1

Vandalism Versus Brandalism: the Rights to Public Space

The distinction between what is deemed as public or private space progressively blurs

due to the influence of the mass media, privatization, and the impending threat of becoming an

era of Big Brother-meets-corporate-advertising. The growing invasion of personal space is made

worse with the advertisers’ power to dictate societal trends by monopolizing public space with

their subliminal enterprise; i.e., they are everywhere and they are affecting everyone. They are

the source for one’s choice in clothing, for teen weight issues, that seemingly visceral pressure to

live a certain way, and they do it without anyone’s permission. However invasive their adver-

tisements may be, any alteration or destruction of this property is illegal and considered vandal-

ism. In response, artists such as Banksy, a British graffiti painter, introduce the new term Bran-

dalism which is used to describe “the creeping corporatisation of schools, libraries and other

public buildings, which are gradually being daubed with company logos and slogans” (“web

speak; A new industry … dictionary”). The controversy over semantics that graffiti art has en-

sued epitomizes the paradox that is the legality of brandalism versus vandalism. Despite the

negative connotations that the word vandalism evokes when applied to illicit artwork, the actual

use of satirical subvertising in a medium with the universally tacit accessibility of guerilla art-

fare is the most effective means to oppose the incongruously-permitted violation of individual

rights and space caused by societal marketing perversion and the necessary counterbalance that

the law fails to oblige.

As a result of increased technological development, advertisers may now access consum-

ers based on the individuals’ needs, interests, desires, and sudden urges (“Do Advertisers …

Us?”). Many suggest that advertising, like graffiti, can be ignored as the individual is not neces-
 2

sarily forced to look. However, there are several blatant fallacies in this similitude, essentially

rendering this analogy a joke. The crux of these differences is contingent upon whether an envi-

ronment should be allowed to monitor those that live within it. According to marketing analysts,

one in four American advertisers used behavioral targeting in 2008, and almost half are expecting

to employ it in 2009. Companies such as NebuAd and Phorm offer inspection technology to

internet service providers that document a user’s traffic to build detailed profiles based on vari-

ous aspects of their activity; such as browsing habits, media streaming consumption, email

communications, instant messaging, as well as Skype messaging. This increase in targeted adver-

tising is not in any way limited to the internet. The Eye Flavor, for instance, is a Japanese all-in-

one digital signage board that uses facial recognition to regulate the content exposed to consum-

ers based on their gender and age range (Marchetti). There appears to be no limits on what may

be collected about consumers. In the words of Banksy, “They are The Advertisers and they are

laughing at you” (Banksy 31).

In 1969, for approximately one month, a New York City pedestrian was randomly se-

lected each day to be followed everywhere that the follower was allowed to enter (Acconci). This

incident is called, “Following Piece,” a performance by artist Vito Acconci, with additional help

from his involuntary participants. This performance piece demonstrates the ineluctable reality of

a legal system’s restrictions in providing the necessary protection of the individuals it operates

for. No document of law, notwithstanding objectivity, is capable of faultlessly carrying out the

bona fide convictions it serves to enforce. That is, a man who just so happens to be in the same

place at the same time as another person may call it a coincidence, and therefore not likely to be

prosecuted for stalking.

 3

The idea that Acconci conveys can be extended to advertising. Despite being an invading

force in a person’s life, advertisers are legally allowed to continue. “Trademarks, intellectual

property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say whatever they like with total impu-

nity.” says Banksy. These legal factors are only strengthened by the government’s support of pri-

vatization. One does not need to be familiar with the technicalities of privatization and corporati-

sation to have witnessed its effects on society. In fact, corporatisation is demonstrated every-

where; on public benches and buildings, as well as any other thing that, although labeled public,

contains properties that can be bought and sold.

In 1974, a performance artist named Marina Abramović performed “Rhythm 0”, in which

she would lie on a table for six hours with seventy-two objects that the audience could use on her

in any way they desired (Abramović). A card on the table listed a set of rules that presented

Abramović as the object, where she holds full responsibility for anything that would occur within

the six-hour period. The audience split into two groups; those who used the objects on her and

those who protected her from them. At one point, a fight emerged as someone held a gun to her

throat. With that card, Abramović gave up the rights to control of her own body. In response, the

audience assumed that control. The ethical consequences of accepting responsibility for the ac-

tions carried out by others without one’s own consent are innumerable. Abramović illustrates the

sense of urgency a person must take when their rights are threatened in order to remain in control

of one’s own circumstances. Otherwise, can one trust the decisions that others are willing to

make for them without their consent?

Although the feeling of a gun held to one’s neck is much different from the seemingly

obscure presence of advertising, the consequences of tolerating its abuse are just as significant.
 4

People are made more transparent than ever before; to government agencies, to security services,

to advertisers, as well as the companies they purchase from (“You Are Being Watched”). Closed-

circuit television cameras are monitoring the public everywhere. “Britain now has an estimated

4.2 million CCTV cameras—one for every 14 citizens,” says Don Butler of the Ottawa Citizen.

