Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

Reverse Graffiti 554

Posted by michael from the cleaning-up dept.
glawrie writes "UK Graffiti artist 'Moose' thought he had come up with a perfect socially friendly approach to his art - to trade paints for cleaning fluid. An article in the UK's Independent Newspaper describes how he has created graffiti by taking '... any dirty inner-city wall or pavement, place a template over it, and scrub the concrete clean, revealing an image as sharp as any spray paint which fades with time.' Moose was commissioned by a subsidiary of drinks manufacturer Diageo to create some 'clean' graffiti in Leeds to promote their vodka brand Smirnoff to local students. However, this work was subsequently condemned by Gerry Harper, a Leeds councillor, as 'sheer vandalism'. With wonderful irony, the council demanded that the artist 'clean-up' the graffiti that appeared in one of the city's gloomiest underpasses. Maybe all those senseless vandals out there will now think twice in future before scrawling 'Clean Me' on the back of vehicles overdue for a wash... But perhaps the state is now going too far - surely it is only a matter of time before rainfall is similarly targetted by the good guys."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reverse Graffiti More

Reverse Graffiti

Comments Filter:

  • Guess this... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cbrocious ( 764766 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:00PM (#9547644) Homepage
    Brings new meaning to "Clean up your act!"

    His parents must be regretting that wording now.

  • Its so good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sinergy ( 88242 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:01PM (#9547653) Homepage
    They can't show any pictures of it? Anybody have links?

  • legal grafitti.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by isaac338 ( 705434 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:02PM (#9547661)
    In my town (Halifax, Canada) we have a few walls which are owned by local companies which have been 'donated' to local grafitti artists. You can go down there any time and see a lighted wall of absolutely amazing artwork, and it changes almost every day.

    I don't see what the big problem is.. just give the artists enough places to paint and the problem will reduce if not disappear. What's the problem with that?
    • There's a sign on the Virginia side of the Key Bridge that goes into Washington, DC that has become a cultural phenomenon of political commentary. Who knows what the sign was really for -- it probably announced that the bridge was the "Francis Scott Key Bridge" or something. Then after 9-11 it was spray-painted with something patriotic -- a flag I think. Then after people started realizing Bush was just using 9-11 as an excuse to advance an empire and limit civil liberties, the patriotic graffiti was grafitti'd over. IIRC, the oldest one shown at this Georgetown lawyer's website [niederhausen.net] was the first, "Read Orwell". After that, it went back and forth between pro-war and anti-war messages.

      Oddly, authorities never cleaned it up. It's like it's become an unofficial but implicitly sanctioned public forum.

      • Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC (Score:4, Informative)

        by smileyy ( 11535 ) <smileyy@gmail.com> on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:35AM (#9548220)
        I was hoping you were talking about the "Surrender Dorothy" graffiti that used to be on a bridge over 495 as it looked out on the "Emerald City".
      • Hmmm, for some time I've thought that scrubbing off, sandblasting, or painting over graffiti is the wrong way to go -- it just leaves a tempting blank field for the next vandal. Much better to grab a can of paint and throw random splashes over the mess. I think it makes a powerful statement.

        P.S. no vigilantism, please; only spoil stains on walls that you personally own.
      • When I first looked at the first photo, there's a sign on the left that reads "Report Suspicious Activity".

        I thought, "Oh neat, they're parodying the whole paranoia thing. It's neat how they made it look like LED lights, too."

        Then I saw the sign you were talking about was on the right.

        The "Report Suspicious Activity" sign is real.

    • Re:legal grafitti.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by XryanX ( 775412 ) <XryanX&earthlink,net> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:40PM (#9547920)
      Aye, we have several free walls here in Tallahassee, FL. I have a bunch of friends that paint, and it truly is art.

      Unfortunately, most people equate graffiti with silly kids that scrawl basic tags all over the place. If you look at some of the bigger pieces(murals and such), you'll see it for the art that it is.

      Vandalism = bad
      Painting free walls = good

      • Re:legal grafitti.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:40AM (#9548965) Homepage Journal
        To me - painting free walls is just 'doing a big painting - probably with spray cans'. Big Deal.

        Tagging an illegible nickname on a wall beside a road is just. well. scrawling your name on something. Big Deal.

