Mobstr looks for an acceptable shade of grey

November 4th, 2010 | By | 42 Comments »

Mobstr just sent over this series of photos. I imagine the buff man has been laughing to himself about all this…

Photos by Mobstr

Related posts:

  1. New ad disruptions from mobstr and Eyesaw
  2. The latest from Mobstr
  3. Mobstr knows how to evade the cops

Category: Photos | Tags:
  • http://Website mesk

    huahahaha
    love these monologues!!

  • http://Website ade

    brilliant!

  • http://bycan.de bycan

    Now that is really brilliant.. I wonder how long he could go on with this ^^

  • http://Website lamby

    I would love to do something like this but I know I would get caught and the fuzz would be all over me like a cheap suit. I think it’s great to see these in real life and I am sad the buffer man only responses was a wet paint sign. Not exactly the most effective retort!

  • http://Website jaz

    He should have write each time on a dirty part of the wall, at the end it will have been a whole clean painted wall !!

  • http://blog.vandalog.com RJ

    Love your suggestion jaz. At least then the wall would be one color instead of grey splotches.

  • http://Website Dave the Chimp

    nice one

    jaz’s suggestion could be made by putting the words CHASE ME in different spots at different times, so the buff man has to paint the whole wall, but in a slightly abstract fashion. Or phrases like OVER HERE and BEHIND YOU (British pantomine reference, sorry non-Brits) or better still, if you start the project on a fresh wall, you could get him to paint your name huge by hitting different parts at different times, so his buffing action eventually forms the letters of your name.

    you could also buff his buff with a different shade of grey, and see if he buffs it back. that would be an interesting experiment.

    see, now this is good. not only has Mobstr made a nice piece/project, but he’s made one that has inspired thought in other people. He’s getting people to use their brains. pay attention kids, as these things (interaction, inspiration, humour) are much more important in street art than being famous and selling thousands of screen prints!

  • http://blog.vandalog.com RJ

    Dave, I’m sure you’ve seen this – http://artoftheprank.com/2007/03/25/community-service-2002/ Just another different way to look at buffing. And this – http://vimeo.com/368367.

    Agreed. At first this is a such a simple thing, the basic art of the spectacle that Dave addresses in his latest essay for VNA, but really it does much more than that. Or maybe it really is just that simple idea, and that’s why it’s so interesting. I don’t know. Whatever. I like it. Mobstr makes me think and smile.

  • Pingback: Huh. – Bridget Magnus Shows the World as Seen from 4'11"

  • http://www.whitezine.com/ Joseph

    Loving it :) Genius art

  • Pingback: Soorten grijs | Niet nuttig, of wel?

  • http://www.behance.net/nespoon NeSpoon

    Brilliant!

  • http://www.yumla.com Dan F

    I’d love to see you guys get the buff-painter to inadvertently paint something on the wall … join the dots, so to speak.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/53043173@N02/ Tempo33

    Very Clever

  • http://unfashionablyeconomic.blogspot.com/ Unfashenomic

    Not impressed. Property damage is s all very amusing until you’re the one cleaning up after a juvenile attempt at cleverness.

    Maybe it’s funny to some, but it’s also selfish and irresponsible. All the people saying “it’s genius art” etc. might not be so thrilled if it were their aged parent, neighborhood business owner, or good friend who had to waste several days painting over this.

    Buy your own wall if you want to paint it, instead of making someone else burn their time and money covering over your work. That’s the difference between an artist and a criminal.

  • http://Website ZARDOZ

    i remember, back in the day, in providence, rhode island…

    public work was being done on thayer st (the “east side” of providence) near rhode island school of design and brown university. very long partitions were erected to keep people from disturbing the workers. naturally, the art students came out at night and painted some wonderful works of art on the street side of the partitions. at some point, the authorities would buff it out. and like clockwork, the rejoinder: “Let Us Begin Again” would appear and as sure as the night follows the day, the tenacious art students would create even more fantastic works of art… this took place in 1969! who knows, it could have been the great grandfather of this lively form of artistic endeavor!

