Speaking with Cekis

Legendary in his native Chile and throughout South America, Cekis is currently based in Brooklyn, New York.  Working primarily as a muralist here in the U.S., Cekis’s artwork has also appeared in a number of galleries including the Carmichael Gallery, the Brooklyn Rotunda, Ad Hoc, and the Abrons Arts Center. As a member of the YMI Crew, working primarily with Cern, he has created large works in the streets of Bushwick and Washington Heights. While visiting his studio earlier in the week, I had the opportunity to ask him a few questions. – Lois Stavsky

When did you first get your work up public spaces? I was 17 when I first started painting on the streets of Santiago, Chile.

What was your inspiration at the time? I fell in love with graffiti when I saw the movie “Beat Street.”  I was also influenced by the political graffiti I saw in my city. Then in 1993, a group of us started painting on the walls in Chile.

What was it like back then? There were risks.  My country was in a transitional period. We were still reeling from Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship. We had to begin painting way past midnight. We’d start at 2 or 3 in the morning.  We all spent some time in jail for what we were doing.

How did your parents feel about what you were doing? My parents are traditional. They didn’t really understand what I was doing.  It was not easy gaining their acceptance.

Have you gained it? Yes, when they saw the respect I was getting as a muralist, they were better able to come to terms with my decision to be a full-time artist.

I know that you’ve painted with Os Gemeos back in Chile. Who are some of the other artists you’ve collaborated with outside of the US? Among those I’ve painted with are: Loomit, Lazoo, Vitche, Stohead, Herbert Baglione, Doze Green and Cycle.

What are some of the crews you’ve represented? DVE, ADEP, VLOK and YMI

Any favorite artists? Many, many. Among them: Aislap, Grin, Phil Frost, Kara Walker, Keith Haring, Lee Quiñones, Nick Cave, Nema TPG, Os Gemeos, Jr., Sure (RIP), Nunca, Diego Rivera, Martha Cooper, Dondi, Mode 2…

That’s quite a diverse group! These days you work mainly in your studio, and your work has appeared in galleries.  But you still keep on working on the streets.  Is that your preferred canvas? I love the way street art engages so many people. And I love interacting with the public.  When I paint in my studio, I prefer wood to canvas because it feels more like I’m painting on a wall.

What do you think of the street art scene here in NYC – principally in Brooklyn these days? I like when artists use the streets to communicate and share their talents with passersby.  I dislike when folks use the streets to further their own careers.  Not all kinds of art belong or work in the street, and some artists use the streets as a means to access galleries.  That’s not what street art’s about.

What about the street art scene in Chile these days? How is it different from what’s happening here? In Chile and throughout Latin America there’s more freedom to paint on the streets because most people don’t see it as a criminal activity.  The South American writers lack the access to the kinds of art supplies that we have here in the U.S, so they’ve become more inventive – both in their process and, as a result, in their styles.  Also, because the police generally don’t harass street artists in South America, they have more time and more space for experimentation.

Any other differences? The folks there tend to value us far more than they do here.  They appreciate what we are doing. They often react strongly to what we are painting on the walls, and they love to watch us while we’re painting. They’re always offering and bringing us food and drinks.

I’ve sensed that in my visits there. I only hope it stays that way!  What are you working on these days? I’m currently working on a series of paintings on the theme of immigration in preparation for my first solo show sometime later this year.  I’m also in the process of working on a proposal for a public mural on an extended thoroughfare in southwest Brooklyn.

Good luck! I’m looking forward to all your ventures!

A commissioned mural by Cekis on 116th Street in East Harlem

Photos and interview by Lois Stavsky

Buff Nuff – A guest post from Dave the Chimp

Dave the Chimp takes a little look at “the buff”, it’s uses and misuses, and where it can head in the future.

I used to live by a small park. Kids walked through the park to take a short cut to school. Drug dealers worked the same route. There was a garage there covered in tags. I had the idea to paint the garage with some friends, covering the tags with a brightly coloured mural. The idea was to make the space a little brighter, a little less like a spot where drug dealers would hang out. I made a fake letter from my local government authority giving me permission to paint the garage, just in case anyone asked, and set to work. This is the result:

One of my neighbours saw me painting and later told me she thought I was doing “community service”, which in England is an alternative to a prison sentence!

