That's a graffiti WIN by the end.

Anti Advertising Agency rules so hard!

Righteous!

errr.... its not a 'graffiti wall' its just a wall... dosent belong to graffiti or advertising, isnt that the point? maybe cover advertising with cool graf rather than messages winging about advertising. FAIL

Uh, Bundy, I think you completely miss the point here. It *is* a graffiti wall, both b/c it is a place where writers and stencilers come to make their mark, and (incidentally) because it is condoned as such by the owner of the wall: Eyebeam. It is clear that the advertisers didn't understand this, just like they don't understand much of the subtleties when they appropriate street art as advertising. There are rules for how you tag on a wall like that: you don't write over someone else's tag; if you do, it is a call to arms, and can end up in quite a confrontation. I've heard stories from an old school writer about people writing over other peoples pieces and getting beat up so bad they end up in the hospital (and then the attacker went into the hospital, videotaped the dude in his hospital bed all fucked up, and posted that to the internet.) Consider this the pacifist version of that.

Hello Michael. Its a wall. Advertisers see it as an opportunity to stick up advertising. Eyebeam see it as their 'graffiti wall' Average passerby - what does he perceive it to be? And why would advertisers care about the 'rules' of graffiti? You seem to care more about the rules of advertising. If you're not in the club, who cares about the rules? I can just about see what message you are trying to make but cant see the irony, cant see the subversion. Just think you missed... Off to by a copy of adbusters....

Is stenciling graffiti?

Let the companies have at it; bombers will bomb all the same, if not with more fervor on these walls. Your anger against advertising agencies for using free space is misplaced; taggers can handle replacing it. As long as it is artistic, and not just shamefully tasteless, the better for visual culture.

What a load of horse balls.

So this is an anti-advertisement wall, because Eyebeam possess ownership of this wall and they choose who has the right to leave their markings on it? Eyebeam claims to, "invites the public to share in a spirit of openness: open source, open content and open distribution." Does this not fall into that category?

And when you stated that you have heard stories of people being beat up for going over others work, are you willing to take a beating for Eyebeam after going over Museo?... and especially after posting this video on the web.

This is only true if you believe that art and advertising are the same thing. Which I don't.

Advertising, graffiti, and "anti" movements all exist because of rules. The creation of rules is great, and I think Michael's acting on his own here is fine. It's hard to tell if the advertiser is consciously creating and acting on a separate set of rules or just oblivious. It seems sad when people create rules to control others and/or create conflict. An artist creating rules to control an advertiser is no better (or worse) than governments and communities creating rules about where graffiti can be written.

ah, maybe i am cynical, but Michael is this really 'art'? to me it is self promotion. You even have a logo on your stencil, presumably promoting yourself. True subversion is at best anonymous or at least not self serving and definitely not produced for profit.

To me, you are just as responsible for the appropriation of 'art' as advertisers are - you are muddying the waters making it easier for advertisers to appropriate symbols, signifiers for their own means.

oh, bundy, you're a funny one. tricky logic there. "true subversion?" Despite what No Logo may, or Adbusters may say, is there really "true subversion?"

btw, who are you? you seem to have no record on vimeo other than your two cynical posts on this video. vimeo.com/user1639337

Hello Michael. Am i a funny one? why?

You are right, the phrase 'true subversion' is a bit vague and fuzzy - what I was trying (and probably failing) to communicate is that you cannot criticize advertising for not respecting an abstract set of rules. I stand by my point that your aims and means are convoluted. Your belief that you can state that your wall is a 'graffiti wall' is flawed. It is whatever it is to whoever at whatever point in time. Your belief that the 'rules' of graffiti should be respected by advertisers - again i ask why? Even the loose code of conduct between writers is not exactly rock solid and is based on respect and reputation, not worthiness or some kind of 'graffiti rule-book'.

I guess I need some more clarification or intellectual reasoning, answers to my questions, which is why I made my comments. It feels 'subversion-lite', but i am sure you have reasons. Sorry if I come across overtly cynical, even if I doubt your method, at least you are doing something about it.

FYI, 1 minute in... youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9488W6WZ4

err... sorry, don't understand. Is that supposed to give you added credibility?

cool

ahh. i hate this paste-up advertising people. they have no ethics...... :)