Monday, we noted that the police have arrested a man accused of tagging Wallingford and many other neighborhoods with a spraypainted “Zeb”. We’ve always had a bit of short-fuse for tagging, a form of graffiti in which the practitioner spraypaints or marks his name over huge numbers of pieces of private property. The most infuriating aspect of tagging is that city law requires the property owner to bear the cost of the removal of the mark and will fine the owner stiffly if he or she doesn’t comply quickly.
But no, the point of this post is not to re-open that “is graffiti / tagging art” debate. That particular horse, dead though she may be, has been flogged clean to the bone. Instead, we wanted to highlight a comment Dane left on our Zeb post:
I don’t like graffiti, and feel the same about billboards, which look like corporate graffiti to me. how come taggers get jail time for forcing us to look at their brands but billboard advertisers get profit for putting their brands in our faces?? I think it was Mother Jones who said something like: I asked a man in prison once how he happened to be there and he said he had stolen a pair of shoes.
I told him if he had stolen a railroad he would be a United States Senator.
It’s easy to answer Dane if we stick to the literal, but there are some interesting gray areas. For example, the Adult Swim ad that was painted on the side of the Pizza Eleni / Slave to the Needle building at 45th and 4th Ave (photo at right), we were told, technically violated the law, too. Billboard advertising is limited to certain areas, and, in this case, would only have been legal if Adult Swim were operating out of the building on which the sign had been painted (again, so we’re told…we’re no legal scholar).
That sign has since been removed, but there’s a new bit of decoration on the west side of the same building:
No, obviously, while there are no brand names, it doesn’t take a college student to identify the can as PBR and the art as part of the PBR-sponsored ad campaign. A billboard from the same campaign, this one designed by Seattle artist Scott Ricketts, can be see on 45th and Roosevelt, above the Texaco.
So PBR paid to have something painted on a wall. Is it art? Is it advertising? Does it matter?
Again, you won’t find any legal experts here at Wallyhood, but we were told that the absence of the brand name is critical to keeping this legal, especially for an establishment that sells beer. In fact, the addition of a single additional beer sign in the Express Market window would be enough to tip the balance.
Our own politics run anti-corporate, sometimes knee-jerk so, so part of us wants to decry this encroachment of mass market advertising into our fold, a wolf in artist’s clothing. On the other hand, that was once a really, really ugly wall. It’s actually kind of beautiful now. Maybe that’s a deal we can live with.
The fact that it’s Pabst means it’s got to be art, seeing as PBR isn’t technically beer, rather beer-flavored tap water.
What’s with the thick gray border around the PBR ad? Totally out of balance. That said, I’d rather look at this (and the John C Reilly ad) than the horribly tacky, and totally legal, Night Light Nail Salon sign between Thackeray and Latona.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xymon/4168828851/ – was really disapointed the new tenants on 45th didn’t keep this art, it’s not like they put up anything in it’s place, just plain white paint.
Love the Adult Swim and PBR artwork, don’t give a rip that they’re advertising for some big, bad corporations and dislike blank walls used as graffiti showcases. The ads create beauty, the graffiti creates frustration and anger.
Guess I can only hope our elected officials notice the difference and are smart enough to make the distinction when/if they consider changing the laws.
Don,
The landlord made the new tenant remove the Henry mural. I think they would have kept it otherwise.
Glad you ‘fessed up, Wallyhood, you new-age hippie, you….
I still like a comment made earlier in one of the previous graffiti – tagging discussions (discussions which I thought had some good points from everyone),
“To me, this is where the difference lies:
Art, whether it’s good or bad, is about the viewer. Tagging is about the tagger, which makes it narcissistic piddling.”
The Adult Swim and the PBR artwork are/were really billboards painted on a wall, which does get “out of code”, but the PBR is much more artsy, which is nice for a pretty drab building.
At least one difference between tagging and the Adult Swim and PBR ads are respect for an individual’s property. While many may dislike the PBR and Adult Swim ads they were likely placed with the permission of the property owner, whereas ZEB’s tags were not likely placed with the permission of the Ballard Food Bank or the Taco Truck next to the Bell Street Dog Park.
My idea to curb tagging: spray paint “…is a bed-wetter.” or “…wears ladies panties.” or maybe “…needs a hug.” under the taggers’ names. Maybe that would embarrass them enough.
Kristin, I love it! As you may have guessed, I’m partial to “needs a hug.”
Robb: succinctly said and absolutely correct.
It’s an advert. i look at that and I see a beer can. It’s designed to make me think of buying a particular brand of beer. it might be prettier than some advertisements, but there is no denying it’s an ad. I actually hate it more than an honest ad taht isn’t manipulative. And much more than a real picture that isn’t focused on pushing a product.
Somewhere beyond graffiti and ads there is the possibility of real pictures for their own sake. LIke Henry. He’s getting to be a bit too ubiquitous, so let’s get more large-scale artists! Who ask permission! And are selling only their art!