Vandalizing the Vandalized Vandalism

15. November 2010
Buenos Aires

2 weeks ago there was an exhibition at a swanky gallery in the Congreso neighborhood of Buenos Aires.  The art on display and up for sale was not by the artist whose name was on all of the show's advertising.

I wrote earlier about a street art scandal caused by a Peruvian artist who worked with a local BA gallery to remove works of street art from the streets to display in his own show.  Finally, on Saturday the 30th of October, the opening of this exhibition took place.  I received the information for the show at the last minute and was able to pass along the details to my street art tour boss, M, who proceeded to pass it through the wires to the artists who had been anxiously awaiting their time to speak out about the events of the previous weeks.

I showed up to the gallery at around 8:30pm and was immediately impressed by the building.  Let in by a gallery assistant to the private building, I made my way up to the 3rd floor where I found a pristine white walled gallery with a fantastic view of the Congress building.  As I entered the gallery I was immediately overcome by the terribly toxic smell of the fiberglass resin.  Even after having dried completely, this substance that had been painted onto the works of street art is so toxic that the smell lingered throughout the gallery and set a very unsettling stage.

There, hanging suspended from the ceiling and on the walls were sheets of fiberglass, like sheets of thick plastic, with the stolen pieces stuck to them.  (The gallery's staff had removed these works by painting fiberglass resin onto the painted walls and then coming back days later to literally peel off the dried layer of fiberglass, bringing with it the layer of paint underneath) There were works of about 15 different street artists of Buenos Aires, many of whom have been painting for a decade now.  Many of whom continue to give back to their communities through painted works that are available to all, and many of whom also manage an art gallery and create art for local and international exhibits.

Under neon lighting, against perfect white walls and surrounded by toxic air were these works that have been literally torn from their natural habitats and put on display like tired circus animals for the thirsty gaze of BA's uppercrust who are on the lookout for the next, edgiest "it" thing. 

In the artist's write up, he says that he is removing pieces that would have been lost to weather or layers of paint from other painters.  If this is meant to redeem his idea, it is a flimsy excuse.  These artists create works that are meant to live out their lives in their communities.  They do not intend them to last forever, but they have been putting years of their lives, and many many pesos, into creating this art for public enjoyment by absolutely anyone that happens to walk by.  This art is separate from what they create for a gallery.  There is a reason why these artists continue to paint in the streets even now that there is interest in purchasing works on canvas or found objects in a gallery show. This art is for their communities and does not belong in a private and exclusive art gallery.

When I talked with the artist, I asked him if it changed anything to know that many of the artists often have permission to paint.  He never did any research so he would not have known this.  He said that it didn't matter to him, because precisely; he is trying to explore this idea of "vandalizing vandalism" and so this gray area is exactly what he is playing with.  The problem is that he is not stealing the work of young punky vandals who are crudely spraypainting their tags on random walls.  These are artists who have been honing their craft in their communities for years, and often with the support of their neighbors given to them in the form of the use of their walls.

I understand his idea.  But something like this cannot be legitimately explored with any integrity without consulting these people who are artists in their own rights and not "vandals".  Maybe it would even be excusable to some if he were doing this to preserve the works, but the artists came to the show and some of them got price quotes on their own pieces for between 8,000 and 20,000 pesos (2,000 to 5,000 USD).  I can only imagine how this must have made these artists feel. This man who claims to be an artist is planning to sell the works of others.  Of artists he knows nothing about.  Whose names he does not even know.  He is selling an idea but in the mean time he plans to profit from the art of others?  How do you define an artist?

Towards the end of the show, the artists had their time to speak out with action.  The final damage was many broken art works, spray painted works and gallery walls.

The artist captured the action with his camera.  I would imagine he was happy with the show, though I'm sure the gallery owner was not.  The result?  Well, the artists are happy to have had the chance to speak out in their own way.  And they feel vindicated in a sense.  It has certainly brought the street art community together and the conversation about the exhibit two weeks ago continues as newspaper articles begin to appear.  One person who had commissioned a piece for their private wall that was removed is even exploring the possibility of a lawsuit.


Who wins?  The artists have won.  But I suspect that the Peruvian "artist" also feels he has won.  After all, his vandalized vandalism was vandalized by the "vandals".