  • http://www.deletism.tumblr.com spoons

    Unfashenomic – the difference between art and crime is ownership? What about when Banksy paints on your wall and transforms it from meaningless brickwork to a piece worth thousands? Does a picture become more beautiful if you own it and less beautiful if it belongs to someone else? Why would you choose to let property relations dictate your relationship with the world. What a sad life you must lead.

  • http://unfashionablyeconomic.blogspot.com/ Unfashenomic

    If someone wanted their wall painted, they’d pay to have it done. If they’re not paying for a paint job or donating the wall to art, that probably means they don’t want it painted. Graffiti is a crime because it hurts property values and requires time/money to clean up. People pay for art, therefore it’s a good; people pay to get rid of graffiti, therefore it’s a bad. In the above case the owner painted over repeatedly, so obviously he/she thought this was worthless graffiti, not valuable art. If you disagree, buy the wall and spend your own time re-painting it.

    Spoons – “What about when Banksy paints on your wall and transforms it from meaningless brickwork to a piece worth thousands?”

    Your above statement could just as well read:

    “What about when the government conscripts you into the army and transforms you from a meaningless civilian to a soldier worth thousands of artists?”

    It’s a more extreme example, but the concept is the same; consent is lacking in both cases. Values are subjective, so forcing yours on unwilling others is arrogant and selfish.

    “Why would you choose to let property relations dictate your relationship with the world”? — Because the other alternatives are worse. Without some concept of property, you can’t even be said to own your own body or the fruits of your labor. If ownership is arbitrary, it won’t be artists who guide society, it’ll be the popular majority, military, and/or street thugs who decide what is most valuable; then the conscription example I gave above becomes much more tangible.

    Another hypothetical: someone drugs you, and while you’re knocked out they tattoo the Sistine Chapel murals on your face. Maybe it’s beautiful art; but would you thank them for it?

    Without respect for property rights, other people can impose what THEY think is artistic/valuable onto other people, who may not feel the same way. Maybe you think a Banksy painting is worth thousands, but maybe I liked the wall the way it was before. Maybe I think the Sistine frescoes should be on your face; you disagree. Only property gives a way to resolve these disagreements through an exchange of goods rather than violence. If I want a wall painted, or you want your face tattooed, we can pay for that service, and otherwise people should refrain from imposing it on us.

    Basically, if you think this kind of art deserves support, buy yourself a wall and donate it. If you don’t value the art that much, what gives you license to impose the cost on others, who value it even less?

  • http://blog.vandalog.com RJ

    ZARDOZ, that is awesome.

  • http://www.deletism.tumblr.com spoons

    Unfashenomic – that’s a mighty fine straw man you have demolished there, my congratulations! Apparently now art is not just defined by ownership but by also consent? Have you never been pleasantly surprised by anything in your life or do you firstly have to check everything off a list before you decide whether or not you like it? No wonder you can’t find a girlfriend.

    As for the rest of your rambling and incoherent defense of Capital, if you look elsewhere you might find that some kind of backslapping economic libertarian web forum might be interested in that shit – or maybe just insomniacs looking for something to send them off to sleep. Yawn.

  • http://unfashionablyeconomic.blogspot.com/ Unfashenomic

    “Straw man?” I quoted what you said and answered it. If you don’t have the logic skills to make an actual response, fine. The resort to personal attacks this early on just shows how bankrupt your intellectual position is.

    Just answer: would you appreciate an “artistic” face tattoo you didn’t ask for?

    If you can come up with a coherent reason why it’s OK to graffiti someone’s wall, but not to tattoo someone’s face while they’re passed out, I’ll admit defeat. However, I’m optimistic that such a coherent reason does not exist — your desperate attempts to evade the point show this.

