Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Boo to the Moo | Main | Alanis Morissette Delocator »
Axing corporate graffiti
In Chicago, pretty much anyone has the right to remove graffiti from private property, thanks to a citywide initiative known as Give Graffiti the Brush. So last week, a trio of champions used the rule to their advantage and painted over a graffiti-style billboard for Axe, the perfume for boys. [video clip]
Ed Marszewski, Elisa Harkins, and Matt: we love you.... though naturally not everyone feels the same. As Ed and the gang were putting final touches on the paint job, a rep from Axe's ad agency, called Critical Massive, showed up, livid. The owner of the building had a litany of complaints as well; many of them even make sense.
But if you ask me, the Axe team should be grateful. They've gone to great lengths to earn inner-city street cred. According to Ed, Critical Massive (not to be confused with a certain grassroots activist movement) hired a homeless man to pose next to the billboard in photographs to lend it that "extra gritty touch." And Critical Massive actively promotes its work with "top graffiti artists."
Thus, Ed, Elisa, and Matt actually did Critical Massive a favor: by painting over the billboard, they made it more authentic. Of course, their actions also mean that people will no longer see the ad, but as any real graffiti artist will tell you, those are the breaks.
(Thanks, Tree Johnson and Rob Walker)
Update: here's a followup to this story.
Posted by carrie on 06/09/2005 | Permalink
Comments
Some artists in chicago came up with a response to the 'Give Graffiti the Brush' campaign, called Give Graffiti the Thumbs Up.
Posted by: Steve Lambert | Jun 9, 2005 3:44:38 PM
Desecrating ads makes the city dirty, I'd rather have clean, professionally made ads on my commute than painted crap. Besides, don't hate on Axe, it helps my mojo.
Posted by: Jeff Schell | Jun 10, 2005 10:43:43 AM
That's just lame. Its cool to be anti-corporate, but at least recognize when people are trying to be original. These people were actually adding to the area around them and now those little reactionist weenies have made a mural into an eyesore. Seriously, stop screwing with people who try to do nice things for the city, or at least pick your battles a little more wisely. There's a perfectly good McDonalds right down the street from there, go pick on them.
Posted by: Joe Lambert | Jun 10, 2005 11:50:56 AM
"Nice things for the city?" You might be ill-informed, but this "mural" is not a public beautification project, by any means. It's a damned body spray ad that manipulates a form of public art into a crass, space-invading billboard! Kudos to the Lumpen kids for giving these guys a taste of their own. It's back up, by the way. Check it out for yourself, and let me know if you still think its such a nice thing.
Posted by: Evan Woodward | Jun 10, 2005 12:36:11 PM
Who the F made these folks judge jury and executioner?? Do they even live nearby??
I've got no problem with it - I see it everyday and live within 200 feet.
"It's a corporation so it's gotta go", right? Well learn to think for yourself rather than live by some anti-corporate motto. Everything's so gd black and white with these people. Gotta "fight the fight", right? "If you're not against, you're for", right? Well, no. There is such a thing as a middle ground in this gentrification battle of WP - regardless, it sure as F wasn't up to these jokers to make the decision for us all.
Why haven't they scaled the bulding at the north corner of Paulina and Milwaukee to paint over the Heiniken ad?? That one's been there for years and no one's had a problem with that one - why? b/c it adds to the neighborhood - for 3 years when I woke up and that was the first thing I saw - it's a landmark of the Sneaker District.
Regardless of one feels about this, I'm pissed these people made this decision for me - and upon re-reading my above remarks, I'm pretty sure made that clear.
Posted by: Johan | Jun 10, 2005 1:03:38 PM
I don't understand your backlash. Graffiti, as an artistic tradition, is public art that can be written anywhere and, and this is crucial here, WRITTEN OVER at any point. These kids DO live in the neighborhood, and they decided to up the ante, just as graffiti artists have competed for urban space for the past 20+ years. I'm unsure why you are outraged at the Lumpen kids for "making this decision for you" when this bullshit corporation made the first decision to put this crappy fake art in your face in the first place. That wall used to be a place to post bills. Everyone used it. I used it to promote shows. Public art is war, and if these folks can't deal with that, they should find another artistic tradition to bastardize.
Posted by: Evan Woodward | Jun 10, 2005 1:29:48 PM
I hear you. I went on to the poop board and got some more color - I know now who the people involved are and theat they weren't doing this just b/c they were bored. It's a very interesting argument that I can now see more of both sides of...
