@2, 4 - If Micro/bucks did it, it would be phony guerilla marketing. This object is there for itself, for being art. It's not there as a symbol of a consumer product, trying to get you to purchase coffee or software.
Furthermore, as an art object, it's value is largely in it's location --on the public street-- and in it's interaction with the networks of people and other objects placed into it. If it were put in someone's house, it would die and become static, changing it's meaning as a piece of art into that of an artifact. (pun partially intended) Is Mr Simonsen selling these to make a living? Moot point! It's neat.
That is exactly the double standard for street art that you can't see past. Objectively, what we have here is a simplistic piece of concept art which primarily serves to draw attention and build goodwill for the creator. What corporations call "branding". But because an individual is doing it, an individual who is protected by a force field of special pleading, we don't judge it on it's merits. We pretend that this doesn't serve as a calling card to boost the market value of the artist's other work, or help their grant and fellowship prospects. If a corporation were at work here we would be willing to see the ulterior motives for what the are. And we would invariably fail to appreciate the good qualities of the work solely because a corporation did it. Nor would we appreciate the talents of the corporate employees who thought of it and executed it.
It's no different than wanting to buy a MartÃn RamÃrez painting just because you're smitten with the idea of some 'retard' who could, somehow, paint. Rather than respecting the artist enough to judge his work on it's merits.
A fake drawer has somehow managed to call up trash cans, guerrilla marketing, street art & concept art in the same context, consumerism, branding, knotted panties, trust funds, objectivity, simplicity, site specificity, artifices, egotism, force fields, MartÃn RamÃrez?, a disparaging word, painting and artistic merit.
Furthermore, as an art object, it's value is largely in it's location --on the public street-- and in it's interaction with the networks of people and other objects placed into it. If it were put in someone's house, it would die and become static, changing it's meaning as a piece of art into that of an artifact. (pun partially intended) Is Mr Simonsen selling these to make a living? Moot point! It's neat.
That is exactly the double standard for street art that you can't see past. Objectively, what we have here is a simplistic piece of concept art which primarily serves to draw attention and build goodwill for the creator. What corporations call "branding". But because an individual is doing it, an individual who is protected by a force field of special pleading, we don't judge it on it's merits. We pretend that this doesn't serve as a calling card to boost the market value of the artist's other work, or help their grant and fellowship prospects. If a corporation were at work here we would be willing to see the ulterior motives for what the are. And we would invariably fail to appreciate the good qualities of the work solely because a corporation did it. Nor would we appreciate the talents of the corporate employees who thought of it and executed it.
It's no different than wanting to buy a MartÃn RamÃrez painting just because you're smitten with the idea of some 'retard' who could, somehow, paint. Rather than respecting the artist enough to judge his work on it's merits.