"Reverse Graffiti": Should Selective Cleaning Be Illegal?

Kilgore Trout · #1 Posted: **Dec 11, 2006, 5:40 PM**

from the ny times magazine:

December 10, 2006
Reverse Graffiti
By RICHARD MORGAN

The British artist Paul Curtis is not sure what to call his version of vandalism. “People call it ‘reverse graffiti,’ ” he says, “but I prefer something less sinister: ‘clean tagging’ or ‘grime writing.’ ” Curtis, a k a Moose, selectively scrubs dirty, derelict city property (tunnel walls, sidewalks) so that words and images are formed by the cleaned bits. “It’s refacing,” he says, “not defacing. Just restoring a surface to its original state. It’s very temporary. It glows and it twinkles, and then it fades away.”

To pay for industrial scrubbers, he has sold some of his reverse graffiti as advertising. But mostly he sticks to his own art. Critics, like the City Council in Leeds, have accused him of breaking the law, but for what? Cleaning without a permit? “Once you do this,” he says, “you make people confront whether or not they like people cleaning walls or if they really have a problem with personal expression.”

there's also an NPR story here.

more examples of moose's work here.

tackledspoon · #2 Posted: **Dec 11, 2006, 6:01 PM**

I've long been a supporter of intelligent street art and this guy seems like one of the most intelligent. He's doing something unique and his pieces have a very subtle beauty to them. In all of the situations pictured above, the scene is more beautiful for his work.

Saddle Man · #3 Posted: **Dec 11, 2006, 6:32 PM**

this guy is kickass

CGII · #4 Posted: **Dec 11, 2006, 6:39 PM**

That's awesome.

brian_b · #5 Posted: **Dec 11, 2006, 6:39 PM**

Very interesting. I don't like graffiti of any kind, but at least his kind of graffiti is easy to "clean"

Cleveland Brown · #6 Posted: **Dec 11, 2006, 7:45 PM**

very smart indeed

keninhalifax · #7 Posted: **Dec 11, 2006, 8:35 PM**

Wow; this certainly makes me think a lot more than most graffiti art. Neat link, KT!

someone123 · #8 Posted: **Dec 11, 2006, 8:38 PM**

Very interesting. It should still be illegal if he does it without permission though, since these surfaces are not his property.

SHiRO · #9 Posted: **Dec 11, 2006, 10:34 PM**

Cleaning should be illegal?

niwell · #10 Posted: **Dec 12, 2006, 3:39 AM**

This is incredible

Zerton · #11 Posted: **Dec 12, 2006, 4:20 AM**

i like graffiti we need some good stuff here.

Kilgore Trout · #12 Posted: **Dec 12, 2006, 4:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Very interesting. It should still be illegal if he does it without permission though, since these surfaces are not his property.

most of the surfaces, as you can see, are public property: sidewalks, tunnel walls, etc.

i hope you're not suggesting that it should be illegal to clean public property?

Tom In Chicago · #13 Posted: **Dec 12, 2006, 4:40 PM**

Someone did that to my car recently. . . they scribbled "WASH ME" on the hood. . . my lawyers are working in shifts to get to the bottom of this. . .

brickell · #14 Posted: **Dec 12, 2006, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

most of the surfaces, as you can see, are public property: sidewalks, tunnel walls, etc.

i hope you're not suggesting that it should be illegal to clean public property?

I appreciate the thought, but this goes beyond regular "cleaning". Most of his stuff is pleasant on the eyes, but consider random taggers doing the same thing. You'd have to put just as much work "cleaning" the tag as you would if it was a spray painted. Not only that, but the cleaning process would remove that patina that I believe makes cities what they are.

mhays · #15 Posted: **Dec 12, 2006, 9:47 PM**

Even "cleaning" might cause shading variations that would be visible after later cleanings.

Also, it's still an image on property that isn't his, whether it's public or private.

I don't hate this guy as much as I hate taggers.

Via Chicago · #16 Posted: **Dec 12, 2006, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Even "cleaning" might cause shading variations that would be visible after later cleanings.

Also, it's still an image on property that isn't his, whether it's public or private.

so next time i brush up against a filthy wall that hasnt been cleaned in 30 years in the subway and i leave a mark, im breaking the law? sorry, but this guy is totally protected.

mhays · #17 Posted: **Dec 12, 2006, 9:59 PM**

(edit: dupl.)

SpongeG · #18 Posted: **Dec 13, 2006, 6:35 AM**

cool stuff

GeorgeLV · #19 Posted: **Dec 13, 2006, 6:49 AM**

This is more of the category of chalk art than graffiti. It's removable at no to little expense and the artist isn't causing any harm so why give him any grief over it.

(Now that I look at more pictures I wonder if his "industrial scrubbers" are removing a gloss/sealant from some of the surfaces. If that's the case, then what he's doing is pretty permanent and that isn't cool.)

beesbees · #20 Posted: **Dec 14, 2006, 8:39 PM**

They're easy to get rid of.. a hose would do it!

How can this be compared to spray graffiti?