Gothamist: More Subway Ad Street Art

JenChungsBra

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:55:21 -0500

Thanks rarelement.

sonyactivision

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:42:51 -0500

For what it's worth, Art or no Art, this stuff sucks.

Spiritof76

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:28:41 -0500

[4] In other words, he's not collaborating with the MTA as he claims, but rather misappropriating that which he did not pay for. Or would you also consider your basic spray-can graffiti vandal "collaborating" with the owner of the property he defaces?

rarelement

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:08:09 -0500

It's still there, just covered by years of neglect and "unauthorized" art. It's a Keith Haring piece that appears animated as the train passed, like a linear zoetrope.

JenChungsBra

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:56:53 -0500

You call this subway art, just because it's on some train entrance? Back in the 80's on the D train in Brooklyn there was a spot in the tunnel where there was an actual moving cartoon. It was a series of a few hundred animated backlighted frames showing a rocket taking off or something like that and when you went by in a moving train it looked like an animated movie. That was the coolest subway art ever. Is that still around? I haven't been on the D train in that part of town in years.

MichaelH

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:44:44 -0500

This is the same ridiculously selfish behavior that send Napster spiraling into oblivion, this idiotic Gen-X/Y mentality that says, "I don't believe I should have to pay for this product/service, so I'm going to steal it and then have the gall to act righteous about it." Just because you want something but can't pay for it does not give you the right to vandalize the property of those who DID pay for it, no matter what you think of the economic forces behind the transaction. Goddamn hippies.

mocanlagunas

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:12:26 -0500

"six ten-second spots every minute"?!? hmmm...

Kevin Bracken

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:51:05 -0500

Any word on the name of the Toronto street artist? ;) I love it.

hungryghoast

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:36:25 -0500

Outter, click through to Jason Eppink's page for an explanation. Or, if you're too lazy, I will explain... It's "in collaboration" only because the MTA makes the signs and provides the space and the companies provide the light/images. Eppink is acting anonymously and actually without sanction from these groups. His point is that this is that though the MTA put's up these spaces claiming they can be for artists, the price of actually gaining access to it is so high that only advertisers can foot the bill. In the artist's own words: "anonymous collaboration, the resulting video is almost entirely unplanned and unanticipated, with the original artists helping to create new works of art without any knowledge of their participation." The artist explains it in a much more fun manner if you, as i suggested, click through. Welcome to the Internet.

moreice

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:32:01 -0500

No, it says "bold." I mean, it's art, right? Isn't it supposed to be open to interpretation?

Tgirl

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:25:29 -0500

what? no commercial? ...how quaint

Outter Burrougher

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:11 -0500

how is it unauthorized if it is in collaboration with the MTA and Clear Channel?