Nearly perfect: OX for Bien Urbain

October 4th, 2011 | By | 3 Comments »

This is one of the most perfect ad disruptions I’ve ever seen. OX did this takeover at the Bien Urbain festival in Besançon, France. Here’s why I think it’s nearly perfect:

Pros -

  • It’s site-specific.
  • It’s possible to not notice it. The piece can fade into the background of the environment (not just because the billboard matches the sky in this photo, but because it doesn’t try to grab your attention).
  • For the people who are familiar with the billboards and do notice the change, the takeover is something for them to think about.
  • It’s photographed well for online distribution.

Con -

  • The billboards themselves aren’t at ground level.

Now, that last pro and the con might not make immediate sense. In the case of billboard takeovers, I think that many of the best ones make it clear to viewers that they too can do exactly what the artist has done; that it’s not only OX who can or should cover up public advertisements. So on the pro side, this takeover is beautifully photographed and people who see this photo are probably more likely to be inspired than it it were a quick snap from OX’s camera-phone. As for the billboards not being a ground level, this sort of take over would probably have required a ladder or a long pole. Those aren’t particularly difficult things to get, but ground level billboards are even easier to disrupt, so photos of those takeovers might inspire more people to take action themselves than a more difficult billboard takeover.

Some of these thoughts about what makes a good ad takeover are based on similar ideas by Jordan Seiler, so definitely check out his site as well if this is interesting.

UPDATE: Jordan as actually posted his own thoughts about this piece over at his own blog.

Photo by OX

Related posts:

  1. Meet the perfect couple… Dabs & Myla

Category: Featured Posts, Photos | Tags: , ,
  • Chas

    The irony of course is that by this being featured on street art blogs it then becomes an advert for OX, gaining far more worldwide exposure than the original advert that it replaced could ever hope to.  It may be slightly visually more subtle than what was there before, but that’s just viewing it on a very superficial level. What about the cynical manipulative deception of building a brand by posing as an anti-brand? 

    Adverts that appeal to people who hate adverts. A marketing man’s dream.   

  • http://blog.vandalog.com/ RJ Rushmore

    Of course. Now this becomes the Penny Rimbaud versus Noam Chomsky debate. After Crass disbanded, Rimbaud (more or less) retreated to the Dial House intentional community and in many ways removed himself from society, allowing him to follow his political beliefs more accurately. Chomsky, on the other hand, is a major figure in a society that he thinks is deeply flawed and has chosen to remain a figure for change within that society rather than remove himself and live in a small utopia. I suppose the difference is that Chomsky (to my knowledge) has not actually run for elected office and OX is paid to participate in mural festivals so the analogy is not perfect, but hopefully my point comes across.

    Besides, while this does act as an advertisement for OX, it acts as an advertisement that you have more or less chosen to view, rather than one that is forced upon you. You know that when you visit an art blog, you are probably going to see some art. In fact, you’re probably hoping to see some art. So that makes a difference here. Perhaps OX thinks that by advertising his anti-brand through more acceptable means, he can inspire change moreso than if he did a series of completely anonymous actions. Having this piece advertise OX to those who view it in the artificial context of blogs does not deter its impact as something to inspire change in how advertisements are viewed or where we put advertisements. In fact, even having this discussion, I think, is evidence that OX’s artwork is effective, because we are discussing nuances of what is acceptable as advertising. Perhaps you will decide that OX’s work is not acceptable because it is advertising or because it goes over what someone paid to advertise and you think they have a right to do that, or maybe you’ll see OX’s work as acceptable. Either way, you are thinking more about advertisements in public spaces.

    Or maybe OX is just being cynical. Well then, for the people seeing his work on blogs, we’re being manipulated. But for anyone who sees it in person, they are unlikely (at this point in OX’s career at least) to connect the modified billboard to OX, so the piece does not advertise to them, and fulfills the promise of eliminating an ad.

  • Chas

    Yeah, but regarding your last point, the general public in the street isn’t the audience OX is aiming for. This is a precisely targeted ad aimed at the street art blogosphere. It might eliminate an ad in the physical world, but at the same time just creates one in a different environment, one that is potentially much wider reaching. I’ve got nothing against anti-advertising and billboard disruptions, in fact I welcome them, but the intent is crucial…if it’s just replacing one means of brand promotion with another more covert one then for me it’s duplicitous. At least the original ad wasn’t pretending to be anything it’s not, despite how visually unappealing it might have been. I might have ‘chosen’ to view this work by clicking on your blog, but to have the name of OX rammed into my consciousness in the name of a public service crusade to remove branding feels like a bit of an absurd contradiction.