ESPO made his own “community service” projects as a way to get his name up, starting with his “Exterior Surface Painting Outreach” program in New York (those infamous shutters), and later with his “Community Service” project in LA, where he buffed graffiti in the way we are all familiar with today (blocks of colour) so that the buff-marks spelt his name.

You can see these projects here and here.

What I like about this latter project is that it uses the anti-graffiti weapon as the weapon, like a martial artist using their enemies’ strength against them. It also sits nicely with the way graffiti is abstracted so that it becomes a code that can only be read by certain members of society. And it’s incredibly amusing.

Here are some photos of some abstract compositions I made earlier this year by adding my own buff marks to a wall that had been buffed, and other buff marks that I added to spell my name, much like ESPO did, though I created huge letters by only painting the negative spaces in the letters. I didn’t think much about this piece. I had a bucket of paint that was left over from another project I was working on at the time, and I just walked outside to see how I could use it, and this was the result. I’m sure with more thought better pieces could be created with this method. Feel free to take this idea further.

Another body of work utilising the buff was the Toasters‘ Bluff Buff, which inserted the shape of their toaster into areas of buff, as a comment on the inaccurate colours used to cover graffiti: here and here.

I painted characters so they looked as though they were behind areas of buff in Berlin and Hamburg, and turned the actions of the buffer into comedy:

And in this case, the original piece was buffed for real, so I pulled out a marker and turned the buff into fog:

Earlier this week we saw a piece by Mobstr which became a game, with his opponent being the buff man. Comments posted suggested further ways to play the game.

Banksy took a shot at New Orleans famous buffer Fred Radtke AKA The Grey Ghost when he visited the city:

Photo by eastcolfax
Photo by Lauren Craig

Mr. Radtke has taken it on himself to buff, with grey paint, any graffiti he sees, and even got himself in trouble with police by buffing a legal mural.

He is featured in an upcoming documentary, along with other buffers such as the “Silver Buff” from Berkeley, California, who believes there is too much “visual noise” on the streets. Watch the trailer here. Something I found interesting is that one buffer in the movie talks about how buffing makes him feel “in control” of life. This suggest that the actions of graffiti and street artists can make people feel like they have no control, making them victims. This is something to consider next time you hit the streets.

The buff itself can also be seen as art. Artist Cody Vanderkaay recreates the grey shapes left by buffers in the streets as “black boards” for people to draw on.

Photographer Chris Brennan documents the layers of colour haphazardly applied to the city walls to cover up layers of colour that were made with more thought. His photos often look like the work of abstract artists. One of the photos we see at that link puts me in mind of the work of Mark Rothko, though I doubt the buff in the street can ever be as effecting as being in a room with one of his huge, deep paintings.

Another weapon in the buffers armoury is the pressure washer, that cleans off graffiti. It can also be used to clean dirt off of walls, a fact ZEVS put to great use. Other versions of “clean graffiti” can be seen here. I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisers use this technique too, usually to place logos on city sidewalks.

It’s not unusual to see advertisers use street art techniques, just as it’s not unusual to see street artists fight back against advertising.

I like these pieces by the Thought Police member Eric Pentle, who will happily cut out your carefully constructed copy, or simply paint your whole billboard black. Unlike other artists, such as OX, that use advertising space as their canvas, there appears to be no clever message in Pentle’s billboards. He simply removes their ability to be effective. He is reacting to the lack of control he has in a world full of messages constantly being shouted at him, and thus makes his environment quieter. This is much the same as the Silver Buff does with graffiti. I find this very interesting, as I live in a country where I understand little of the language, and so advertising has no effect on me. It creates a more peaceful daily experience to not be told what to do all the time. See Pentle defuse more advertising here.

As we can see, the buff is nothing to fear. In fact, let us embrace the buff, and see where we can take it. Let us use this negative energy and turn it into a positive force.

One of the advantages of the buff is that, with a little effort, you can get the materials for the job for free. Try ESPO’s technique and tell the city you want to cover the graffiti in your neighbourhood, and are willing to work for free if they give you paint. Failing that, many cities have “paint recycling depots” where unused paint is taken to be disposed of. My friend Ekta in Sweden gets most of his paint for free by going to his local recycling depot and simply asking for the paint. Also keep your eyes open to see where legitimate painting work is happening. Brushes and rollers are often thrown away as people don’t want to make the effort of cleaning them. Soak them in water and the paint soon comes off. Or if they use an oil-based paint and you don’t want to mess around with turps trying to clean them, just wrap them in a plastic bag, they’ll be good for a few more days. Free brushes and rollers! Sorted!

