Ass-Kicking Waiting to Happen

Last week was a big one for the collective known as The Splasher.

A little background first: In the past year or so in New York a lot of street art and graffiti was literally being splashed with paint, frustrating many and defacing work that was already defacing property.

There didn’t seem to be much reason or logic behind what was being splashed or where, except that it was clear that all graffiti and street art was not safe.

Last week the Splasher group released their manifesto, identifying themselves as a collective of folks rather then just one individual.

From what I have read, the writing is a bit disjointed and incoherent in its ranting, making the actual point the Splashers are trying to make a little hard to understand. Essentially, they don’t like street art and graffiti and feel that it is ruining the art community, beyond just the defacement of property (they don’t appreciate galleries displaying this type of art either). They are critics of the entire genre.

It is a bit difficult to gauge if the Splashers want their anti-art sentiment to be viewed as artistic expression through chaos or if their message is that they don’t appreciate the work that is up.

The New York Times reported that last week one of the folks from the Splasher collective was arrested for attempting to light a stink bomb at an exhibit, while other members handed out their manifesto to those who would take it. They also have an analysis of what was in the manifesto.

My question though arises from the coverage that Gothamist gave to the Splasher. While reading through the manifesto and offering highlights, they have also managed to not only identify at least one other member from the Splasher collective, but posted his picture from Flickr. By making this member of the Splasher collective such a public figure and face, isn’t this just turning him into a target? Will it be open season on this guy the next time someone trying to put up some of their art work comes across him?

While many point to the irony of vandalism being vandalized, when these street disputes enter the doors of galleries it does tend to get a little out of hand. The Splashers accusations that graffiti artists are essentially just working for the major corporations towards which they appear to be rebelling is interesting though perhaps unfounded.

The Splasher collective bills itself as an anarchistic group, a designation to which I am sure a lot of graffiti writers could relate. Rather then taking their battle against the institution out on the small fish, why not step up the game? Take the battle to the institutions themselves.

If the Splasher truly did believe all of their written diatribe, maybe they should have taken their splashing materials into the Museum of Modern Art and made a real statement.