As I thought about it, I realized what the crux of my stance is - I don't see this as graffiti coming from the suits in upstate NY (or whereever Axe is from) - I see it more as local art, and that it needed to be (and is) viewed as removed from the corporation. (sure their brand is on there, but it's small and the joke's on them - this won't be viewed as an advertisment and sure won't get anyone to hop over to Wahlgreens for it - it's just a platform for local art.)
Anyway - I grew so fond of the Heineken piece at Paulina/Milw over the years I lived there, and not once did I really associate that mural with beer sales or execs in Germany - nope, it was a part of the 'hood - and I haven't had an imported beer in the last 8 years, so... the joke's on them - the 'hood took from you (Heineken Corp) the platform you gave, and created local art, which is, in effect, removed from the corp. Yes, the logo/brand is there - but we're not buying it.
All this said - I apologize for lashing out, I suppose - but I hate people deciding what is good for me, and it invokes that kind of reaction from me everytime. My regret is that I didn't take the time for perspective and learning the situation before I wrote. I was standing up for the artist.
Posted by: Johan | Jun 10, 2005 2:22:27 PM
This is interesting - over on Wooster Collective they are following up on the story and wrote this:
"What's happened in Chicago is that some of the graf artists are now doing commercial work on the streets and some of them aren't. The artists that aren't doing the commercial work are taking to the streets buffing the work of the artists who are. This has created an all out war on the streets of Chicago as artists are turning against other artists based on their decision of doing commerical work."
For one, I doubt there is an 'all out war' amongst graffiti artists in Chicago, but besides that, this comment sort of misses the point. The battle here isn't among the artists who do commercial work vs. artists who wont. The battle is about the use of public space in a community - citizens vs. advertisers. Who has the right to display visual content and why? And how does one aquire that right? Who has the right to remove content (especially given the laws in Chicago)? What is public space and what is private? Not to mention the blatant co-option of hip-hop/graffiti culture...
I love that the Lumpen folks were smart enough to do this. It further forces the issue, making people think about the blurred lines between art, 'vandalism', advertising, and the use of public space. Most importantly, I hope it causes people who haven't yet, to pick a side and get involved.
Posted by: Steve Lambert | Jun 10, 2005 5:07:35 PM
My reference to a "war" between street artists and corporate artists was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek acceptance of the Axe company's position that their artistry is as valid as any other form of public art.
Whether or not the "artist" who created this advertisement came from an "authentic" graffiti background is irrelevant at this point. It's his function, not his form, that determines his role. Something like this is tantamount to betrayal of the remaining legitimating standards of the art and public space. You can't take that lightly, as an artist or as a citizen!
Posted by: Evan Woodward | Jun 10, 2005 9:00:24 PM
update: the ad was redone and someone now wrote "OFF LIMITS" in large, ugly letters in grey spray paint. Now it's really an eyesore and is nothing but vandalism. Who the F thought they were doing justice with that act? I sure hope it wasn't anyone involved in this "war" of street/corp artists because now it's a disgrace.
Posted by: Johan | Jun 11, 2005 4:45:07 PM
I'm sure you're impressing yourselves by throwing around buzzwords like "public space" and "art as war," but I'm yawning. Grafitti blows. It's ugly and it's misplaced. Put your fucking art on a fucking easel, not on a wall where I have no choice but to look at it. Grafitti is nothing but a nuisance, and if you don't believe me, go to Europe where the "artists" have desecrated many gorgeous old buildings because they "live in the neighborhood" and have the "right" to "express themselves" too.
Posted by: tom sherman | Jun 13, 2005 12:22:45 AM
hey guys. thanks for making comments.
this was the most flame free message board that i have read re: the issues surrounding the action.
we are glad we can contribute to the info wars.
-edmar (for lumpens)
Posted by: edmar | Jun 13, 2005 5:34:01 AM
axe is one of the creepiest chemical "scents" i've ever experienced. my husband started using it several months ago at the same time that I started to develop a severe respiratory problem. I started to have trouble swollowing and my throat started to itch on both the outside and the inside. Since I have seasonal allergies, and I had recently attending the Presidential Innauguration in DC where I filmed people being pepper sprayed by the police... i assumed that I had been exposed to the chemical warfare agents of the state.
The throat rash and itchiny and throat irritation persisted, and then I began to develop a rash along the seems of my clothing. I went to a regular doctor, and then to an herbalist, who both advised me to cut certain foods out of my diet, soaps out of my clothes washing, and deoderants and other body care products out as well.
