I wrote an article here, posted it, and then folks the article refers to contacted me with criticisms. And honestly, those criticisms are fairly accurate, and kinda cause the article as written to fall apart. Oh well, can’t win em all.
Essentially, an advertising company [Interference Inc.] pulled a dumb stunt, and the police thought that the stunt was a potential act of terrorism. Then members of the media erroneously claimed that the stunt had been pulled by an art group [Graffiti Research Lab]. Therefore I made the mildly humorous stretch of claiming that the art group had been “accused of terrorism.” Which was an irresponsible joke to make, really. Sorry GRL.
The commenter also wanted me to make clear that there was no connection between Interference Inc and GRL. I thought that I’d made that clear, but I may as well make that explicit. Interference Inc. are a sleazy advertising company that makes money with their “edgy”, sometimes illegal advertising campaigns. GRL is an open-source art/grafitti/technology group that makes zero money with their projects.
There we go.
So we’ll jump to the final, non-irresponsible part of the article.
This brings us to the point of advertising vs. grafitti, vandalism vs. art vs. commerce. And rather than try to pontificate on that issue, I’ll just point you towards this video on the subject by GRL and comrades the Anti-Advertising Agency.
And while I’m at it, here’s a link to the God Bless Grafitti Coalition.
2 Comments »
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>