Mr. Jeff Soto in NYC

Posted: June 26th, 2010 | Author: RJ | Category: Gallery/Museum Shows, Photos | Tags: jeff soto, jonathan levine gallery | 15 Comments »

Update: The original headline on this post, and the one that you probably saw if you are found this on your RSS feed, mentioned a new toy. Then I decided not to mention Jeff Soto’s new toy because I went on a rant about art versus advertising. If you’re curious though, Hi-Fructose has some info on the new toy that Jeff is working on.

Looks like Jeff Soto just painted this piece outside of Eyebeam in NYC. Which reminds me, if you’re in NYC, tonight would be a good night to stop by Jonathan LeVine Gallery. Jeff Soto and Dave Cooper both have solo shows opening there tonight (those shows run through July 24th). Arrested Motion recently posted a studio visit with Jeff, which includes some of the artwork that will be at his show tonight.

Now, I don’t mean to direct any potential negative attention towards Jeff Soto, but this piece reminds me of an interesting argument that I had last night with a friend of mine, who I’ll call James because I’m sure he doesn’t want me to publish his name. I said that I’d rather not be subjected to advertising while I’m in a public space, especially illegal advertising. Naturally, James brings up that I’m more than okay with artists putting up street art illegally. He thinks that I’m hypocritical for hating illegal ads but loving illegal art, especially since the definition of what is art is subjective. I say there’s a big difference, since street art, public art and architecture aren’t trying to sell you anything. Naturally, James makes the point that when a street artist puts up a piece, that’s advertising for their own work. In the case of Jeff Soto, Jeff rarely paints outside anymore, and this particular wall is clearly a form of promotion for his show with Jonathan LeVine Gallery. So it’s an ad, right? Not in my opinion. Yes, it’s an ad, if you know who Jeff Soto is and you know that he has a show opening tonight, which is probably less than 1% of the people who walk by Eyebeam today. For the vast majority of New Yorkers, that’s just a piece of art. Even if Jeff had signed his name, it’s not like he’s put a sign next to it saying “You can buy this image as a print for $70 at potatostamp.com!” (although, actually, you can). Maybe murals like Jeff’s and 99% of street art is a form of guerilla marketing, but it’s only seen as marketing by a tiny minority of the population. For the rest of the world, it’s art in the place of a grey wall, and there’s nothing better than that. So that’s my rant about the different between street art and advertising. Hopefully you agree with me, otherwise I may have just turned a few people off of Jeff Soto, which would suck.

Photo by amc_

http://Website Brad

As soon as you step into the streets and vy for the public attention, for me street art is a form of advertising. You can always argue that street artists aren’t selling anything but I would answer by saying that yes it is selling you something except that it is in the process of selling it to. It is building up sometimes over years until someone somewhere realize he can monetize your art. I am sure in the back of the mind of some street artists, money is a motivation. Nothing wrong with that if your art brings you money, the danger is when you sell out completely acting like a corporate machine with PR monkeys and the likes. Selling is also an art and some street artists are getting the hang if it, good.
http://Website 12345678

@RJ, So if I walk down the street and see a billboard of a scantily clad woman (for example) and it has a small logo or name in the bottom right corner that I don’t immediately recognise or associate with any brand, (and believe me this could easily happen, because I don’t tend to follow or take much notice of the commercial world)…does that then make it street art? As it seems that it would, if I were to follow your process of classification.

Or how about the case of cigarette advertising, before it was banned completely there was a period of time (couple of years) in which it was still allowed, as long as no representation of the product or its name were shown. This led to some quite abstract and inventive ads in which it was sometimes very difficult to know even what the product being sold was, with maybe only a colour scheme that was associated with the brand to give you a clue.

That’s how I see these street art pieces. Sure…they are only decipherable to the target audience, but that’s exactly their intention. The fact that utilise a kind of coded language makes people who are aware of who’s behind it feel part of an underground community, and thus identify in an even stronger way with the brand.

Then the images will get disseminated throughout the internet via sites like this, so that even more people will become aware of the product. Hopefully though it won’t become too widely known, because it’s preferable that a cachet is retained, to make the product more desirable to the consumer, as well as giving them the satisfaction of having insider knowledge. This is vital in an age in which many people define themselves by the patterns of their consumption. Overt or aggressive marketing would actually be detrimental in this case. So the methods are tailored specifically to the lifestyle aspirations of the clientele.

Personally I prefer street art that has no commercial associations at all, though I’ll admit that’s increasingly hard to find these days. As for the illegal flyposted ads, yeah, a lot of them look garish and ugly, but are still better in my opinion than a having a completely bland and sterile street environment. Besides, the people who organise club nights and gigs have to make people aware of these events somehow. Otherwise if nobody knew, then how could these events continue? I also respect the fact that they’re completely blatant and upfront about what they are, screaming the product in your face rather than insulting your intelligence by trying to pretend they’re not really an advert at all like so much of contemporary street art does.
http://redsquirrrel.blogspot.com sioux

i agree with RJ, dont think its advertising.. its just an image on a wall.
i’d like to think that most street artists put up art on walls because its their calling – not to make money.
http://www.vandalog.com RJ

@12345678 That’s a great point about cigarette ads. It’s not an easy distinction to make sometimes, between ads and art (and obviously there is some overlap), but I suppose I see a lot of it coming down to intent and perceived intent. With those cigarette ads, the viewer is still aware that a product is being sold and the cigarette company’s intent is not artistic but capitalist. With street art, even if, privately, the artist’s intent is to advertise a brand, the average passerby would probably perceive the intent as more altruistic (or, in the case of somebody like Banksy, revolutionary).