“People in central London are now caught on camera about 300 times a day.” Butler reports an

approximate thirty-million public and private CCTV cameras in the United States. Surveillance

expert from the University of Alberta, Kevin Haggerty, comments, “There’s an ability to connect

all of this stuff across realms that is just a little unnerving.” People are tracked everywhere from

public spaces, to their workplaces, and even on the internet. Personal information is stored in ex-

tensive databases and classified into categories of risk, value, and trustworthiness. “We are inad-

vertently handing over to centralized authorities an infrastructure of visibility the likes of which

no society has ever seen before.” Perhaps to some, a lack of privacy still does not feel as lethal as

a gun to the neck; however, such tolerance may lead to critical consequences. Many privacy ad-

vocates stress the potential detriments of radio frequency identification technology; tiny chips

that communicate stored data to a reader via radio transmission. Canadian federal Privacy Com-

missioner Jennifer Stoddart describes the extent that RFIDs could affect society. “RFIDs may

someday be embedded in almost everything, allowing each of us, at least in theory, to be moni-

tored wherever we go.” RFID chips could replace universal product codes within a decade.

Every item on Earth would have its own unique identifier, essentially meaning that anything and

everything a person possesses could be tracked and monitored. Some even suggest that RFIDs

will likely be routinely embedded in everyone alive, possibly within a human lifetime. The de-

gree of power that technology grants to whatever force is in control of it is irreversible: authori-
 5

tarianism. “Our governments should be transparent to us, so citizens can hold them to account.

Instead, it’s the citizens who are being made transparent.” The relationship between the citizen

and the state has been inverted. “We got it backwards.”

On Sunday, April 13, 2008, central London postal workers went to work only to find the

Newman Street Post Office building’s exterior wall exhibiting the words, “ONE NATION UN-

DER CCTV,” stretching three stories high (“Graffiti Artist … by CCTV”). Artist Banksy man-

aged the stunt despite a security fence inclosing the Post Office yard, combined with the addi-

tional risk involved with working under the surveillance of an actual CCTV camera. The painting

is large, conspicuous, and illegal. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to categorize it with the

tagging typically associated with urban graffiti.

The core difference between art and tagging is ambiguous. The difference between adver-

tising and tagging, however, is both defined and enforced by the law. Disregarding the transiency

of semantics, labels, legalities, and appearances; every object, system, and event carries an im-

plicit idea. Whether the idea is in the emergence, intent, or internal process; the ethicality is con-

sistent in its effects. The common idea between graffiti art and advertising is communication; the

use of public space to broadcast a message. Intrinsically, however, these acts carry two contrast-

ing ideas. The future of advertising is stalking pedestrians in a New York City street. It holds a

gun to the neck without taking responsibility for the consequences. It invades privacy, manipu-

lates desires, and it projects identities onto the people it spies on. Graffiti art is a means of fight-

ing this force. It takes control of the variables affecting one’s life. It is painting illegally to broad-

cast a message so urgent and intolerable that one cannot waste time passively filtering through a

paradoxical legal system. “Any advert that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is
 6

yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it.” Banksy

writes. Satirical subvertising is a necessary crime to fight a force whose potential consequences

are irreversible. “Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your

head.”
 7

Works Cited

Abramović, Marina, perf. Rhythm 0. By Marina Abramović. Naples: 1974.

Acconci, Vito, perf. Following Piece. By Vito Acconci. New York: 1969.

Banksy. Cut It Out. Vol. 3. Banksy, 2004.

Butler, Don. “Do Advertisers Know Too Much About Us?.” Canwest News Service. (04 Feb.

2009). 12 Feb. 2009 <http://www.canada.com/Entertainment/story.html?id=1250021>.

Butler, Don. “You Are Being Watched.” Ottawa Citizen. (05 Feb. 2009). 12 Feb. 2009

<http://www.canada.com/Sports/being+watched/1256769/story.html>.

“Graffiti Artist Banksy Pulls off Most Audacious Stunt to Date - despite being watched by

CCTV.” Daily Mail (14 April 2008). 03 Feb. 2009 <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/

article-559547/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-pulls-audacious-stunt-date--despite-watched-CCTV.

html>.

Marchetti, Nino. “Targeted Advertising from Face Recognition.” TG Daily. (28 Jan. 2009). 04

Feb. 2009 <http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41233/113/>.

“Web Speak; A New Industry, A New Language. Your Weekly Dotcom Dictionary.” Daily Tele-

graph (London, England) (09 April 2001): NA. Custom Newspapers (InfoTrac-Gale).

Gale. DISCUS. 12 Feb. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=SPN.SP00>.