        Dropping an image / word / phrase into a strange context which is thought provoking or even just plain funny is a much bigger deal to me. SImple silhouettes, slogans, even a simple 'cock and balls' can be beautiful if well placed. Be it on a blank wall, over someones 'grafiti art' or on the tits of the wonderbra chick.
        I've seen a copy of one of Steve Bells [guardian.co.uk] cartoon from the Guardian sprayed on a railway siding on the SAME DAY it was published.

        Grafiti is good - but blandomatic grafiti sucks.

    • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:06AM (#9548076)
      There are two kinds of graffiti. I'll call the first one 'artcrime' since I'm not sure what other people call it. The second is tagging.

      Artcrime is where someone makes an effort to do something that is interesting or beautiful, or at least puts some love into the work. It may or may not be a tag. If it isn't a tag, then the artist would be fine with using a designated wall like this.

      Taggers, on the other hand, just like to put their name on shit for whatever reason - territory marking or some sort of rush that comes from vandalizing things. These folks are not going to bother with a designated wall because using one of those entirely defeats the purpose of the graffiti for them.

      So I guess it's not a big problem if the only folks that bother you are the artists. Me, I'm the other way around - I normally don't mind graffiti that's had some love put into it because there was love put into it, whereas tagging is the equivalent of making it known you were somewhere by ejaculating all over the place.

      • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ashesblow ( 787180 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:17AM (#9548137)
        I've been graffing (its an industry term) for the last 5 years. I never leave my name, so its not really a tag. However I feel that using a designated wall is useless. The point of Graffing to me, at least, is to subject (as infringe on others) the unwary to art. Putting a 3 foot Venus DeMilo on a wall in a grubby factory is a much more fufilling act than putting that same stencil on a wall thats designated for art. Two distinct demographics really.

        • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:4, Funny)

          by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:50AM (#9548275) Journal

          Perhaps you should ask for more interesting places "designated" for art?
          • People that seek out art are not my audience, I want to shove art into the faces of those who would not or does not have the time to look at art. Putting my ideas into canvas and hanging them on walls just doesnt do what graffing does. It doesnt show anyone something they arnt expecting.
            • Can I have your home address, so that I can "shove" my ideas onto your private property?

            • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Mycroft_VIII ( 572950 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @02:35AM (#9548731) Journal
              Nice sounding words, but unless you have permision by the owners, all you are doing is damaging the property of others. Using property you did not pay for. It's not art at all, it's just vandalism. It's roughly of the same morals as writing a computer virus.
              It's possible to achieve shock and suprise in art through legitimate means. but what your doing is no different if I went to your home while you were gone and peeled out in your yard, t.p.ed your trees and broke your windows. I could claim it was performance art, but somehow I don't think you'd be any happier or less willing to press charges if I were caught.

              Mycroft

              • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:5, Interesting)

                by Cederic ( 9623 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:06AM (#9548840) Journal

                Actually, I rate top-quality graffiti as better art than you'll often find in galleries.

                Take Banksy (check the website at http://www.banksy.co.uk/ ) - total vandalistic anti-socialism but at the same time valid social commentary, truely genius artistic vision and inspired execution.

                ~Cederic is a fan.

                • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:5, Informative)

                  by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:24AM (#9548907)
                  Take Banksy

                  "Banksy" poored tins of coloured paint all over statues outside a lovely building near where I live here in Barcelona. The council have had to spend tens of thousands of tax payers (my!) euros to clean it up.

                  Inspired execution? Genius artistic vision? Give me a break. The guy is an antisocial wanker.

                  • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:5, Interesting)

                    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @04:48AM (#9549130)
                    Damnit he's even got a photograph of it on his web site:

                    http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/vandalism.html

                    Note that the photo only shows a small part of this act of vandalism - the whole of the front of a building was vandalised.

                    The building was recently cleaned, and the council has put iron railings in front of it to prevent further acts of vandalism like this. Well done Banksy! You're so clever!

                    Wanker.
            • It doesnt show anyone something they arnt expecting.

              The people you're speaking of aren't going to see it as art anyways. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You simply can't show art to someone who doesn't want to see it. You can show them paint stains that took you hours to carefully render, and they'll treat it with about as much consideration as a mess left by a dog on the sidewalk.

