Comments on: Daily question: Reverse graffiti

By: Daily question: Pay to read aloud books? « counternotions

Daily question: Pay to read aloud books? « counternotions — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:33:00 +0000

[...] Feb 11, 09 If cleaning up existing urban dirt by removing it artistically can be considered a crime, why not reading [...]

By: Brrnrrd

Brrnrrd — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:19:58 +0000

That’s ridiculous! I love how they had to say ‘illegal advertising’ – of course, residents shouldn’t be offended by the tripe that costs millions. Oh no. We love that! I am not a resident in Leeds, but I think this applies to any city. Councils need to get a grip.

By: adrilla

adrilla — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:18:40 +0000

This was linked to my blog post of the effort in SF, so I figure I’d chime in. I find to be farcical for someone to be condemned for “strategic cleaning”. As noted, if someone is truly unhappy with the work’ the way to erase it would be to simply clean the rest of the wall, correct? There’s no damage and it isn’t offensive imagery, only a harsh reminder of the effects that pollution produces and the ineffectiveness of government to control or clean it and to vilify someone because they’re pointing that out is just plain stupid. It’s simply the powers that be, trying to protect their “flawless” image and ironically, damaging it further by doing so.

By: All Things Jui » Now It’s Art?

All Things Jui » Now It’s Art? — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:39:32 +0000

[...] to call graffiti found on the Berlin Wall art, and selective wall cleaning to be graffiti (link to see reverse graffiti). Even though there are historical context with the graffiti on the Berlin Wall, couldn’t [...]

By: JonKepler.com - Blog

JonKepler.com - Blog — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:45:00 +0000

Weekend Edition X: Links of the Week…

Here are a few interesting articles that I’ve collected over the past week….

By: Jon Kepler

Jon Kepler — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:35:58 +0000

Environmental damage?! Come on! Don’t get me wrong – I hate graffiti, but some of these claims are crazy. Did anyone see the recent news story about a businessman who cleaned a public washroom out of disgust and billed the city $150 for it? Maybe this guy should try billing the city. It would be quite entertaining.

By: Kontra

Kontra — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:47:06 +0000

Stephen Pace : "I seem to recall that IBM hired a company to do some reverse graffiti" Yes, IBM tried that in Boston, NYC, SF and Chicago. But it was of the paint spray kind, not reverse graffiti. Your point begs the question, however, as to what would happen if reverse graffiti were of a commercial nature, in whole or in part.

By: Stephen Pace

Stephen Pace — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:37:46 +0000

As long as it isn’t obscene, I don’t think he should be forced to ‘reclean’ it. However, I seem to recall that IBM hired a company to do some reverse graffiti for them a few years back, the end result of which was the city required them to clean the entire affected area and refrain from future activity. This is the disadvantage of name brands using the approach because it is easy for the authorities to figure out who originally commissioned the work and (for right or wrong) hold them accountable.

Keep in mind, power washers can easily do damage to surfaces, so if he damaged property using this approach (concrete work, brick mortar, underlying paint or decals), I’d hold him responsible for repair.

Otherwise, I have 100% zero tolerance for graffiti, especially since I not long ago had to powerwash my fence and nearby sidewalk.

By: chirax

chirax — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:23:14 +0000

Ahha vandalism or not I Love it.

By: Ziad

Ziad — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:56:09 +0000

It all comes out in the wash.