Monday, August 4, 2008

Art as Advertisng?


I'm not a big fan of "guerrilla" advertising. I think for the most part it comes off as invasive and lacks imagination. Of course there are exceptions, executions that make an immediate connection with the client, service or product being advertised or promoted. Like anyone, I've found myself scouting environments that seem to lend themselves to the product or service being advertised but never once have I ever considered defacing a public work which is why this seemingly new trend of "logo slapping" seems so offensive. In 2005 to mark the Chicago White Sox World Series win, a White Sox hat was placed on the Picasso horse in Dealy Plaza in downtown Chicago. In 2006 another baseball hat was placed on the artist's sculpture to announce baseball week. In March, advertising agency De Pasquale slapped an ad on a public sculpture in Australia. It is unclear as to whether De Pasquale had the artist's permission to do so but in the case of Picasso's sculpture we can pretty much guarantee that they did not. Certainly people would raise objections if someone where to deface a painting in a museum, why is it that the rules change once the art has moved outside? Is it because it was commissioned as a public work? That makes the piece of art as much mine as it is yours. Create your own sculpture and do whatever the hell you want with it but stop vandalizing the work of others.