              Anyone who _does_ appreciate such art would have appreciated it in a far less invasive forum as well.

              Don
          • Perhaps you should ask for more interesting places "designated" for art?

            Wouldn't that be like asking all the flashers to do their thing down at a nude beach? Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

        • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:47AM (#9548507)
          You know, spammers use arguments a lot like that. Reaching out to unwilling audiences and all. Even committing crimes in order to do so.

          Good company there.

          Congrats.

      • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:56AM (#9548296)
        Taggers, on the other hand, just like to put their name on shit for whatever reason - territory marking or some sort of rush that comes from vandalizing things.

        The description you're looking for is "pissing on fireplugs." That's all it is. Taggers are bladder-challenged dogs with spray cans.

      • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:4, Informative)

        by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:17AM (#9548887)
        You're absolutely right that there are two types of graffiti. I live in Barcelona, Spain, a city that is know for it's graffiti.

        Here the two types of graffiti are distinctly marked. I love the stuff that you're calling "artcrime" - some of the artists here are superb. And they are nearly always respectful - here it is very common to build temporary walls around building sites, and it is often these that the better artists use to create some create thier work.

        Then there are the taggers. These anti-social little bastards spray on everything, usually just scrawling their tags and often just spraying to vandalise. There are lots of beautiful old buildings, fountains and statues here and there is a big effort at the moment to clean the city up. It makes me really mad when an old building has been carefully (and expensively) restored and some little antisocial w*nkers have sprayed their tags all over it.

        One good thing - the cleanup teams here carry digital cameras and take photos of all the tags, so when they do finally catch the tossers they have enough evidence for a very serious penalty.

        • Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti (Score:5, Interesting)

          by legoburner ( 702695 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @04:07AM (#9549037) Homepage Journal
          They did that here in the UK in my town. The next step was to get all the schools to give the police photocopies of every single schoolbook that has got any sort of doodles on it. Lo and behold, almost every kid under 18 who had done grafitti had tagged all their schoolbooks and the police were able to tie most tags down to kids by name, and either give them warnings or punishments. The best bit was most actually stopped and grafitti dropped by at least 70%

    • Re:legal grafitti.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by johnrpenner ( 40054 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:36AM (#9548225) Homepage

      we have something of the same here in toronto.
      there are places which are known for their grafitti,
      and i've seen the artists work right on the 'designated'
      (if i can say that) buildings, frame and square it up nice
      and leave the buildings beside them alone (like apartments).

      there's a place that runs up behind queen street
      which we call 'grafitti alley' -- it always gets the best work,
      and there's a grafitti convention every summer, where the
      best artists come and do their stuff. when the pope came
      to visit, one of the people commisioned some of the
      youngsters to do their garage door -- and they did
      a nice job of guys playing basketball; another fellow
      did an incredible memorial to martin luther king and
      gandhi -- i see people going down there with cameras
      taking pictures, some of them are so good, and they're
      always changing. quite a number of the local restaurants
      have commissioned local grafitti artists to do the signs
      for their stores - hand painting, allows them to practice
      their craft -- a lot of the grafitti artists are quite good,
      if you give them a chance and a place to paint, why not
      help them be their best? when they're supported by the
      local community, these artists can also make a positive
      contribution to the urban landscape.

      best regards,
      j [earthlink.net]

    • Re:legal grafitti.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LighthouseJ ( 453757 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:05AM (#9548335)
      Down here in Richmond Virginia, there is a coffee shop owner that has a wall facing a major intersection in Richmond. Seeing as how art is rather popular here (VCU being *the* art school around, with art galleries and museums too), grafitti and art in general is all around. It's on buildings, box cars, people draw it on drawing pads, whatever. Anywho, the shop owner got in touch with some artists and got an agreement that the artists can write over the whole wall, preferably more at the top where it's more visible for free if they keep their personal tag visible but not obtrusive. It's good to find out about people embracing a part of the culture like that.

  • Smart (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:02PM (#9547663) Homepage Journal
    That sounds like a really smart idea. The only problem I can see is that you're limited in choice of color. Many "professional" graffiti artists like to create very colorful works that help "brighten" the area. I still haven't figured out if I *like* professional graffiti, or if it even helps improve the area, but new options for those who do like it are always welcome.