After a month or two, my rash finally began to clear up. Then my husband decided to start using Axe again and my rash came back full force! That was the product that was making my body react like it was suffering from chemical weapons!
way to go for covering up their ad! way to go for public art! way to go for counter-advertising their advertising! keep up the good work!
Posted by: TK | Jun 16, 2005 12:12:36 AM
"Thus, Ed, Elisa, and Matt actually did Critical Massive a favor: by painting over the billboard, they made it more authentic."
giving the gift they could never give themselves.
Posted by: jummy | Jun 16, 2005 4:52:19 PM
I don't know why you are picking on this artist and property when there are so many others.You live in a society founded on capitalism. This whole ordeal is nothing new and adds nothing whatsover.Have you been living in a box? There's ads up and down the street and all over Chicago and across the world.What about the other billion ads from companies of all sizes trying to sell us things we really don't need but creating an economy where people gain employment from those companies to earn a living to buy things they don't really need? It's an endless vicious cycle but this machine has been running for a very long time. Move to the wildernesss if you can't deal with it or at least quit wasting your time and energy on this shit. You don't have to buy this crap or any other crap and maybe you use a product that others feel is crap, so what? And maybe you like the art and others hate the ad, so what? Graffiti, art, an ad?-who cares it was done with permission and up to them.Don't you have more important things to do with your time than waste it on this stupid shit?
Posted by: Heyjoe | Jun 16, 2005 10:22:41 PM
"Hypocrytical,Absurd, Idiotic?"
What about some comments and questions at the poop blog that were not answered?..........................
Edmar's Lumpen got paid advertising by the large corporate American Apparrel that creates "sexist" ads that your so against? Very hypocritical.
The silver room/red bull graffiti ad one block down the street that's been around long before the Axe ad with also a sexy animated girl but you say that is ok? Absurd and hypocritical.
The artist or call him an ad painter, got permission, but you and anybody else doesn't need permission, right?Why don't you ask to put some art up with permission? Idiotic, absurd, and hypocritical.
Gee, I don't know why my friend, Mike, would be so outraged.Ok, maybe some of his comments were a little out there but so were many of yours and he was very upset. I know he has offered free space to artists. His girlfriend and stepson are also artists. He likes artists and is a good guy so quit bashing him and try making him into somerthing he is not. You don't know him. He didn't do anything to any of you and was just trying to help the ad painter and clean up the property a bit and this costs money just like Lumpen and other things cost money.Now he has to worry about the safety of his family and the property he worked hard for that I am helping him out with.The ad will be gone in a couple of months while others and Edmar/Lumpen will keep corporate ads long term.Then what?
Posted by: heyjoe | Jun 16, 2005 11:27:30 PM
heyjoe,
I don't believe anyone here is attacking the property owner. We're all looking at this and considering different aspects.
Permission and payment might make what the businesses do legal, but legal and ethical are often different things. In this case, even the legal aspect is in question due to the 'Give Graffiti The Brush" laws.
So was the Axe ad ethical? Is using graffiti as an ad medium ethical? Is the way advertising shapes public spaces and our everyday lives ethical? And was what Lumpen did ethical? Clearly that's in debate.
Posted by: Steve Lambert | Jun 17, 2005 12:32:44 PM
Surely Steve you know that this is not public space and there is no question permission is needed for private property and even public property. Just like at Cubs food, the park or elsewhere where there are permission granted display cases or when a community art group asks for permission to paint a wall. This is really about permission and people's rights.People just can't go painting or altering public or private property because they want to without permission simply because it's their opinion that they can or don't like the way something looks. Maybe someone else doesn't like what they would like to do.The City has decision over city public spaces and property owners have decision over their space.Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?Do you want chaos when everyone can do anything at any time be it paint, destruction or whatever? Why should Edmar and his group get to decide for us?Would you like it if they decided on you car or home?I do think the city does neeed to make their program more clear but this is no excuse for the damage done.
heyjoe
Posted by: heyjoe | Jun 17, 2005 7:43:14 PM
Hey, when you narrow it down to permission, sure it's clear. That's easy to understand. If you want to know if I agree with you on that, I do.
What's more interesting to me is who has permission, why, and what effect it has on people. That's more complicated. Axe has permission 'cause they have money to organize a campaign. The property owner has permission 'cause he has money to own property. But the everyday people who live in the neighborhood and have to be confronted with the ad on a daily basis don't have permission to change the surroundings in which they live. That's how it works. I don't think that's right, but that's how it works. You ask why Edmar should decide for us what gets removed. I ask why Axe and the advertising industry, and the property owner should decide for us what gets put in public space in the first place.
