Comments on: Reverse graffiti transforms city grime into art http://artthreat.net/2008/11/reverse-graffiti-transforms-city-grime-into-art/ political art & cultural policy Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:24:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Reverse Graffiti « http://artthreat.net/2008/11/reverse-graffiti-transforms-city-grime-into-art/comment-page-1/#comment-341 Reverse Graffiti « Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:24:58 +0000 http://artthreat.net/?p=1158#comment-341 [...] found an wonderful article today about reverse graffiti on a blog called Art Threat. The idea is simple, create graffiti by [...] [...] found an wonderful article today about reverse graffiti on a blog called Art Threat. The idea is simple, create graffiti by [...]

]]> By: Rob Maguire http://artthreat.net/2008/11/reverse-graffiti-transforms-city-grime-into-art/comment-page-1/#comment-124 Rob Maguire Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:10:59 +0000 http://artthreat.net/?p=1158#comment-124 There's a related trend in ad agencies "cleaning" sidewalks with ads. Check out <a href="http://www.gogorillamedia.com/kenneth-cole-comes-clean.html" rel="nofollow"> this Kenneth Cole ad</a>, for example. Although most cities ban ads placed on public property (the justification for giving community groups large fines for postering), again here the advertisers are arguing that they should be exempt from this rule as they're not adding anything, they're removing dirt. But in this case the law isn't about vandalizing public property, but using it as a platform for a commercial message, which I would argue is distinctly different from creating non-profit, public art out of our collective environmental ignorance. There’s a related trend in ad agencies “cleaning” sidewalks with ads. Check out this Kenneth Cole ad, for example.

Although most cities ban ads placed on public property (the justification for giving community groups large fines for postering), again here the advertisers are arguing that they should be exempt from this rule as they’re not adding anything, they’re removing dirt.

But in this case the law isn’t about vandalizing public property, but using it as a platform for a commercial message, which I would argue is distinctly different from creating non-profit, public art out of our collective environmental ignorance.

]]>