    • Re:Smart (Score:3, Interesting)

      by L7_ ( 645377 )
      Not neccesarily.

      A lot of people are using templates nowadays to paint thier political picture. Often taking a picture image, cutting out the cardboard and then just spraying the monocolor paint (usually black) over the template and you have your instant message. I would think that it is a lot more up-front work at home, but the application is faster and people generally don't have to spend night after night spraying on a wall for thier message to come across.

      Most graffiti that I see nowadays that isn't te

    • Plenty of colors for the dirty deed. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:08AM (#9548090) Homepage Journal
      The only problem I can see is that you're limited in choice of color.

      Don't you know that the solvent comes with all sorts of tints these days? Citron, and various berry flavor Vodka is available. There's even pepper vodka. It might be more subtle than the average commercial "art" but the obliteration message will still come through.

      I still haven't figured out if I *like* professional graffiti, or if it even helps improve the area ...

      Could it be more despicable? Nothing says "slum" like billboards and graffiti. Don't be fooled, it's always degrading and insulting when people stick their message in your face. The difference between a "legitimate" billboard and someone marking their pissing grounds is mostly the means available. In this case, the advertiser is being cheap and hoping to gain some kind of hoodlum credibility. I don't want to live or work around people with that kind of attitude.

  • Stuff that matters? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:02PM (#9547665)
    Did he have a mobile phone in his back pocket when he did this? Am I missing the part that relates to nerds?

  • The city was being reasonable, not Smirnoff (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:03PM (#9547676)
    Why does the article present this as some sort of travesty? It is what it is, and that is unlawful advertising on public space. To get rid of it would require public money to clean the rest of the overpass. It's graffiti, period. Why can't people just leave things alone, is it that hard to resist 'making your mark?'

    I mean come on, is this for real? We're supposed to feel sorry for this guy and Smirnoff? Gimme a break, they crossed the line and should be responsible.

    • Re:The city was being reasonable, not Smirnoff (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AMystery ( 725537 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:14PM (#9547758) Homepage Journal
      Except that he cleaned the wall, he didn't add anything to it, it just so happened that he cleaned in a pattern and then stopped, if you don't like it, you can keep cleaning the wall, since by definition, a clean wall can not be "disfigured" by the addition of more cleaning.

      I don't consider it vandalism or graffiti, it is an ad, but it is also a public service and unique. He should patent the idea and then sue the city whenever they try to clean a wall.

      • Re:The city was being reasonable, not Smirnoff (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I hope thats sarcasm. Yes, he cleaned the wall... so that it formed an advertisement. We see so many ads already, do you want ads on land that YOU own without YOU getting anything from it? City land is the property of the public and is worth protecting.

        Yes, sure, except cleaning the wall would cost the public money. Why shouldn't Smirnoff pay to continue the cleaning? Answer: They should.

        A public service? Are you off your rocker? It's a Smirnoff ad! I for one happen to find the beverage rather tasty - cre
        • Should people or companies be allowed to clean public areas of their own volition with no special permissions? Yes or no. If no, then fine, we need to get a permit system that allows you permission to clean public spaces. However I very much doubt anyone would seriously support this position.

          If people ARE allowed to go out and clean because they want to, or because someone pays them to (which is how it currently is) then you don't really have a right to tell them how. If I clean up a street but do a half a
        • If you RTFA

          1. The council requires a permit and presumably a fee for Advertising on their stuff eg a bridge or tunnel

          2. Once this was pointed out to Smirnoff, they did clean it all off (voluntarily?).

        • Re:The city was being reasonable, not Smirnoff (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jmichaelg ( 148257 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:33AM (#9548210) Journal
          If the property is worth protecting then the city should maintain it. I think the city is pissed off because the ads clearly show what a lousy job the city is doing maintaining the infrastructure.

          A simple way for both sides to win in this dustup would be to require the advertiser to completely clean the surface after some reasonable period has elapsed. That way the city gets cleaned up and the advertiser gets their message out.