    It’s obvious you like private property just as much as I do, as long as it serves your convenience. The difference is you’re unwilling to take an adult perspective and acknowledge that other people want their property respected as well. I tried to use some analogies to draw out why this inconsistent stance is dangerous, but I guess that’s just “rambling.” I’m not sure where you got the “checking things off a list” thing, as it seems totally unrelated to my argument… It’s possible to be pleasantly surprised, while also not messing with other people’s things. What’s your point exactly?

    I’m no die-hard libertarian, and I have no interest in defining art. That is irrelevant to my point, which I will put in caps so you don’t miss it — IT ISN’T FREE OR FUN TO REMOVE GRAFFITI FROM YOUR STUFF. YOU WOULDN’T LIKE DOING THAT, SO YOU SHOULDN’T FORCE OTHERS TO DO THAT EITHER. Unwanted paint on someone’s wall is not genius, it’s not art, it’s not clever. It’s criminal property destruction. I’m not defending “Capital” just basic human decency. If you expect to live in a system where others will not violate your person or private belongings just because they can, you should extend that same courtesy to them. Simple.

    Whatever political philosophy you subscribe to, if it can’t account for people’s wants and desires besides your own, it’s not a good one. People who have moved beyond mental adolescence usually understand this intuitively. Maybe it will come to you eventually as well.

    My girlfriend will be home from work soon, and I’m sure she’ll be amused to read your cute little attempt at arguing. Take a little longer before your next response, and maybe more of what you say will actually apply.

  • http://Website c

    what if the property is public, and not private?

    why is it that advertisements for movies and albums can be wheatpasted in certain spots, but actual works of art, in the same spot are considered graffiti?

    there was a case in Chicago a couple summers back, where a property owner choose to paint his garage, spending days to create a mural, only to have the neighbors complain of graffiti, and call the city to remove it.

    art should not be considered a crime.

  • http://www.deletism.tumblr.com spoons

    RJ didn’t find my last post funny and deleted it, so here’s another brief attempt at bowing out of this pointless argument.

    Unfashenomic – I genuinely can’t be bothered to get drawn into your patronising spiral of bogus arguments. You are obviously locked into a worldview based around a concept of property and money relations I have no interest or empathy with and which almost certainly puts a price on everything, including public space. If you can’t see a difference between your wall and your face I feel sorry for you. To equate your position with “human decency” would be regarded as little more than a joke by those millions of people around the world excluded either from the fruits of their labour or even from the very means of their survival by your concept of property.

    What also makes your position funny is that street art and graffiti is in its purest form a total rejection of the mercenary money-driven art world: no-one has to pay to view it, no-one can own it, it stands outside of and challenges a narrow concept of property ownership. And artists and writers often put their own liberty at risk to put it there. To try to pick an argument about art and crime with graffiti writers is a joke.

  • http://unfashionablyeconomic.blogspot.com/ Unfashenomic

    Spoons – If by “patronizing spiral of bogus arguments” you mean logic, then guilty as charged.

    I posted to give a little outside perspective. I’m not even going to get into your spiel about people “excluded from the fruits of their labor” because it’s Marxist ideology with no basis in fact. More importantly, if you can have those progressive sentiments, but still lack empathy for the people you inconvenience for amusement, then you’re in no position to lecture me about human decency.

    It’s great that some people post art that everyone can enjoy for free. My complaint about the pictures above was that everyone thought it was oh-so-clever to make some poor guy repaint over something again and again. You claim solidarity with the ‘oppressed masses’, but at the same time have no problem wasting some working person’s time and effort. It’s juvenile and hypocritical.

    c: I completely agree. I think the Chicago authorities were in the wrong to harass someone for painting their own garage. Art should not be a crime. The problem is, legit street artists have gotten a bad rap from the ones who think it’s funny to annoy people. Being able to make that distinction – between art that someone wants on their property vs. unwanted graffiti that has to be removed at the owner’s cost – is essential if this art form is to gain greater public acceptance. That’s my 2 cents anyway.

