Reverse Graffiti Artists Moosing in on Advertisers

Here's a great item from Inhabitat via Grist.

A few innovative artists, including one Paul Curtis, otherwise known as Moose, have taken to creating graffiti by the novel approach of scrubbing grime off of exterior walls to leave an image in the clean part. (i.e. like "wash me!"). Some of the work has reportedly been paid advertising, which has included sponsors such as Smirnoff.

This has been occuring around the world in places from Sao Paulo to Leeds to L.A.

Surely this must be illegal, rants the city council and other busybodies in (you name the place). But what are they going to charge the artists with, cleaning without a licence? Hilarious!

Then there's a whole segment of commentators who immediately jump to the conclusion that this art is simply illegal advertising and should be dealt with accordingly. It is true enough but give me a break.

There is some validity to the idea that a building or business owner whose wall is hit by this type of "art" is a victim of vandalism likely involving illegal trespassing and who knows what else. But, if the image can be created just by using a brush and some elbow grease, then how hard could it possibly be for the owner to clean the rest of the wall? And, as far as that goes, if the grimy building and its impact on the cityscape is acceptable to the owner (and local busybodies) in the first place, what is the big deal about having a wall with an image on it, whatever the image is?

The important thing here is the idea. Apparently some of these artists may be in the process of being prosecuted. It would certainly be interesting to research and follow up these cases!