      • Re:The city was being reasonable, not Smirnoff (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:23PM (#9547825)
        Except that he cleaned the wall, he didn't add anything to it, it just so happened that he cleaned in a pattern and then stopped

        The problem here is that the pattern itself conveys information independent of the medium. It doesn't matter much whether the pattern is formed from clean spots or spray paint.

        If instead of spam, the guy had used cleaner to write offensive obscene or racist messages, nobody would be trying to defend him on this technicality.

      • Intent (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dark Bard ( 627623 )
        One of the single biggest problems this country has is the letter of the law is far more important than the intent. It's one of the reasons we are so over regulated. Most lawyers make their livings by distorting the law to benefit their clients. "We all know what the law means but it says this." Criminals get off and corporations get away with acts that should be and in truth are criminal. It's all spin. Their intent was to deface the property to advertise their product. This is obviously illegal. Is it nes
      • Except that he cleaned the wall, he didn't add anything to it, it just so happened that he cleaned in a pattern and then stopped, if you don't like it, you can keep cleaning the wall, since by definition, a clean wall can not be "disfigured" by the addition of more cleaning.

        He caused an image to appear permanently (that is, for a non-brief period) on a wall that did not belong to him. He thought of a clever way to do it, but that is not the same thing as saying that he had the right to do it.

      • No, he didn't clean the wall at all. At least not to me. I'm very familiar with this whole line of thought because my wife and I get into it all the time. The argument results from a fundamental difference in what different people consider "clean" which I think has to do with a fundamental difference in mental processing.

        My wife would say that you're right, he cleaned the wall. I'd say you're wrong, he didn't clean it in any way. In fact, he may have made it more dirty. My wife judges "clean" by how

  • An ad by any other name . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:04PM (#9547683)
    It's funny, until you realize he's not doing grafitti, he's doing commercials.

  • Clean that stuff up... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:05PM (#9547690)
    In my opinion, it is perfectly fine to "graffiti" with cleaning materials, if these materials do not damage the surface being cleaned. That would basically urge the owner to finish the job and clean up the whole damn thing.

    You know, I believe in people taking initiative and helping out the community, and I also believe in taking responsibilities and powers away from government, so I think it would be wonderful if people would take a little bit of time once in a while and clean some random part of public property. It will only make the community a cleaner place to live. Ooooooh well.

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by EvanED ( 569694 ) <{evaned} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:06PM (#9547695)
    What do they mean by clean up?

    And "Smirnoff has removed the offending work - not because of the legality of the threat but by "its own volition" it said." but how did he remove it?

    Go dump more dirt on the place, or clean the rest up?

  • Do people even understand what they're asking? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:08PM (#9547707) Homepage Journal
    "Leeds City Council demanded the "clean-up" of a piece of graffiti"
    It's obvious in the write-up and again in the article that in fact the only clean bit of the wall is the graffiti, so how does the City Council propose that it be cleaned-up? Seriously. These are our elected representatives unable to form even the simplest of requests. You can't clean-up something that's specifically clean. Would they wish him to make it dirty again? It's very hard to replace years and years of dirt and grime. Does the city claim ownership of the dirt?

    The solution is, of course, for the City to keep everything clean, then this doesn't work. The (hidden) message to clean up the city is the one that the City really has the problem with because they can't claim that it is clean when a message 'written in clean' is easily readable.

    • Re:Do people even understand what they're asking? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by danmart ( 660791 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:44PM (#9547948) Homepage Journal
      you mods are kidding, right? A 5 for insightful?

      Should be -5 for painfully obtuse.

      A blatant advertisement on public property and you have trouble with the concept of removing it because it was made by a removal process rather than a painting process?

      Who cares how the advertisement was put there or how they had to remove it. It is not graffiti when it is an advertisement. And it is not anonymous when it is an advertisement, so the party responsible has to remove it.

      end of story. Please mod parent down.

      • Re:Do people even understand what they're asking? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Bobb Sledd ( 307434 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:26AM (#9548422) Homepage
        I don't think it's obtuse at all.

        I think it is quite clever creating a message by removing rather than adding.

        Whether you perceive it as an advertisement or not seems irrelevant to me; it's brilliant to me because it's a message that doesn't actually exist. It's the lack of the existence that makes you perceive it.

