June 28, 2007
As Street Art Goes Commercial, a Resistance Raises a Real Stink

By COLIN MOYNIHAN
The covert campaign targeting street art began about seven months ago, with 
blobs of 
paint that appeared overnight, obscuring murals and wheat-pasted art on walls 
in 
Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan. Arcane messages were pasted at the sites, but it 
was 
difficult to ask for an explanation. The author was never identified.

Then in November, during a panel discussion on women and graffiti that included 
a street 
artist called Swoon, a figure wearing a hooded sweatshirt flung a sheaf of 
fliers using 
similar language from a balcony overlooking an auditorium at the Brooklyn 
Museum. 
Swoon was among those whose work had previously been struck by paint, and some 
couldn't help wondering whether the person who threw the fliers was also the 
Splasher, as 
the perpetrator of the paint attacks had come to be known.

Web sites, magazines and newspaper articles reported about the splatterings. 
Some 
wondered about the motivation and identity of those responsible, but the 
Splasher — or 
Splashers — remained anonymous.

The most recent episodes came this month, in two incidents involving what 
seemed to be 
stink bombs lobbed at shows of street artists on the Lower East Side and Dumbo. 
And 
some in the art world believe the identify of the Splasher may have been 
revealed. Last 
Thursday night James Cooper, 24, was arrested at the Dumbo show after witnesses 
accused him of attempting to ignite a homemade incendiary device in a metal 
coffee 
canister.

Mr. Cooper was charged with third-degree arson, reckless endangerment, placing 
a false 
bomb, criminal possession of a weapon, harassment and disorderly conduct. He 
was 
arraigned and released on his own recognizance, a spokesman for the Brooklyn 
District 
Attorney's Office said.

That show featured works by Shepard Fairey, who had been one of the prominent 
targets 
of the street splatterings. Mr. Fairey said there wasn't yet enough evidence to 
tie Mr. 
Cooper definitively to the paint blobs, but acknowledged apparent 
parallels."Maybe the 
stink bomb thing was their way of being disruptive without using paint and 
while 
penetrating a more controlled atmosphere," he said.

Two days after Mr. Cooper's arrest, a group of people showed up at the Jonathan 
LeVine 
Gallery in Chelsea, where a reception was being held for Mr. Fairey. Without 
identifying 
themselves, they distributed copies of a 16-page tabloid with the title "If we 
did it this is 
how it would've happened," with a cover photograph of an image created by Mr. 
Fairey 
defaced with paint.

Inside were reproductions of the communiqués that were pasted next to the sites 
of many 
paint attacks and appeared to draw inspiration from the writings by the 
Situationists, a 
group of political and artistic agitators formed in the 1950s, and a 1960s 
anarchist group 
called Black Mask.

In often bombastic language those fliers condemned the commercialization of art 
and 
included statements saying that the wheat paste used to affix the fliers had 
been mixed 
with shards of glass. An essay in the paper given out at the gallery scoffed at 
those who 
had difficulty understanding the fliers and added footnotes clarifying parts of 
them. One 
footnote stated that the tabloids had been dusted with anthrax.

In a series of essays and in text that appeared under the headline "Interview 
With Myself" 
the anonymous authors said that the splashings were committed not by an 
individual but 
by a group of men and women, and offered some explanation of their motives.

The authors wrote that street art was "a bourgeoisie-sponsored rebellion" that 
helped 
pave the way for gentrification, and called it "utterly impotent politically 
and fantastically 
lucrative for everyone involved."

The writings also criticized people prominent in the world of street art, 
including Mr. 
Fairey and Swoon, the art collectives Faile and Visual Resistance, and Marc and 
Sara 
Schiller, who run a Web site about street art called the Wooster collective 
(woostercollective.com).

"There is a very strong viewpoint there, and there's an element of interest I 
can't deny," 
Mr. Schiller said. Still, he said, "I don't agree with the perspective and I 
don't think the 
assumptions are accurate."

Previous incidents of agitprop were described, and the authors claimed 
responsibility for 
assailing a mural in Williamsburg by the reclusive British artist known as 
Banksy, and for 
hurling paint at a billboard advertising sneakers on Lafayette Street made by 
an artist 
called Neckface. Because the authors are unidentified, it isn't known for sure 
whether they 
are indeed the Splashers. An e-mail address was published in the paper but a 
message 
sent by a reporter to that address on Tuesday night went unanswered.

The distribution of the paper at the gallery and its mailing to two Web sites 
that write 
about street art has stirred speculation, but many artists remain focused on 
Mr. Cooper, 
who so far is the only person who has been publicly identified as having a 
possible 
connection to the art attacks.

In a brief interview on Tuesday morning conducted near his home in Bushwick, 
Brooklyn, 
Mr. Cooper declined to discuss details of his case but said that he was not 
guilty of 
wrongdoing and that he was not the Splasher.

Still, Jonathan LeVine, a gallery owner who was at the Dumbo show, insisted 
that Mr. 
Cooper was one of two men seen trying to light a device and who fled when 
approached.

"One of the two people came back and guys I know grabbed him," Mr. LeVine said. 
"The 
two people were together by all accounts."

The man who was grabbed was Mr. Cooper. He waited, crouched in a corner of the 
6,600 
square-foot space, as some of the 14 security guards hired for the event stood 
nearby. 
Then the police arrived and arrested him.

The man who was said by witnesses to be with Mr. Cooper made it out of the 
show. But 
people involved in street art said that detectives are searching for a second 
suspect and 
are also inquiring about the newspaper.

Although the paint splashings have been viewed with a mixture of aggravation 
and 
amusement, Mr. LeVine said that the attempt to light an incendiary device 
during a 
crowded art show was foolish and reckless.

"They could've killed someone," he said. "It's not O.K. to jeopardize people's 
lives."

The earlier suspected stink bomb attack took place June 7 when a show in an 
exhibition 
space on Chrystie Street displaying work by a two-man street art collective 
called Faile was 
disrupted by a noxious odor that witnesses said smelled like sulphur. 
Firefighters arrived, 
said a member of Faile, and said that somebody had called in a report of a gas 
leak.

"This kind of thing is silly," said the Faile member, who declined to give his 
name. "They're 
hiding themselves so you can't have a discussion with them."

Perhaps the street artists will eventually have a chance to confront their 
antagonists 
directly. One of the last pages of the newspaper published by the 
self-proclaimed 
Splashers sounded a note that could be interpreted as ominous, or optimistic, 
depending 
on your point of view.

"Don't worry," it read. "You'll be hearing from us again."

Al Baker contributed reporting.



Reply via email to