Saturday, July 18, 2009

You got served!

Before I post any photo's....

I've added a new section to the side --->

I've decided to take the CHECK IT links out and give you all a taste of whats available out there in the big web world. I've been slowly trying to refine the blog because I was getting a bit lazy with the layout.

And for purely selfish reasons I've added a LOVE THIS BLOG? check box down the bottom..... Do it!


Anyone that has an interest in graffiti in Wellington, whether they are for or against it has seen the recent campaign against graffiti 'vandalism' or tagging advertised in pedestrian crossing shelters across town by the Wellington City Council.
My man over at Graffography first alerted me to the work by Drypnz and Random being used in the campaign, work that broke no law and was now put under a negative spotlight by the Council. I agree that the general public would have limited knowledge on aerosol art and in my opinion the Council's lack of research behind their campaign have put ideas into an already naive community.
So, I emailed an acquaintance at the Council to ask who I could voice our concerns too regarding this laziness and got a reply a few days later. They were apologetic and apparently the 'photographer' didn't know that the work used in the campaign was deemed legal. They agreed to remove the work from future campaigns but god knows how many posters, stickers etc that have already printed and not to mention the amount of money wasted on a poorly researched scheme.
They did say that on the Council website and in their brochures that they pointed out he difference between art and vandalism. According to them the MURAL in Te Aro by the basketball court, created with permission was GRAFFITI ART and a bad throwie on a shop front as VANDALISM (done without permission). I can agree with the bad throwie as being the act of a vandal but the MURAL is not GRAFFITI ART. It's a mural! I could talk for days about the flaws in their campaign but it will only fall on deaf ears.
I heavily disagree with the way in which this campaign has panned out but I respect the fact that they were willing to remove Dryp and Randoms work when asked too.
What are your thoughts on the matter? Leave a comment!
Back to the good stuff..

Busty rhymes in Chile
Some friends who had stayed here recently went to Santiago De Chile in South America.

They mentioned that everywhere you go there will be at least one piece of street art and/or Graf.From my knowledge of Chilean Graffiti it has strong roots in political activism through work of stencils and slogans.
Thanks P & L!

I'm going to have to post more often as I've acquired quite a collection of new stuff to post.

Coming up...

bunker shots with M & A from Graffography


The buff!



  1. I wouldn't get too hurt and uppity over the Council mistaking 'graffiti' for 'tagging' and legal artists with illegal artists.

    You know as well as I do that there is a very fine line between one and the other, and frequently (mostly) they cross over and are more not legal than legal.

    But the thing is: no one cares. Those people that love graffiti will love it no matter where, and those that hate it will diss it no matter where or when.

  2. Im not hurt as such by the campaign just annoyed that they had all the means necessary to provide our city with a clear cut campaign and chose not too.

    But yes ANON you are right, no matter how much I/we try and make believers out of the haters, everyone will always fall back on their original beliefs.

    oO WWS Oo

  3. whoever does this blog is showing people do care about it anonymous or else they wouldnt have said anythin bout it duh

  4. and some of us live for it

  5. forget hurt, what about payment! you can be sure the model, the dog owner, the photographer, the assistant all were paid in this campaign. the artist should have been paid to have the work shown in a campaign. i worked for a commercial photographer for 4 years, if an art work features in an ad campaign the artist must be part of the contract. you need to go for payment!

  6. Thats a tricky topic. Who has the rightful ownership on pieces that appear in the public arena?

    I've had multiple discussions about ownership over the years. Take Banksy for example. He/they put a stencil on a wall that doesnt belong to them, yet the owner can sell that piece for thousands of pounds. Should the money go to Banksy or is the owner right in keeping the money because they owned the wall in the first place?

    Somehow I dont think commercial photography as a career apply the same way as a writer/artist having their work documented. The point that I was trying to raise was that the Council used the art WAAAY out of context. They lumped it all into the Tagging basket when it was far beyond.

    There have been cases in NZ where a photographer has taken a photo of a stencil from a well known artist, cropped everything out of it hence taking the photo out of context and tried to sell it in a gallery. The photographer owns the photo, but who owns the artwork featured in it? Its almost like signing a painting that wasn't painted by you.

    I have always been happy to let people take photos from the blog, especially when its the artist themselves but I would never claim ownership to the work that appears in it.

    Tricky topic. Thank you bringing it up Anon.

    oO WWS Oo

  7. Hi WWS, there is a difference with ownership in a public place (ie who owns a Banksy on a wall) and ownership on a contracted advertising campaign. the way these campaigns work, regardless of whether it is a government funded campaign or a private, they both contract an advertising agency who is paid thousands for the concept, they hire a photographer, model, retoucher, printer etc - each paid for their efforts. This campaign uses a legal art work to put across it's message and that artist is not credited/paid. In this case obviously Drypnz and Random wouldn't want their work credited - it's been used out of context and poorly researched as you mention - but regardless, they should be paid. It's cool you pointed out the difference between tagging and aerosol art to them but maybe it would be good to point out that this is intellectual property, if it is to be used in an advertising campaign, the artist needs to be compensated