As buffing requires little skill, this fun activity is open to everyone. No need to spend hours cutting stencils, screen printing posters, or learning how to draw – just grab your roller and a bucket of paint and make your mark in the world. The streets are a playground for everyone! I would suggest though that you have an idea before leaving the house, otherwise your efforts will be as destructive and unattractive as The Grey Ghost and his friends.

So come on kids, lets get buffing! Maybe by employing the buff as one of our weapons, applying it liberally around town, we can confuse city authorities so much that they start employing artists to paint art over all of the ugly buff marks in our cities. They can pay us to do what they paid themselves to undo.

Dave the Chimp

Photos by Dave the Chimp, Eric Pentle, eastcolfax and lacraig819

Banksy at the movies: Part II

Note from RJ: The following post by Alison Young was originally published on her blog, Images to Live By. We at Vandalog would like to thank Alison for kindly allowing us to republish it here, along with part I of the review (posted yesterday).

Since the previous post, about expectations of what Exit Through the Gift Shop is about, turned out to be a long one, I thought I’d write a separate one dealing with what it’s not about.

So let’s go back to the second response that a lot of people seemed to have after seeing the movie – a feeling of surprise that it’s not ‘about’ Banksy, or at least not as much as they had expected.

It’s worth looking at this closely. Is the film ‘about’ Banksy? Well, the film is made by him, and thus it provides us with a text which tells us something about the artists and his concerns, just as his artworks, books and exhibitions do.

And then again, Banksy is in the movie: we see him in his studio; we see him stencilling; we see him with his crew of helpers creating the famous ‘vandalized telephone box’ in London (which goes on to sell for an extraordinary sum at auction); we see him installing a blow-up doll, hooded, shackled, and wearing an orange jumpsuit, at Disneyland, in a direct juxtaposition of American mass entertainment culture with the torture of detainees at Guantanamo.  (All of these occurrences are filmed by Guetta.)

But of course, while all of these events are taking place, Banksy still withholds himself from any kind of identifying gaze – he wears the hood of his sweatshirt pulled over his head, his face is blanked by pixillation, his voice distorted (and his assistants’ identities are similarly masked).

So Banksy’s certainly in the movie, but he’s simultaneously on display and hidden from our view. But what we do see in plain sight are his stencils and his hands: as Banksy himself states in the film, ‘I told Thierry he could film my hands but only from behind’.

As he says these words in voice-over, the film shows us Banksy at work, cutting stencils (for one of his signature rats, to be put up on a wall in LA). And for me, that was one of the highlights of the film – watching those hands, whether at work on the stencil or gesturing along with the words spoken by Banksy’s distorted voice.

They’re slender hands, with long fingers. They’re the hands of an artist. What does the face matter, or the voice? Watch the film – and watch out for the scene of Banksy cutting stencils, with speed, and with great skill. That moment might not be central to the film, but it’s certainly what street art is all about.

Banksy at the movies: Part I

Note from RJ: The following post by Alison Young was originally published on her blog, Images to Live By. We at Vandalog would like to thank Alison for kindly allowing us to republish it here, along with part II of the review (coming tomorrow).

I’m in New York City right now, and last night I attended a preview screening of Banksy’s film, Exit Through the Gift Shop. The film is being released in a number of US cities from April 16th and if you click here you can find a list of release dates, cities and theaters. (If you’re reading this in Britain, the film’s been out for a few weeks; if you’re reading this in Australia, be patient a little longer because the film will be released there in early June.)

Given the intense interest in Banksy as an artist and in the mystery of his identity, it’s inevitable that this film will attract a lot of attention. What’s as interesting as the movie itself is the range of responses that people are having to the film. Among those who’ve seen it so far, people speak positively of the film (as they should, since it’s a highly enjoyable documentary), but they also seem, first of all, surprised that it is more about Mr Brainwash (aka MBW aka Thierry Guetta) than it is about Banksy; and, second, disappointed that, because the film is more about Mr Brainwash, Banksy doesn’t reveal much of himself in the movie.

Let’s start with the first of those reactions, that the film’s not ‘about’ Banksy, which certainly raises the question of what the film is about. Well, the film operates on many different levels, and one of its main ones is the story of how street art took off, from being something with an intense local significance which was shared through the networks of the global street art community for the enjoyment of those who practice or appreciate street art, to became an entrenched part of the mainstream art world, whereby paintings (and artists) are commodified for profit.