It’s great when street art has no commercial associations, but most of the most talented street artists sell their artwork indoors.
http://Website Ben

My opinion on this subject is simple. Yes this is an ad. without a doubt, even if it is just to a select few viewers but it is an ad and the intent is to sell something subversively. The proof is, like you said, Jeff doesn’t even paint outdoors regularly these days and it’s not merely coincidental that this painting pops up with a show “around the corner” and some toy launch happening soon. Do i have a problem with this being an ad? NO, not at all, i’d rather see this type of stuff over an H&M billboard any day of the week. The only thing i really lament is the fact that most of these artist who are where they are due to street art abandon their origins and remain on studio work only and the sole reason for an outdoor work is to advertise their studio work, but i guess that is normal, i mean artist have bills to pay as well and it’s a normal route but i do get a bit annoyed by seeing headlines in blogs like “XXX goes big in NY” or “YYY hits LA!” when in fact that was done with scaffolding and cops guarding the area, and the mayors popping up to shake hands with the artist, it’s hard to see great pieces in the street or in blogs for that matter, without those characteristics, Art for the sake of creation and nothing else. Well i guess one reason is also the fact that the work most of the times just isn’t enough, even if it’s great, if it’s by an unknown artist it’s not “lucrative” to post so the vicious cycle continues. I love the work you do with Vandalog, it’s an inspiration to come here everyday but sometimes i feel no one is really taking any risks anymore…
http://www.vandalog.com RJ

Ben, you’re right. It’s a lot easier for me to post images that some PR person has sent me of some huge legal production. And sometimes I do that. But hopefully I don’t do that too much. Also, that’s why I love having Gaia write here. He’s always up to date on interesting things happening in the NYC graffiti scene.
http://Website 12345678

I completely agree with what Ben says about the blogs. It sometimes seems that anything that isn’t over 70ft high or has ultra-slick production values will mostly get ignored, which ends up creating a boring monoculture where anything that isn’t backed up by massive resources can’t break through. Raw non-commercial street pieces hardly ever get a mention, yet there are endless pages about gallery shows or the latest customised sneakers. I can’t help feeling that somehow we’ve lost our way here and have forgotten what this thing was meant to be all about.
http://www.vandalog.com RJ

With Vandalog, I try to cover a wide range of street art news, so I’m going to tend to write those huge productions rather than random bits. The best place to discover new street artists is http://unurth.com/
http://Website 12345678

Yeah, Unurth started off good and is still interesting up to a point, but it too seems to have increasingly fallen victim to the cult of large size, slick prettiness and well established artists. The whole scene can sometimes feel like artists almost have to conform to a preset formula now if they want to get publicity for their stuff, which doesn’t bode well for new talent coming through, and could even be said to stifle it. I guess everything gets stale in the end though, and no doubt there will be a revolution at some point against the street/urban art ‘establishment’, which will wipe the slate clean again. Bring it on I say.
http://Website Jeff Soto

Jeff here. Nice discussion. Never really saw it as advertising, but I can see why it could be considered that, being that I have a show up. Totally not my intention though.

I come from a background of 90′s graffiti (more the old school hip hop variety), back then we were just trying to make “dope” characters and letters, mostly for our peers- other writers. Additionally we painted for the fun and camaraderie, and that’s what I missed about it all these years. I’m starting to rediscover painting outdoors the past year and a half, and I’ve had a lot of good times and met some of the nicest people. Guess I’m also reconnecting with my graf roots a bit. I like painting murals, it’s always a good challenge. I think of myself as an occasional muralist, not a graf writer or street artist at all.

I asked the gallery to find me a wall or two to paint, and they did. I don’t think it helps sell paintings. The only ones who know I painted it are other artists…. and none of us have money to buy art hahah!
Peace
Jeff
http://www.vandalog.com RJ

Hey Jeff.

Thanks for sharing your side of things. I hope you don’t think I’m trying to single you out specifically.

It seems to me that for most street artists today, there is a degree of advertising involved whenever they get up. Even if that isn’t the artist’s primary goal. But if given the choice between a blank wall or something painted by a street artist even in a blatant act of self-promotion, I’d rather see that wall get painted.

Hope the show is going well.
http://Website Ben

Well it was great to see Jeff come by and post his opinions, it’s rare to see an artist in his position be so humble.
As i was writing my last comment a thought came to mind that i forgot to mention, i can also see this piece by Jeff as a recreational break from the gallery and if a show brings you to a place you haven’t been in a while or have never been too, it’s normal to actually have the urge to go outside. It’s normal but unfortunately that isn’t the case with all artists, and many actually use these walls for publicity. I agree with Unurth being a nice place to discover new artists but i think “12345678″ is absolutely correct, this cult of gigantic “street”art is giving allot of good new artists too much trouble in getting some attention. It’s a vicious cycle that anybody who is in a position to fight it, should fight it, and RJ you are in that position. The direction of the blog is up to you but keep in mind you can help change things a bit… for the best interest of art itself. And on a final note, has anybody noticed the hate being generated around Banksy?? Or is it just me who has seen this artist with a better reputation? probably it’s that revolt against this whole facade of street art when in fact it’s just a new way to make money and allot of it too…
http://www.vandalog.com RJ

I go back and forth on Banksy all the time. For most of May, I was sick of his stuff being everywhere. Then I went on holiday and didn’t think about Banksy for 3 weeks. I went and had a look at his website after not thinking about him for a while, and loved the work again. But yeah, I think the negative attention on Banksy is that his work is the prime example of street art has marketing.
http://Website 12345678

Yes…down with the cult of gigantism!
Pingback: Urban Art Eye Candy #9 | Urban Artcore

Mr. Jeff Soto in NYC

Featured Posts