        So, please

        ABCDE GHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
        ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST VWXYZ
        AB DEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
        ABCDEFGHIJ LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

        ABCDEFGHIJKLMN PQRSTUVWXYZ
        ABCDE GHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
        ABCDE GHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

  • Do not screw with private property (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:08PM (#9547712) Journal

    Why do some people think that they have the right to deface property they don't own in any way?

    Some buildings benefit from a hundred years of "patina", and marring that affects their value.

    Not only that, but it reduces the presentability of the neighborhood, reducing property values for everyone.

    And it's just selfish, stupid, and ugly.

  • For those of you about to defend this... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PornMaster ( 749461 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:09PM (#9547721) Homepage
    I just hope that anyone about to defend this consider how much you hate what you think of as unwanted commercial messages all over the place. Besides pop-up blockers, many /. readers block banner ads and the like as well.

    It's not their place to be placing these messages. It's not a matter of betterment of public spaces, that's just a distraction from the fact that these are unwanted commercial messages placed where the advertiser wants them.

    -PM

  • Corporate vandalism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bushcat ( 615449 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:10PM (#9547723)
    You'd imagine the corporate world would have enough avenues for subjecting us to a continuous barrage of advertising without the need for graffiti, no matter how cleverly disguised as "cleaning", or illegally flyposting (hello Sony). Ads on TVs, in newspapers, on billboards, in trains, on the windows in trains, the bottom half of the "mind your fingers" warning on the train doors, the entire train, the front of the steps leading from the platform, stickers on the ticket gates, the windows of taxis, one side of my commuter pass, at the bottom of my shop receipts... it never stops. I dunno, my office is the most advert-free environment I see during the day.

  • Old news? (Score:5, Informative)

    by a.koepke ( 688359 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:10PM (#9547728)
    I was having a look around to see if there were any photos of this and found instead references to them doing this back in Oct 2003.

    http://www.bizhelp24.com/marketing/guerrilla-marke ting-examples.shtml#oct2003 [bizhelp24.com]

  • Graffiti tags (Score:5, Interesting)

    by whereiswaldo ( 459052 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:10PM (#9547732) Journal
    From the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003:

    Help with identifying 'tags': Tags are the distinctive signatures used by people who cause graffiti. The government has set up 'Operation Scrub-it', a partnership between the British Transport Police, Crimestoppers and transport providers. It aims to create a national database to record graffiti tags that would help prosecute frequent graffiti offenders. The reporting of graffiti is encouraged and there will be rewards for information leading to successful convictions. The public have been invited to help the authorities in identifying these tags and thus in fighting the graffiti problem.

    Better add Smirnoff to the list.

  • clean graffiti is graffiti (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:11PM (#9547734)
    But perhaps the state is now going too far - surely it is only a matter of time before rainfall is similarly targetted by the good guys.

    Sorry, but I agree that "clean graffiti" is still graffiti. No, this is not like the rain. If you don't believe me, then consider this situation: I make some "clean graffiti" in the shape of a swastika or making racial slurs. Are you offended, or are you happy that I'm cleaning a few selected parts of a gaffiti-covered wall? Personally, I would be offended if someone did this. So how do you these type of messages if you don't acknowledge that "clean graffiti" really is an unauthorized message (graffiti).

  • I did that once :) (Score:5, Funny)

    by MsWillow ( 17812 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:11PM (#9547735) Homepage Journal
    Maybe all those senseless vandals out there will now think twice in future before scrawling 'Clean Me' on the back of vehicles overdue for a wash...

    I did that to the hood of my dad's old '63 Pontiac, which hadn't been washed in ages. Being a clever grrl, I used a rag dipped in Turtle Wax, so as not to be destructive.

    Unfortunately, I didn't realize that the Turtle Wax would actually remove the dull surface of the paint, leaving the car forevermore to bear a (slightly bright) sign, quite legible from above, that read, "Wash me!"

    My dad didn't kill me, obviously, nor did he take the hint. I guess I knew it was a forlorn hope, when he epoxied a chunk of plywood to replace the rusted-out floor in the front passenger seat.

    He sure got his money's worth out of that car, though.