To tell that story, the film focuses on Thierry Guetta’s transformation from amateur film-maker into artworld succes du jour, as a means of demonstrating both the possibilities open to anyone with the will to put up art and the (slightly frightening) logical consequences of those possibilities (for example, having people queueing for hours to get into your art show, simply because they’ve been told by the media that your art is important).

The film treads a clever and careful line between condoning and critiquing the commercialization of street art, as its embodied in Guetta’s transformation: it really is left up to the viewer to work out where you stand on the issue. In some ways, the film seems to be criticizing the people who have bought Mr Brainwash’s work for vast sums of money and who have contributed to his art world stardom, but, then again, isn’t this the same art world that has made stars of Shepard Fairey and Banksy and Blek le Rat? If we want to critique the art world, it must be a critique that can specify why Mr Brainwash’s stardom is problematic when that of the others is not.

So: how do we think through that problem? Is it because Mr Brainwash doesn’t make all of his art himself? Neither does Shepard Fairey nowadays, nor Banksy (both of whom have assistants – and we see some of Banksy’s assistants at work in the film), and neither does Jeff Koons, for that matter. Is it because Mr Brainwash’s work is derivative (his work repeats many of the devices used by Andy Warhol, Banksy, Fairey, Nick Walker, Blek…)? Well, that might be a better founded criticism, but it still requires us to think through its implications: each of those artists borrow from other artists and art movements, re-presenting certain tropes in order to create a new art idiom. Perhaps Mr Brainwash’s endless borrowing (what some would even call plagiarism) from the borrowers lacks aesthetic merit because it does nothing new – no new idiom emerges from his pillaging of pop culture and street art.

At any rate, I think these issues form the heart of what the film is about – and I’d back this up by referring you to the movie’s title. By calling his film ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop‘, Banksy is both having a sly dig at museum culture, which often cynically seeks to extract more money from visitors after they have viewed an exhibit, but he is also pointing out to us the direction that street art may be heading in, now that its commercialization is so advanced – the only ‘exit’ is to find a way through the endless consumption offered to us as a poor substitute for the art itself.

The latest Banksy: art or advert

Note from RJ: The following is a guest post by Jordan Seiler of Pubic Ad Campaign. The opinions are entirely his own, but I did ask him to write this post. I was asking myself the same questions that Jordan has considered, and I knew that he could provide a more intelligent analysis of the situation than I’m able.

Is this new Banksy Street Art or advertising, and does it even matter when it manipulates the public and negatively affects people’s relationships to the streets that surround them?

It is my contention that Street Art’s positive affect on the viewer and therefore the public in general is directly related to the producer’s intent to manipulate for self-interest. For pedestrians, the appropriation of public space by advertisers and artists is an interruption to the normal architecture of the city. When that interruption has no clear expectation of the viewer, the work becomes a point of dialogue and conversation between two unknown parties. It is as if a gift has been left behind to be appreciated or forgotten according to the viewer’s discretion. When that interruption is motivated by self-promotion, as in the case of advertising, this dialogue becomes a monologue that demands the viewer recognize a specific person, product, or thing. It would seem the intention of the imagery put in our public spaces can create two very different reactions in the viewer to the space itself.

Photo by caruba

Banksy is a hard nut to crack. His work very successfully uses the street to do what good Street Art always does, create moments of interaction and dialogue between public individuals where once a barren emptiness stood. And yet I often find myself wanting give him shit for some of the stunts he pulls (for example the above rat painted by Colossal Media) because they ride a thin line between being good street art and the work of someone with money to burn and a staff to pull off his antics. For me, having someone else do your work for you seems too close to advertising and therefore a manipulative abuse of public space. But this is clearly my personal opinion. As the Banksy machine grows in size and scope, the line he walks becomes ever more treacherous as possibilities to taint his street credibility multiply. The upcoming release of Exit Through the Gift Shop, and its subsequent promotion on Portabello Road in London, is a good example of this thin line we expect Banksy to carefully navigate. More importantly, it provides us with some insight into when street art has abandoned its initial interest in creating dialogue in favor of an outright promotion of the artist, and how that affects the public.