  • http://www.deletism.tumblr.com spoons

    How incredibly easy it is for someone who is in the top 1% of the world’s wealthiest people to say that being “excluded from the fruits of their labor” is “Marxist ideology with no basis in fact”. But the cold hard reality of your abstract property relations is people struggling to get by on a few cents a day making consumer products sold for collosal profits elsewhere. That’s THEIR 2 cents.

  • http://casketsalesman.blogspot.com casketsalesman

    that’s quite the smart series

  • http://Website melloki76

    Unfashenomic: A soldier is worth a thousand artists? Wow.

  • http://www.gaiastreetart.com/ Gaia

    read some milton friedman

  • Pingback: Can we talk about your font selection next? — Laura Curtis

  • http://Website Maria

    @ Unfashenomic –

    just because you own property does not give you the right to impose blankness and sterile landscape on everyone who has to view it. Anything within view of the public is in practice some type of public “property”. A blank wall is begging to be filled. If you don’t want someone to paint on it, paint on it yourself.

    There is no reason why painting something should decrease property values. Beautiful things tend to attract commerce and make people feel better about where they live, or communicate things that make people think and therefore contribute meaningfully to democratic society. If you think something is ugly or related to crime somehow, get a paint can and paint it yourself.

  • http://unfashionablyeconomic.blogspot.com/ Unfashenomic

    @spoons: I agree, it’s not nice that many people must survive, “struggling to get by on a few cents a day making consumer products.” In an ideal world, that would not be the case. However, in the world we live in it’s about next-best opportunities. Is it better that someone works in a factory making clothes, or digs through garbage dumps looking for scrap to sell? Unfortunately, for many people those are the available options. Marxist doctrinaires point to these as the symptom of capitalism, but every Marxist attempt to provide for the people has resulted in worse problems; mass starvation, brutal killing and so forth. Research Pol Pot’s record in Cambodia, or Stalin, Mao, or any other socialist “utopia” over the past 50 years. That’s why I don’t give much credence to Marxist-inspired rhetoric when it comes to global politics.

    @melloki76: that expression was used as an example. I obviously don’t think soldiers are more valuable than artists.

    @Maria: I agree, not all painting is bad or hurts property values. My original gripe was with the pictures shown above, which gloried in wasting someone’s time. More generally, you may think “blank walls are meant to be filled” but it’s only reasonable to leave open the possibility that someone might disagree. The owner of the wall should come to some agreement with the artist and then everyone can be happy.

    I think the standard you raise, “anything within view of the public is in practice some type of public property’” is problematic when applied more broadly, because almost everything (including our bodies) are visible in public at some point or another. Street art is fairly harmless, but where do you draw the line? Respecting property gives a clear standard, so we can distinguish what society should accept as legal.

  • http://Website Rachel

    I enjoyed the comments more than the actual article.

  • http://www.deletism.tumblr.com spoons

    Unfashenomic – Gosh, do you mean State Socialism is bad? Really? Who’d a thunk it? An economist with half a brain would recognise that much of Marx’s economic analysis was spot on and is still relevant whether you agree with his conclusions or not.

    Perhaps you should point your patronising arse at your own Government’s record in Cambodia: the years of carpet-bombing which killed close to a million civilians and the CIA-backed coup, both of which destabilised the country and directly led to the monstrous Pol Pot regime.

    The gigantic hypocrisy in your position about Mobstr’s work (other than the fact that one minute you’re saying it’s better for Asians to be working for pennies than not working at all, next minute you’re complaining that graffiti makes work for the buffers) is that because for you it’s all about property, I can sell “my” wall to some advertising company anytime I want and pollute everyone else’s view without their consent.

  • http://unfashionablyeconomic.blogspot.com/ Unfashenomic

    Name something you thought Marx got right. Then we’ll talk. His most essential prediction, that capitalism would necessarily collapse and evolve into socialism, has been completely backwards as formerly communist nations are now converting to free markets.

