Splasher Makes News in the UK Too

This is getting a little gross, in the sense that someone running around splattering street art with paint makes the front page of the Metro Section of the New York Times. He's also making news across the pond. Specifically, our favorite paint vandal--who some say is only vandalizing the work of vandals--makes the Guardian's blog in the UK. To wit:

An anonymous campaigner has been covering street art in New York with splatters of paint and wheat-pasted manifestos condemning the commodification of art. The vandal has been nicknamed The Splasher by bloggers, and greeted with derision. But if street art is supposed to bend boundaries and be anti-establishment, why does someone want to deface it?

The art manifestos pasted alongside the splashes are given titles like Avant-Garde: Advance Scouts for Capital or Art: The Excrement of Action, declaring the work as "a trough for the gallery owners and critics". The Debordian rhetoric cries to destroy the museum: "Revolutionary creativity does not shock or entertain the bourgeoisie, it destroys them". To make it even more violent, there's a note at the bottom of the paper saying removal may result in injury as they've mixed the paint with tiny shards of glass.

Artist-victims of the campaign so far have included Swoon, Faile, Banksy and Shepherd Fairey - most of whom make very healthy livings in the art world. In the more rule-laden graffiti scene, lining someone else's work (crossing it out with spray paint) is the ultimate insult. But street art hasn't developed with those parameters. The transitory nature of street art is what gives it its impact. Many people creating work don't expect longevity - no wall stays the same for long in a city. Arguably The Splasher's Dadaist political cries are just another form of street art in themselves.

Perhaps the campaign is a response to what street art blog The Wooster Collective calls the Banksy effect. When Banksy first started selling his work and moving off the streets - swapping the egalitarian for the cash - many people accused him of selling out his politics (but are currently kicking themselves for not buying the work for £50 when its now worth £50,000). His mammoth success has lead to sell out shows by street artists at galleries worldwide.

Does this justify The Splasher's actions? I say deface the work - give it time to breathe and be seen for a bit - then comment on it. Street interventions shouldn't be static - they should develop and change. If pieces remain untouched then surely that's proof of their worth? A few years back, Banksy created a large stencil mural in Soho of the Mona Lisa dressed as Che Guevara. In the night, someone transformed her face into Bin Laden. The comment was funny, timely and more resonant. Art is something in progress rather than something to sell in Sotheby's. Maybe The Splasher has a point ...

We can only imagine how many more splashings and copycat splashings the coverage will generate. On the other hand, the more he splashes, the better the odds that someone will figure out who's behind it.

Related Posts:
Splasher Strikes Again Across Williamsburg
The N. 6th Street Splasher-Artist War Continues