Making a Splash

Easily slotted in the "what took you so long?" category of editorials for being a year too late, I'm willing to give Adbusters a pass as Sarah Nardi's commentary on the Splasher of the New York City Street Art Scene asks some important questions. Even if it doesn't come anywhere near close to answering them.

Covering a series of vandalisms of street art pieces by some of the biggest artists in the scene in Street Art is Dead, she asks whether the perpetrator, the Splasher, really did have a point to make.

From late 2006 to early 2007, the Splasher targeted works by Swoon, Sheppard Fairey, Banksy and others around New York, earning their name by splashing different colored paints across works by artists they viewed as taking the street art scene in a corporate or gallery-driven direction. Descending from graffiti, where turf wars are hardly uncommon, you would think the artists involved would have been able to handle the defacement of their work. Essentially, it's vandalism of vandalism after all, yet the New York Street Art scene got itself in a tizzy trying to figure out who the Splasher was with vitriolic rants and insults just as inane as the Marxist manifestos the Splasher left behind at the scenes of their crimes on crimes.

Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoy street art. I think it's creative, sometimes ugly, sometimes beautiful and oftentimes important in a world where legally only corporations get to decide what images block out our skyline or vandalize our city streets. But, to me, half the point is that it's mutable and exists only for a brief period of time. The elements, city works and other artists will inevitably take a quick and heavy toll on any piece thrown up by an artist. The Splasher phenomenon only serves to highlight that fact in my mind. And while it must be hard for any artist to see his or her work defaced, the responses from Sheppard Fairey and Faile about the phenomenon show an amazing level of detachment from where their art form descended from.

While the anti-corporate message of the Splasher was over-the-top, the act itself does make a point. Graffiti used to be something that was dangerous. Now it's something that upper-middle-class art students go and do for pleasure as a means of beefing up portfolios on their way into art school or selling works at the gallery. And, I've known plenty who've done both. In an art form created as a rebellious act, this about as establishment as it comes. Even Banksy, whose work I love, put together an event a few weeks back with Eurostar, a European railway company. How defiant of the system are you when you're receiving corporate sponsorship? I'm not saying it's wrong - otherwise I wouldn't have written about it in the first place. I'm not against artists becoming successful. But it is an important question that no one has ever succeeded in answering despite how many artists, musicians and writers have crossed a line over the years from being revolutionary agitators to corporate sellouts.

Agree with the Splasher or not, but the whole series of events serves to remind that no scene is incorruptible or above these issues.