Photo by RomanyWG

I was recently made aware of the above “advertisement” on Portabello Road in Notting Hill. It seems to be the work of Banksy, or his PR firm, and promotes the upcoming release of his new documentary film. What stood in this location before the infamous vandal got his hands on it was a more traditional advertisement. To me this reinforces the notion that indeed Banksy has started advertising for himself. If so, this is an interesting juxtaposition to earlier works attributed to Banksy, which include this YouTube anti-advertising piece done over a blank advertising frame. Although Banksy may not be at work in this video, writing “The joy of not being sold anything” on a billboard is something we could expect out of an artist who describes his relationship to outdoor advertising like this:

Any advertisement in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It belongs to you. It’s yours to take, re-arrange, and re-use. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
– Banksy in his book “Cut It Out”

This advertisement makes me want to get up there and buff it, a reaction against this piece and how it uses public space. One could argue that Banksy has crossed a line here by using public space for outright promotion instead of artistic practices and that this should affect how people see his work. Some would say that this line is dependent on whether or not Banksy has paid for this space or not. If he has rented the billboard, then he is simply promoting his personal agenda by buying public space, which seems counter intuitive to Banksy’s interests. If he has not rented the space and this appropriation of advertising real estate was done without permission in typical street art fashion, then is he simply continuing a long history of public appropriation?

Whether or not this Banksy piece is good or bad, art or advertising, tainted by the hypocrisy of advertising for himself using street art, or bettered by his wholesale appropriation of the public for his own means, is open for debate. To me the answer to the argument lies in the larger question of how we utilize public space productively so that our artwork creates more interactions and public relationships, instead of separations and points of friction.

The notion of intention as it is applied to artists and advertisers’ self interest when appropriating the public environment might reveal how the public receives the work and what benefits the work might have for the public at large. As I said before, both of these visual forms in public are interruptions, and maybe even distractions, so they have a serious affect on the way the public experiences its space. That said there are four examples of intention that create reactions with varying degrees of animosity or endearment for the viewer. These examples apply directly to advertising and art and I believe explain how visual works can affect the public’s feelings of separation or connectedness to public spaces.

  1. If someone intends to distract you for their own purposes, they are manipulating you and your relationship is one of conflict.
  2. If someone distracts you for their own purposes without intending to do so, you are upset but will generally not hold them responsible in the same way.
  3. If someone interrupts your day for the sake of pure communication without intending to do so, you might appreciate their action but not commend them for it.
  4. If someone intends to interrupt your day for the sake of pure communication it may endear you to them, developing a relationship through your appreciation.

So Advertisement, intending to distract you for its own purposes, creates a conflicted interaction where the viewer recoils from an environment that is manipulative. Good Street Art, with an interest in dialogue and two way communication, builds relationships by integrating the viewer into his or her experience of public space. Banksy’s traditional street work, intending to interrupt your day for the sake of communication is therefore experienced as a positive use of public space and leaves the viewer happy about his or her serendipitous run in. Alternatively, Banksy’s use of public space to promote his upcoming movie, whether intending to or not, is a use of public space for self-interest and therefore manipulative to the viewer.  Whether or not this is advertising or Street Art is really not the question so much as is this a poor use of the public environment by an artist whose long history or work should have taught him better? To someone who greatly appreciates Banksy’s Street Art this image tarnishes the shine on much of his work. For someone who is unfamiliar with the artist it is just another image on the wall repeating a self-interested meme.

Photos by caruba and RomanyWG

Fire Extinguishers in New York

Recently there has been a slew of fire extinguisher tags New York. Reader is back in the city so he has definitely made his mark as of late with this scourge of graffiti.

Reader completing Katsus unfinished business
Reader completing Katsu's unfinished business
Politically incorrect
Politically incorrect

Some oldies but still worthy of mention

Avoid ADHD
Avoid ADHD

– Gaia

The best street art post you’ll read this year

Last night I came across a post of Art of The State which sums up a major problem in street art in such a way that I just have to share the entire post. You can read the post, titled “Stop Thief! / the other Banksy show,” over at Art of The State, but for the benefit of Vandalog’s email subscribers who might not want to bother clicking on a link outside of their email client or are reading this on a phone or something, I’ve also reposted the entire article below. Thanks to Steve for letting me repost it (and going to the Banksy show in Covent Garden so that none of the rest of us have to).