  • Graffiti on copper clad buildings using Brasso! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by speleolinux ( 227558 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:27PM (#9547839) Homepage
    When I was a student at Sydney University in the early 80's I belonged to a caving club (SUSS [usyd.edu.au]) that used to abseil down the face of the Unis Library during Student Orientation Week. This building was about 9 stories high and clad with copper - very nicely tarnished to an elegant hue. One day, when I was just getting out of my abseling gear at the bottom a guy from 'BUGAUP' (Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions, very active in the 80's in Australia, they used to write 'BUGGA UP' over walls) approached me with an interesting idea. This guy asked if I could abseil down and use Brasso to graffiti the copper cladding! Geez man, I did want to get a degree. Still it was tempting :-)

  • Nothing new to Portland, OR (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ISPpfy ( 635928 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:31PM (#9547867)
    For years kids used soapy water to wash the crud off the walls of the Sunset (Hwy 26) tunnels and express their feelings. One caveat: I haven't gone thorugh the tunnels in question for some time now, so I don't know if it hasn't gotten more destructive or not.
  • But perhaps the state is now going too far

    I'm sorry, but did I miss a meeting? Is this now an obligatory inclusion in all articles? Must all articles now declare the state is going too far, our rights are trounced, or privacy is at dire risk?!?

    I won't even attempt to argue the rights of property owners, the state's responsiblity to protect property, social mores, etc...

  • This happens around here all the time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fahrvergnugen ( 228539 ) <fahrv@@@hotmail...com> on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:46PM (#9547961) Homepage
    I live in an island community of about 70,000 people, accessible only by bridge & tunnel. The tunnels leading to and from the island are very old, and the white tile that lines them quickly grows covered in grime and soot. Every month or so a truck comes through and sprays everything down, but the dirt always collects again, seemingly thicker than before.

    The local grafitti artists & taggers, some of whom I'm assuming come in from Oakland (the other end of the tunnel) have taken to using squeegees and water to make their signs. They just clean their tag into the wall of the tunnel and presto! It's there, reflecting in shiny white the headlights of passing cars, twice as noticeable as another spray tag we're all used to filtering out.

    It's one of the reasons I love living here.

  • Obligatory Futurama (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:53PM (#9548007)
    LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?

    FRY: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree.

  • Anti-Social Behaviour Act.?!?!?!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:54PM (#9548013) Homepage Journal
    WTF is this? did I see a YRO about it? did I miss it?

    think the USA patriot act is scary, the title of that UK 'ACT' scares the poop out of me.

    does that cover
    smoking,
    dreadlocks
    Mohawks
    cursing
    smelling bad
    not kneeling to the police as they pass by
    anyone- info about same?

    • does that cover
      smoking,
      dreadlocks
      Mohawks
      cursing
      smelling bad
      not kneeling to the police as they pass by

      No. (IANAL)
      You can read about it [hmso.gov.uk]
      Overview
      PREMISES WHERE DRUGS USED UNLAWFULLY (closing 'em & stuff)
      HOUSING (Noise I guess)
      PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ( Truancy (parents can get taken to court for letting kids play truant)
      DISPERSAL OF GROUPS ETC. (This sounds "evil", but walking to work with a gang of 20 10yrs chucking stuff at you is not fun. You can't retailate else you will be in the dock).
      FIREARMS (Illegal in the UK anyway, I think it aso covers fakes)
      THE ENVIRONMENT (Noise, graffiti, fly-posting, Waste and litter)
      PUBLIC ORDER AND TRESPASS
      HIGH HEDGES (again sounds evil, but a cause of a number of neighberly wars)

      This is normal done with ASBOs (Anti-social behaviour orders), if you are a twat X number of times, you have an ASBO stapped on you (spray paint loads or something), then if you break the ASBO (they can be farily "open ended", such as going into the area your last victem lived, owning spray paint), you break that you get taken to court.

  • I agree with the mayor on this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Edmund Blackadder ( 559735 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:56PM (#9548022)
    After all is said and done all you have there is a vodka advertisement in a place where did not use to be a vodka advertisement. And that is just more mind pollution.

    It is just another thing that catches your attention, forces you to read it, etc, etc. That is why billboards, for example are considered pollution no matter how clean they are. Its not pollution in the strctest meaning of the word, but it does make the landscape look cheaper and dirtier.

