Over the last few months, someone has been splashing paint over major streetart works all over the city. The "Splasher", as he's come to be known, has a taste for targeting major pieces by Swoon, Obey, Momo, and others. His trail of paint-dripped terror extends from Williamsburg, to Soho, and back again-- and he's already obliterated dozens of pieces. Take a look:

2007_1_againststreetart1.jpg

2007_1_againststreetart2.jpg

2007_1_againststreetart3.jpg

2007_1_againststreetart4.jpg

Often, in the wake of his attacks, the Splasher also leaves wheat-pasted screeds, attacking the streetartists as tools of capital, calling their work a "fetishized action of banality" and "a representation of the most vulgar kind: an alienated commodity":

2007_1_againststreetart0.jpg

Several people who we know in the New York graffiti community urged us not to cover the Splasher at all, saying that it would only encourage him to destroy more work-- but his project does raise some interesting questions that seem worth considering. First, to what extent is his basic premise correct-- are most streetartists spoiled children of the (white) bourgeoisie? Is their work just a leading sign of gentrification? And second, can a project that consists of destroying other people's work itself be considered art? After all, burning down a museum would rightly be called a crime. Is this? Before you answer, maybe it's best to read up on the Splasher-- here are some links from around the web.

FlowerFaceKillah on the Splasher
GowanusLounge on the Splasher, and a followup post
Curbed on the Splasher
Streetsy pix of the splasher
I'm Not Saying on the Splasher, with a gallery of Splasher shots

and a similar project, StreetArtBlows.