Stop Thief! / the other Banksy show

One problem thats come out of the rise in the popularity of street art is that work that used to be left to survive on its own (either ending up being removed by the property owner or gone over with other graffiti – both of which are fine by me) is now having to die a slow, undignified death above someones fireplace. Street art is meant to be on the streets (the clues in the title). ‘Street art’ removed from the streets becomes, well, just ‘art’. I’m not talking about copies of street pieces that are meant to be sold and displayed. I’m talking about the peel off carefully, chisel out of the wall brigade. Case in point this was the scene in Brick Lane this afternoon. Walking around a corner I stumbled on this not too stereotypical street art ‘liberator’ carefully peeling off a fresh paste up. She then proceeded to roll it up, stuff it in a bag and then made her (slightly shaky) getaway in the direction of the 24 hour bagel shop (the best place in London for all your Bagel needs). It’s not exactly a crime but it would be much better if it was left there for others to enjoy.


A bit later on in the afternoon and against my better judgement I had a look at the totally unofficial show of ‘reclaimed’ Banksy work in Covent Garden. Walking up to it and even walking around it you’d be hard pressed to determine that Banksy would have had nothing to do with this show (his verification agency ‘Pest Control’ famously always refuses to authenticate street pieces). Most of the work on display has been lifted off the streets over recent years. Large sections of walls, doors and plaster are amongst the pieces that make up the exhibition. It’s a very soulless look at some of his work with a totally different vibe to the Bristol exhibition. In fact it has no vibe at all. Simple labels next to pieces tell you nothing, not even the city the works have been taken from. Banksy’s street pieces are all about the context of where they are placed and in this empty whitewashed hall they lose an important part of their reasons for existence. I actually thought that Andipa Modern’s recent Banksy show was better than this – it was an unofficial show too but at least the work they had on display at the last one was pretty much exclusively never placed on the street. That’s not meant as an endorsement of Andipa in case you were wondering.

This sign summed up the whole seedy enterprise for me…my advice is don’t buy anything here – it’ll only encourage them to do it again. Don’t bother with this sorry show and get yourself down to Bristol if you can….

Banksy Photos

Via Art of The State

ABOVE hits up the Berlin Wall

ABOVE (interviewed) continues his trip throughout Europe with a stop in Berlin, Germany, making his mark on the Berlin Wall a little over 20 years after Ronald Regan made his historic speech at Brandenburg Gate stating, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Here are some detailed photos ABOVE’s massive word/play piece and how he marked the anniversary of the bridge to this divide.

Check out the rest of the pics and see the video here.

Cheers, Tan

Artnet Urban Art Auction

Artnet.com is having an online urban art auction, which began July 7th and runs through July 23rd. The catalogue contains works by many of the major names in the scene, from the 80s through today, such as Dondi, Crash, Haring, Basquiat, Barry McGee, Banksy, Nick Walker, Faile and Shepard Fairey. There are also some strange, albeit nice, inclusions such as Mr. and Jim Houser, as well as some weaker urban choices, but on the whole this auction is definitely worth checking out as there is a good range of pieces in it.

It is also quite well-presented and easy to use; you can either scroll the catalogue page by page or search by artist. The biographical information is nice to have and I like the inclusion of sales results for comparable work – this is particularly handy if you are considering placing a bid.

I have highlighted a few of my personal favorites. Clicking on the image will take you to the lot.

Dondi White "Style Maneuver" 1983
Dondi White "Style Maneuver" 1983
Dondi White "Reflections", 1983
Dondi White "Reflections", 1983
Keith Haring "Luna, Luna, a poetic extravaganza!" 1986
Keith Haring "Luna, Luna, a poetic extravaganza!" 1986
Keith Haring "Untitled (DOG) Oil on Wood" 1983
Keith Haring "Untitled (DOG) Oil on Wood" 1983
Mr. "Untitled (Yellow Hair)" 1996
Mr. "Untitled (Yellow Hair)" 1996
Banksy "Have A Nice Day" 2004
Banksy "Have A Nice Day" 2004
Nick Walker "Sweet Revenge" 2008
Nick Walker "Sweet Revenge" 2008
Jean-Michel Basquiat "Anti-Baseball Card Product" circa 1979
Jean-Michel Basquiat "Anti-Baseball Card Product" circa 1979
Doze Green "Ancestros Totemic Series: Cuba" 2008
Doze Green "Ancestros Totemic Series: Cuba" 2008
Date Farmers "Untitled" 2006
Date Farmers "Untitled" 2006
Barry McGee "Untitled" 1999
Barry McGee "Untitled" 1999
Margaret Kilgallen "Kingpin" 1997
Margaret Kilgallen "Kingpin" 1997

Elisa x