    People say "it would just be dirty nevertheless". Well it sucks the city has not cleaned this stuff up, but even if the wall was covered with dirt, it will not be so bad, because it would be unform dirt, that just fades into the background, does not call attention to itself, and thus does not bother people.

    And also when you clean some letters into a wall, you are not really doing any cleaning. When someone cleans "wash me" into a dirty car, is the car any cleaner? Not really.

  • Put this in Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yuoidsfg ( 787136 ) on Sunday June 27, 2004 @11:58PM (#9548040) Homepage


    In deciding whether or not you support people "cleaning" their message onto property that does not belong to them, ask yourself the following question::

    How would you like it if representatives of Coke, Smirnoff, Pepsi, etc - kept their eyes open for your dirty vehicles, house windows, and actively posted their messages

    i.e. "buy our products, or at least clean up your stuff"

    all over your property? Would you say that it is your own damn fault for not keeping your stuff cleaner, or would you protest?

  • not prosecuted for defacement (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PsiPsiStar ( 95676 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:15AM (#9548122)
    from the article

    But Leeds City Council insists his work is illegal because any advertiser needs a permit. The Crown Prosecution Service says he may have been in breach of last year's Anti-Social Behaviour Act.

    In short, he isn't being targeted for 'defacement' but for using a public space for commercial ends.

    Similarly, if I go downtown and try to sell things on the street, even if I cause no disturbance whatsoever, I can still be held accountable for performing a commercial act in a space that I'm not allowed to do so.

    It's a shitty kind of law that needlessly restricts freedom. I'd love to have more street vendors selling without the high overhead that the local shops do, provided that they're not too obnoxious. But the local gov was following the law, however stupid that law was. Maybe he could get a liscense to advertise?

  • Giuliani on SNL (Score:5, Funny)

    by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @12:23AM (#9548161)
    I think Giuliani skit on SNL was the best solution. It was a Public Service Announcement claiming that rather than painting over graffiti tags, they would simply stencil "sucks" after the taggers name. For repeat offenders, they would use a professional artist and match the style.

  • reverse graffiti but not as advertising (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RalfM ( 10406 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @01:38AM (#9548473) Homepage

    See also this campaign [rca.ac.uk] to highlight smog and pollution effects, where messages were made by cleaning dirty (not graffitied, just plain old dirty) walls around London.

  • UK graffiti (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @03:32AM (#9548934)
    One of the most notorious examples was "It's Grim Up North" sprayed on most of the M1 motorway bridges so it could be seen by northbound traffic. Questions in the Houses of Parliament and talk of a North-South economic divide (as if they hadn't realised).

    It was actually thought to have been a publicity stunt by sometime dance artists The KLF - the same guys that set fire to 1 million UKP on a Scottish island, because they could afford to.

  • 'Clean me' (Score:3, Funny)

    by Espen ( 96293 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @04:23AM (#9549071)
    Around here shouldn't that be:
    apt-get clean

  • I hereby patent... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @04:28AM (#9549083)
    Advertising in yellow snow.

    Pink and green text is an option if you supply the pickled beetroot and asparagus spears.

  • Vodka (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zerOnIne ( 128186 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @06:56AM (#9549461) Homepage
    Does it disturb anyone else that Smirnoff is doing this to reach the "teenage market"?

    • Re:Vodka (Score:3, Insightful)

      by acb ( 2797 )
      The drinking age in Britain is 18, which still puts it in the "teenage market".

  • Georgia Tech (Score:4, Funny)

    by gatzke ( 2977 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @08:25AM (#9549708) Homepage Journal
    Something similar was done at Georgia Tech to the statue of Heisman.

    Some studious student took bronze polish to the old statue, giving the man a nice shiny bikini.

    Technically, they didn't damage the stature, just polished it selectively.

    Eventually, Tech put some brown stuff over the bikini lines, but you can still see the outline of his previous selection if you look real close.

  • pressure washers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Perianwyr Stormcrow ( 157913 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @10:48AM (#9550775) Homepage
    I remember writing all kinds of great stuff on concrete with a cheap pressure washer when I was a kid. It didn't fade for weeks either, and that was just water out of a hose.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Close