From one of the blogs that I do attempt to read regularly, I came across this response to monies being spent in San Francisco on an anti-graffiti ad campaign . . .

At a time in our history when advertising has fallen to an all time low in its effectiveness, it seems somewhat naive to think that, of all things, an outdoor advertising campaign would have any effect at all on the situation.

There are much better ways for the city and BBDO to use their resources. How about giving money to alternative/non-traditional art programs? How about supporting more spaces and studios for emerging artists? Why choose graffiti at all? Isn’t AIDS. or the homeless. or breast cancer, or the lack of education of kids in California, more important to the citizens of San Francisco than fuckin’ graffiti?

Read the whole post.

My own thoughts on graffiti and street art are widespread, so much of it strikes me as tasteless, but there is certainly a contingent working in an attempt to raise public consciousness, to get people to pay attention, to snap them out of their mundane routines, and that I salute.

I’m especially intrigued by the concept of ephemeral street art, but that’s another post entirely.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 26th, 2006 at 1:04 am and is filed under indiscriminate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.