City
Hijacking Bush to the West
Even though the hijacked billboards are now replaced by Seiko and McDonald's ads, here's more about the whole Kanye/Bush art fiasco that happened last week.
While hip-hop superstar Kanye West ain't no golddigger, apparently he's not exactly George W. Bush's bud either according to a couple of doctored billboards around town.
The defaced ads, using derogatory ethnic labels, are raising questions about the limits of irony in mass messaging. Are we comfortable with epithets even if they are making an anti-racist point?
The first altered billboard at Dundas West and Bloor appeared last weekend, covering over the Simply Audiobooks ad, Don't Read Enough? alongside picture of Bush, as well as an adjacent McDonald's ad.
The defacer extending the ad's dis of Dubya's intelligence, added a picture of West, notorious for denouncing the American prez during a Hurricane Katrina relief concert last September, posing with the president. The message "Isn't Kanye an A-Rab name?'', is meant to comment on the U.S. president's ignorance of the rest of the world.
The other billboard highjacking at Jane and St. Clair, Bush, is according to the person who marred it, designed to comment on the Bush admin's stereotyping of non-whites. "Kanye, you's my nigga!'', it reads.
Artist Dan Bergeron, the man behind Fauxreel Studios, owns up that he's behind these takeovers. He's hoping that viewers will at least crack a smile when they see his comments on the prevalence of U.S. racism. "I'm not spreading hatred,'' he contends.
But acccording to Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, ads like these "take a certain level of knowledge and humour to be understood. What may be understandable to a small group, may be dangerous in a public domain.''
As for Simply Audiobooks, the Oakville firm declares itself "mildly concerned.'' They expected a backlash from local Bush supporters when they launched their campaign, but had no idea someone would use it for their own political agenda.
"We're a consumer entity that has a lot to lose from a negative taint and the first billboard (at Dundas West) was kind of amusing, but the second one I had a strong reaction to,''says Simply Audio Books chief marketing officer Sanjay Singhal. "The only saving grace is they erased our logo from it.''
Singhal says he hasn't attempted to contact Bergeron because "Why stir the pot?''
Pattison Outdoor, the owner of the posters, isn't enjoying this either. The firm is looking into pressing charges. "This has not happened before [to our clients], says Pattison Outdoor president Randy Otto. "All we can do is investigate the individuals who chose to vandalize the board.''
Toronto Police spokesperson Victor Kwong says it's up to Pattison to file a mischief to property complaint. "If the company wanted to proceed with charges, we'd do an investigation.''
Mr. Fauxreel seems not to be exactly shaking in his boots. "Billboard companies take into account a certain amount of vandalism,'' he reasons.
Discussion
17 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
I enjoy the vigilante/public art movement to an extent, but this is starting to look more like an attempt at a publicity stunt than art, and its meaning is beginning to get lost.
Fauxreel's a <a href="http://www.torontoist.com/staff.php#toronto_fauxreel";>Torontoist contributor</a>, he's a very cool guy, but that's ok that you didn't mention that either. And this is last week's news, but that's ok, too. I guess.
Nobody I've talked to about this thought that either billboard was racist. When I was taking photos of it at night, an Arab-looking guy looked at what I was shooting and laughed. Plenty of people chuckled as they walked by. My friends (some of them are white, some of them aren't! crazy!) are either indifferent or think it's funny.
I guess, unlike you, they all got it.
Usually, as an artist, I don't mind a little culture jamming every now and then, but this whole thing has seemed to me very uninspired, and possibly lazy in it's thinking (although I'd imagine it took a lot of work to put together, physically).
1. Why would you attack a tiny company no-one's ever heard of? Traditionally targets are very carefully chosen corporate conglomerates with dirty records. People who deserve to, and can afford to get hit.
2. Why would you politically alter a message that's already very politically charged? The billboard itself raised questions, and got people to question the world around them, and maybe giggle a little bit. What's the point of jumping on that bandwagon? It does seem more of a publicity stunt than a serious attempt to raise awareness about something or other.
5. He's not our president. We can laugh about him being a dumb, ugly American, but that's about it. We do, however, have a Prime Minister with some Bushian leanings. Why not make a statement about something we can actually change, instead of some trendy politics we (as Canadians) don't really have anything to do with?
6. Just because you don't 'think' it's racist, doesn't mean some people won't be offended any-ways, and that their opinions aren't valid.
7. I didn't think it was funny. I thought it was obvious and dumb.
8. Traditionally, culture Jammers do not put their name on things because they would be sued and/or arrested pretty quickly. Fauxreal is lucky this company is to tiny to bother. Which raises an interesting question. When a (internet) famous artist attacks an ad by a company that's tinier that his reputation, is social justice still on his side, simply because he's attacking capitalism in some abstract way?
Also, what does any of this have to do with Torontoist? I can see why you might take this personally and feel compelled to step in with support for one of your writers, but how is fauxreel's affiliation with your site relevent?
And jerrold, to me it'd be like us writing about something you've done in a negative way, but neglecting to mention that you're a contributor to a fellow site. This is just me talking here, but I find that kind of fishy. With this article, you get to trash Torontoist a bit, but not even give us credit for the trashing.
Also, "citing the examples of the few people...that you saw being either indifferent or ammused is hardly representative or overall opinion."
Fair enough, but didn't Jenny do the exact same thing, except she cited a few people who were kinda pissed off?
I'm gonna back out of this thread now, since I know that all I'll end up doing is defending the points I've already made. I stand by what I said.
Slow news day or what?
the boards are gone and nobody cares anymore.
but point taken, there are no racial undertones here. it's obvious that a-rab etc. is part of a satire. and the national post, the globe, torontoist and previous posts on blog to have already done this to death. and, of all the ink spilled, this is the most boring account.
<br><br>
I'm a bit mystified by how you trash an organization by not mentioning it or how exactly one gets "credit for [a] trashing". If anyone around here is trashing Torontoist, I think it's a certain editor by way of his smug incoherent high-school-style ramblings.
<br><br>
PS. I do not contribute to either blogTO or Torontoist. If you wish to criticize what I've said here, be sure to mention this or you will be trashing the rest of the world and yet not giving them credit for the trashing. (How awful.) You also must mention that I'm a "very cool guy". If you fail to do so, you will never have any friends who are not white. (crazy!)
im sure they didnt make a stink about it
because the public did it for them!
and think about it
the more free publicity we spread, the better for them
as this isnt attacking their company at all.