    I’m glad you agree state socialism is bad, but what other kind is there? Socialism, by definition, is ownership of production by the state; every socialism is therefore state socialism. Ownership “by the people” is just a rhetorical ruse, which can only be accomplished through a powerful state.

    I’m not defending any government’s record. It’s unfortunate that the USA didn’t better foresee the consequences of its actions. The Vietnam war was unnecessary, as we could have just waited for socialist governments to collapse on themselves. That doesn’t excuse the millions killed by Pol Pot. Had those socialist ideas not been as popularly accepted, the outcome may have been less tragic. Pol Pot was invited to share the image of his ‘worker’s utopia’ globally thanks to “useful idiots” (as Lenin termed it) like you, who admired the outward goals of socialism but had no concept of its inner horrors.

    If it’s just the body count you’re interested in, the only belief system that might be able to top the killing record of socialism is organized religion. Both generate self-certainty and refusal to acknowledge difference of beliefs, which makes violence a natural outcome.

    Distinction: people working in a factory produce a good which others value; they contribute to the sum of social wealth. A graffiti artist forcing someone to paint over their work wastes time that someone COULD have spent producing something; they reduce the sum of social wealth. The fact that you would conflate these demonstrates how wrong the Marxian labor-theory-of-value is. A product is valuable if others are willing to pay for it, not just because someone spent their time making it. The “work” that graffiti creates is basically the equivalent of digging holes and then filling them back in again.

    Yes, you can sell your wall whenever you want. Saying ads “pollute” the view is just your normative opinion. Some would justify advertising to increase the public’s knowledge about a good product, and some ads are quite clever. Again, who are you to impose your aesthetic views on others? If you care so much, pay the owner to display stuff that you like. If you can’t raise enough money to do that, it signals society in general values the previous use of the wall more, and you should leave it be.

  • http://www.deletism.tumblr.com Spoons

    I hope you’re not paying very much for your degree – I’ve had conversations in the pub with plenty of people with a far better understanding of politics and economics than you. Your lack of knowledge of your subject is staggering (your definition of Socialism is spectacularly inaccurate) and you point that ignorance at other people as if it’s the winning argument. I’m not going to waste another millisecond of my time on you.

  • http://Website Idiots

    Get over it. This isn’t here for a debate about graffiti to start up, it’s merely for the viewers enjoyment and whatever purpose the artist had for doing it. Yes, someone who graffitis, is an artist whether you agree or not. Now get over yourselves.

  • Yeahright

    “What about when the government conscripts you into the army and transforms you from a meaningless civilian to a soldier worth thousands of artists?”

    That made no sense at all. You, sir, are an idiot.

  • Eyesoutmusic

    youre all losers. nobody freaking cares. get over this page and get a life

  • emilykay

    -reads comments-
    that’s funny, very witty.

    I hope this comment doesn’t start an argument over semantics.

  • relax yall

    Dear Haters,

    This is God’s wall, not ours. Let his sons and daughters enjoy it :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001617324068 Alex Pisarczyk

    I think some people have way too much time on their hands to over think and analyze things.
    Art is art no matter how you look at it, whether it is wanted or not. Even if money is paid to get rid of it, it is still art in it’s own form, because someone doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s being ”imposed” on them. Not everything consists of a forceful action; so sit back, relax, and enjoy the view because this world would probably be a better place is everyone wasn’t concerned with the generic look of a brick or cement wall. It’s letting go of the little things that help us see a larger picture in life.

  • foodforthought

    how about this:appreciate art for what it is where it occurs.

    when you say that “this is mere vandalism,” you deny any compelling nature that the art and the artist have, just because you feel like they dont respect you and your own property enough. and this borders on self obsession.

    instead, id suggest that when art happens, dont try to fit it into your world, let what you see of beauty inform your world. there is a way to resolve your conundrum without property its called open mindedness.

    and if someone thought the sistine chapel would look good on my face, id first ask why they think so instead of selfishly denying their intelligence and by extension their importance and everything else about them in the face of the all-consuming “my view”