownership? And art?"

I think you misunderstood my point, or that I didn't make myself as clear as I thought I did.

What I'm trying to say is that street art -- in many, if not all, of its manifestations -- takes as one of its operating principles the idea that ownership is fraught with complexity, and that the rights involved intersect, often uncomfortably, with those of the public passing by a particular wall (or privately owned walls in general). This assumption, which has both merits and drawbacks, necessarily attaches itself as well to the work of art. Inasmuch as it constitutes a discourse, so to speak, it subjects itself, by virtue of its theoretical underpinnings and assumptions to what we might call "written" response. And, of course, there are a gamut of possible responses, one of which might include wheat-pasting manifestoes and splattering paint.

This, of course, applies doubly for an art form that is, by its very nature, transitory, inasmuch as most of it is destined to be painted over by the city anyway.

Furthermore, my point was to comment on the Gothamist's (logically flawed) comparison of the Splatterer's actions to the burning down of a museum.

Eyeroll- first of all, I'm not a man as you assumed, I am all woman. Second, here's some historical context for this kind of anti-art fascism. Oh,and if my run on sentences, etc. annoy you, just go away, no one's making you look at my flickr page.

n 1937, Nazi officials purged German museums of works the Party considered to be degenerate. From the thousands of works removed, 650 were chosen for a special exhibit of Entartete Kunst. The exhibit opened in Munich and then traveled to eleven other cities in Germany and Austria. In each installation, the works were poorly hung and surrounded by graffiti and hand written labels mocking the artists and their creations. Over three million visitors attended making it the first "blockbuster" exhibition.

More recently, the Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed thousands of works of art, including including two 2,000 year old 175 foot tall statues of Buddha, because the art depicted human figures, which the fanatic extremist Taliban religious view doesn't allow.

These might seem like extreme examples, but to me, the fascist actions of the Nazis and the Taliban are no different from the fascist actions of Zack the hater, only the scale differs.

#60
Nitpick all you want, he uses the same tactics as the nazis and the taliban, the comparison is apt.

#61
Your comparison uses the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p.

eyeroll;

thats not all there is to the argument. the splashers manifestos are drawn from the politics of 1970's ultraleft-to-fascist art critics.

Re:66

"He's concerned with the commodification of art.

Let him go to Chelsea then, go into the galleries where paintings sell for thousands and millions, and try throwing paint on them. Much as I disagree with Tony Shafrazi's attack on Picasso, at least he had the cojones to do it right in front of people.

"In fact, throwing the word fascist around about others when they don't agree with you is the first thing real fascists do."

Ha ha ha ha ha-Do you notice that you yourself are calling me a fascist because you don't agree with me?

so this "splasher" is ruininig good art work..its pathetic.all he can do is splash the paint wow how artistic.i wanna see him do a bomb cause i know if someone splashed paint on my work id be hella mad.all i can say is that graffiti is art..splashing paint is also art to some extent..

any street artist complaining about what 'sthe splasher' is doing may as well quit.

it seems the people most concerned about what's happening are viewers rather than artists themselves..

if one places art in the street illegally, one should never think that it will, or deserves to, remain there untouched for any given period of time.

if anyone out there has half a brain they'll use this to their advantage and start collaborating with the splasher. create work that will look appealing and striking even if it's been 'splashed'

personally i prefer the splashed look.

This whole debate doesnt mean much to me but, as it turns out I had a lot to say. Werid...

Splasher™ is onto something here. Im not discrediting street art, or siding with Splasher™. I will say that street art has gotten way out of control. It rivals sneaker culture in over saturation. However, street artists have a leg up on the sneaker-necks, as they are generally more invested in creative ideas and executions than your average sneaker-neck who is only risking his hourly wage (or his allowance) on the newest "hype" (but you can always flip 'em on eBay if you're strapped, duh).

History is filled with art "beef", and the reactions, and reactions to reactions. Street art, is in part a reaction to the saturation of corporate advertising, and Splasher™ is a reaction to the reaction (wiki Dada if you get a chance). There is no doubt that the act of destruction is just as artistic as the act of creation, but thats merely semantics.
"Art, is the process of the destruction of sameness... Such oddness — based on the destruction of sameness — is the hallmark of the true artist; such oddness is worthy of the name creation" — Bobby Matherne
The controversy is not about if this guy is creating art (or even if he wants to) but it is about who he is "creating" over (and, in effect "destroying"). Its beef, plain and simple. The street artists who have beef act like its their right to display their art on the street anyways. It is not. Dont get me wrong, I love graffiti and in some cases street art to, but what I like about graffiti is that it is illegal. It takes a special kind of person to actually call themselves a "writer". The different is that you have to make a serious effort to be a "writer". In a most cases you're risking life and limb on the regular. Graffiti is a medium for boarder line criminals and maniacs who insist on testing every limit (I say that in the most respectful way). Street art (in most cases) is to relaxed. Its for frustrated graphic designers with to much time on their hands and not enough creative control at their day jobs (in advertising. IRONY!).

There is a strong argument that graffiti is more about the act itself, than the actual product. Style and quantity are always a plus, but in the end thats just aesthetics. The act is the concept. The concept is the art. It is the act that makes graffiti so romantic. It is the romance that makes it art.

Bottom line is, the dudes who have beef with Splasher™ are hypocrites. Least we forget when it comes down to it, graffiti is all about getting up, going over, fighting, and fame and more than anything, the beef. And whats missing from street art is beef. Splasher™ is shaping up to be a modern day CAP. Instead of doing throw ups on the 2s and the 5s hes splashing the walls of the LES and Williamsburg. Splasher™ is just bringing some much needed drama to the street art scene. It would not surprise me one bit if Splasher™ was actually a street artist himself/herself trying to bring some attention to the art form and simultaneously immortalize this time period. Its like Fleetwood Mac, they had some good jams and all, but what really makes them still relevant is all that fucking drama. If you look back in 20 years and there was some OK art and no drama, this whole street art thing will look like a total snooze. Henry Chalfant will be the first to tell you that every good story needs a good antogonist. I only hope that Spalsher™ has half as much charisma that CAP had, and none of the "Lucille Ball hairdo".

what if we actually looked at it. "disinterested contemplation" here people, get your roller skates.

Come on JW, that attitude of "keeping it simple" is ridiculous. Ed Koch was talking over your head.

The street art that's getting splashed look like magazine illustrations. They pretty up the neighborhood for the trust fund kids and the yuppies, who price out the older families, immigrants, etc. The act of splashing is political, believe it.

I love the splasher. I love paint. I love drips. Bring back anarchy to the streets.

Why doesn't this guy splash some paint on the schools and on the parks, the places that really could use a few coats? I'd love for this miscreant to get caught and have to do community service painting things that really need it.

It finally looks like graff again.

HOORAY!

Oh and one last thing. Websters defines art as:

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful or appealing

What elements or principles of art are used here? How is this asthetically pleasing? It's not art based on the definition of art that the objective members humanity decided on. If you want to be taken seriously in the art world don't be an art school stereotype. Don't be agressive or petty. Create something beautiful of your own that says something.

Splashes of paint do not take skill or practice or talent. Fuck you and Jackson Pollock.

Enough already!