For some perspective, in the world of graffiti and street art, if you work gets painted over by another artist, your work wasn't respected by the community. It may be anarchistic, people don't ask permission, but there is system of values. It seems the Axe ad tried to be a part of the community by being at street level, using graffiti artists, etc, but wasn't respected enough in the community to last.
Posted by: Steve Lambert | Jun 18, 2005 3:16:06 AM
Steve, you seem like the most reasonable of all people posting from all the blogs/discussion boardss, so i will respond. Once again, this is NOT public space even though it can be seen from public way as all things outside do.It is not community space,public space, a social ownership, etc. It is a captalitic and democratic society where there is ownership, rights, and a freedom of choice.I know Mike thinks that Edmar should have called him to talk about this and share a meaningful discussion including possibly the local community instead of all this. This was Edmar's choice and decision to act this way- imagine if we all decided to act this way on everything.rules,laws, an attempt at a civilized society is out the window.
The owners of the property be it private buildings or the city of public space by elected officials have the decision because that is how our society is.One can either petition their political leaders for change or move to another society.Advertising and Business is part of our society and mainly because of competition, businesses will advertise and advertise in new ways or by incorporating things that have proven to sell. Market studies, smell, sound, graffi, sex, touch, color, financial and eduicational backrounds, etc etc. The local bars do it just as corporate america does it but the bigger corps have more resources and doctorates in marketing and business to sell in ways that go even beyond the Disney approach that is now often copied. I don't like it either but this is life in a capitalistic world. Why should we have to look at the American apparel ad on the back of Edmar's lumpen put out in public spaces? Why should we have to hear a commercaial when we turn on the radio? You get the point is that advertising feeds business of all levels and aspects like it or not and this keeps people employed and able to spend.Sometimes large and small companies also support art, community and charity events and they are sought out because they have the money and will get advertising and free publicity out of it.This is the system of things and even though its not perfect, it's the system that dominates the world because it works to great degree even with all its faults.A women and her little girl were outside the ad the other day and it turns out the mother works for the Axe company. She may not even like the product but it puts food on the table.This is the nature of things.Many of us have had jobs for companies we don't like to pay the bills.
So, I just don't get why Mike and the temporary Axe ad to help the artists and building appearance out, was singled out.I don't get why he is attacked (I am referring to Lumpen/theconversation and heaven gallery's poop blogs) for selling out or ridiculed for being upset and trying to protect his property and the artist's hard work irregardless if you happen to like it or not or agree or don't agree.Lumpen ( a social justice/political commentary rag) really sold out completely by doing the Amer apparrel ad but then points the finger at mike and the artist for accepting the temporary Axe ad. They say the more permanant graffiti red bull ad by the silver room is different and attack mike and the artist when it is really the same thing. They say they somehow have a right to paint over the axe ad/painting without permission when in fact it is against the laws our elected politicians have made. Ido think the city needs to clarify its graffiti program and stance but this is no excuse. Attack all the graffit ads or change the law or have a discussion but don't single this ad and man's property out.That's just plain wrong.There happens to be alot of people who support mike,me being one, and prefer the ad for now over layers of flyers and stickers that constantly have to be cleaned up.On the other hand,I don't like alot of ads in the neighborhood but wouldn't think of going after that property without expecting retaliation, arrest, fines, or whatever.And I think they have the right to choose and I can choose to live here or do business here or not or to buy or not buy something.I don't get why we are singling out the Axe ad when there are millions of ads.There are many in the graffiti community who may not agree with the ad but repect the work in not being a "hater" and with repect to freedom for the artists to do their thing.Many graffiti artists are against Edmar for doing this. This wasn't fellow graffiti artists deciding but a couple of artits making a political statement and deciding for us all instead of talking it over or some other way to make their case which is still unclear to us where exactly they stand which is ludicrous.First it's about the city graffiti program, then about corporate ads then about the artist and property owner then the silver room red bull ad is ok even though it uses graffit and a corporate product and then bilboards in general and then its ok to use the corporate Amer aparrel ad because they market the image of being a different, better corporation then and so on......Where do they/we draw the line and who decides that line is the real question with no clear answer. which is precisely why this whole thing is a joke. Do you think 3,5 or even 20 make up a community? What about all the others and ther voice?Would it make me the community if I painted over the Tony's sports ad or silver room/red bull that have graffiti? God I hope the community doesn't paint over one of my ads without others input,not only mine, but the rest of the community! It seems to me that these 3 artists were not respectful to all this and THEY should not be respected enough in the community to last.Just my 2 cents.This whole thing is f'n nuts...a mad mad planet with more important things to worry about!Mike is right, i gotta stop looking at this that way I won't react anymore and get on with those more important things.Good luck with your continued discussion and peace,
heyjoe
Posted by: heyjoe | Jun 18, 2005 8:01:21 PM
Also, steve if you or anyone else want to put something else up on the space you coulld call and ask for permission or what the situation is.I know mike has been contacted by artists willing to buy the bilboard out in order to "sell" their art that surely someone will not like. He offered the front for free until new windows are put in, refusing payment but they declined.He is now considering other artists work, including mine, that surely will be attacked by flyers, stickers or paint or other so called art because people don't like it, so this will never end.As they say, you can't please all people all the time.And there is only so much space but many other spaces to look at!
Posted by: Heyjoe | Jun 18, 2005 8:14:48 PM
someone lost it.
Posted by: anon | Jun 19, 2005 4:50:01 PM
Some researched, for-real, true, ain't lying, cold-hard facts for you:
-The city claims it DOES NOT distinguish among signage, murals, advertising, or tags. In their eyes, graffiti is graffiti.
-The only way any art or "art," in the case of this Axe ad, *technically* gets to stay up is if the owner of the building contacts the city and asks if it can stay.
-If the owner of the building does not contact the city, the city will notify the owner and basically say, We're gonna remove that unless you say otherwise. The city has erased countless old murals--commissioned murals, not tags--along Milwaukee starting in Logan Square down past Elston using this logic.
-The owner of the building in question did not notify the city that he wanted that piece to stay up.
-Graffiti busters regularly goes around that neighborhood, and hasn't touched that piece.
-The city has a campaign encouraging citizens to get rid of graffiti in their neighborhoods. You can walk into your alderman's office and request free paint to paint over it.
Keep these things in mind as you argue about public/private space and the right to augment/deface/beautify it.
Posted by: faq | Jun 20, 2005 1:59:56 AM
Read the second story about this online.
Posted by: faq | Jun 20, 2005 2:03:22 AM
heyjoe: Your rant about "capitalistic society" and comparison of the Axe ad to a radio commercial misses the mark. Radio commercials are the cost of listening to otherwise free radio. What do I get for free in exchange for viewing the Axe ad? Outdoor advertising - though almost completely accepted - is an intrusion into the public space, even if it technically takes place on private property.
Why was the Axe ad attacked instead of others? Because it tried to co-opt the graffiti ethos. Apparently Axe wanted the cache of the streets without risking street acceptance. Tough break.
Posted by: Charles | Jun 20, 2005 3:15:24 PM
Forgive me if I repeat what has already been said. I only have two points, one postive and one critique.
1. Intiatially it was big businesses that funded NYC Mayor Koch's idea to clean graffitti off the streets. These white kids are only using this original idea against big business. Which is a good thing.
2. If the intention was to preserve Graff culture and keep graff in the power of the urban youth, then what should have been done and would have been much more impacting on a social level would be to make a graffitti call to go to war with these corporate advertisings (not just corporate assimiliated graffitti). That's right, cold buff the suckas. Just cross them out and tag up "toy" right on top of billboards! The artisist who is best known for the graff attacks on corporate advertisments gets to be called King or Queen of Graffitti, setting a social trend.
Because as of now its just white leftist taking matters into their own hands, and not letting the actual culture take initiative. Work with the graff artists, dont make decisions for them and in their name.
There are no short cuts to this movement.
Good target, weak tactic.
Big ups to the Hip Hop Nation!!!!
Posted by: Dragon X | Jul 17, 2005 7:03:24 AM
If axe paid for the campaign and someone else destroyed it then the vandals should have to pay for the damages. These 3 people have became graffitti artists by spraying over the ad. I think that i may have my home painted into a mural by graf artists. Let someone try to vandalize my house.
Posted by: Bridget | Sep 1, 2005 6:50:28 PM
You are all a bunch of fucking babies. Graffiti is real, raw and pure, not to be co-opted by companies. Please, commit suicide, but write in a bill board or something thats not your first.
Posted by: Aunty Christ | Jan 7, 2007 8:50:24 PM
Axe's graffiti wasn't art. It wasn't a statement other than "buy this product". I really support what the boys did in covering it up. With all the advertisements being shoved at us from every direction, when a large corporation attempts to ingratiate itself into an 'urban lifestyle' like this, under the premise of artwork, it's disgusting. The boys had every right to cover it up, under the law and under decency.
Posted by: Kate | Nov 27, 2007 5:33:11 PM
