1 Vandalism Versus Brandalism: the Rights to Public Space The distinction betwee n what is deemed as public or private space

progressively blurs due to the influ ence of the mass media, privatization, and the impending threat of becoming an e ra of Big Brother-meets-corporate-advertising. The growing invasion of personal space is made worse with the advertisers power to dictate societal trends by mono polizing public space with their subliminal enterprise; i.e., they are everywher e and they are affecting everyone. They are the source for ones choice in clothin g, for teen weight issues, that seemingly visceral pressure to live a certain wa y, and they do it without anyones permission. However invasive their advertisemen ts may be, any alteration or destruction of this property is illegal and conside red vandalism. In response, artists such as Banksy, a British graffiti painter, introduce the new term Brandalism which is used to describe the creeping corporat isation of schools, libraries and other public buildings, which are gradually be ing daubed with company logos and slogans (web speak; A new industry dictionary). T he controversy over semantics that graffiti art has ensued epitomizes the parado x that is the legality of brandalism versus vandalism. Despite the negative conn otations that the word vandalism evokes when applied to illicit artwork, the act ual use of satirical subvertising in a medium with the universally tacit accessi bility of guerilla artfare is the most effective means to oppose the incongruous ly-permitted violation of individual rights and space caused by societal marketi ng perversion and the necessary counterbalance that the law fails to oblige. As a result of increased technological development, advertisers may now access cons umers based on the individuals needs, interests, desires, and sudden urges (Do Adv ertisers Us?). Many suggest that advertising, like graffiti, can be ignored as th e individual is not neces-

2 sarily forced to look. However, there are several blatant fallacies in this si militude, essentially rendering this analogy a joke. The crux of these differenc es is contingent upon whether an environment should be allowed to monitor those that live within it. According to marketing analysts, one in four American adver tisers used behavioral targeting in 2008, and almost half are expecting to emplo y it in 2009. Companies such as NebuAd and Phorm offer inspection technology to internet service providers that document a users traffic to build detailed profil es based on various aspects of their activity; such as browsing habits, media st reaming consumption, email communications, instant messaging, as well as Skype m essaging. This increase in targeted advertising is not in any way limited to the internet. The Eye Flavor, for instance, is a Japanese all-inone digital signage board that uses facial recognition to regulate the content exposed to consumers based on their gender and age range (Marchetti). There appears to be no limits on what may be collected about consumers. In the words of Banksy, They are The Ad vertisers and they are laughing at you (Banksy 31). In 1969, for approximately on e month, a New York City pedestrian was randomly selected each day to be followe d everywhere that the follower was allowed to enter (Acconci). This incident is called, Following Piece, a performance by artist Vito Acconci, with additional hel p from his involuntary participants. This performance piece demonstrates the ine luctable reality of a legal systems restrictions in providing the necessary prote ction of the individuals it operates for. No document of law, notwithstanding ob jectivity, is capable of faultlessly carrying out the bona fide convictions it s erves to enforce. That is, a man who just so happens to be in the same place at the same time as another person may call it a coincidence, and therefore not lik ely to be prosecuted for stalking.

3 The idea that Acconci conveys can be extended to advertising. Despite being an invading force in a persons life, advertisers are legally allowed to continue. Tr ademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can sa y whatever they like with total impunity. says Banksy. These legal factors are on ly strengthened by the governments support of privatization. One does not need to be familiar with the technicalities of privatization and corporatisation to hav e witnessed its effects on society. In fact, corporatisation is demonstrated eve rywhere; on public benches and buildings, as well as any other thing that, altho ugh labeled public, contains properties that can be bought and sold. In 1974, a performance artist named Marina Abramovi performed Rhythm 0, in which she would lie on a table for six hours with seventy-two objects that the audience could use o n her in any way they desired (Abramovi). A card on the table listed a set of rul es that presented Abramovi as the object, where she holds full responsibility for anything that would occur within the six-hour period. The audience split into t wo groups; those who used the objects on her and those who protected her from th em. At one point, a fight emerged as someone held a gun to her throat. With that card, Abramovi gave up the rights to control of her own body. In response, the a udience assumed that control. The ethical consequences of accepting responsibili ty for the actions carried out by others without ones own consent are innumerable . Abramovi illustrates the sense of urgency a person must take when their rights are threatened in order to remain in control of ones own circumstances. Otherwise , can one trust the decisions that others are willing to make for them without t heir consent? Although the feeling of a gun held to ones neck is much different f rom the seemingly obscure presence of advertising, the consequences of toleratin g its abuse are just as significant.

4 People are made more transparent than ever before; to government agencies, to security services, to advertisers, as well as the companies they purchase from (Y ou Are Being Watched). Closedcircuit television cameras are monitoring the public everywhere. Britain now has an estimated 4.2 million CCTV camerasone for every 14 citizens, says Don Butler of the Ottawa Citizen. People in central London are now caught on camera about 300 times a day. Butler reports an approximate thirty-mil lion public and private CCTV cameras in the United States. Surveillance expert f rom the University of Alberta, Kevin Haggerty, comments, Theres an ability to conn ect all of this stuff across realms that is just a little unnerving. People are t racked everywhere from public spaces, to their workplaces, and even on the inter net. Personal information is stored in extensive databases and classified into c ategories of risk, value, and trustworthiness. We are inadvertently handing over to centralized authorities an infrastructure of visibility the likes of which no society has ever seen before. Perhaps to some, a lack of privacy still does not feel as lethal as a gun to the neck; however, such tolerance may lead to critica l consequences. Many privacy advocates stress the potential detriments of radio frequency identification technology; tiny chips that communicate stored data to a reader via radio transmission. Canadian federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart describes the extent that RFIDs could affect society. RFIDs may someday be embedded in almost everything, allowing each of us, at least in theory, to be monitored wherever we go. RFID chips could replace universal product codes withi n a decade. Every item on Earth would have its own unique identifier, essentiall y meaning that anything and everything a person possesses could be tracked and m onitored. Some even suggest that RFIDs will likely be routinely embedded in ever yone alive, possibly within a human lifetime. The degree of power that technolog y grants to whatever force is in control of it is irreversible: authori-

5 tarianism. Our governments should be transparent to us, so citizens can hold th em to account. Instead, its the citizens who are being made transparent. The relat ionship between the citizen and the state has been inverted. We got it backwards. On Sunday, April 13, 2008, central London postal workers went to work only to fi nd the Newman Street Post Office buildings exterior wall exhibiting the words, ONE NATION UNDER CCTV, stretching three stories high (Graffiti Artist by CCTV). Artist Banksy managed the stunt despite a security fence inclosing the Post Office yar d, combined with the additional risk involved with working under the surveillanc e of an actual CCTV camera. The painting is large, conspicuous, and illegal. Nev ertheless, it would be inappropriate to categorize it with the tagging typically associated with urban graffiti. The core difference between art and tagging is ambiguous. The difference between advertising and tagging, however, is both defi ned and enforced by the law. Disregarding the transiency of semantics, labels, l egalities, and appearances; every object, system, and event carries an implicit idea. Whether the idea is in the emergence, intent, or internal process; the eth icality is consistent in its effects. The common idea between graffiti art and a dvertising is communication; the use of public space to broadcast a message. Int rinsically, however, these acts carry two contrasting ideas. The future of adver tising is stalking pedestrians in a New York City street. It holds a gun to the neck without taking responsibility for the consequences. It invades privacy, man ipulates desires, and it projects identities onto the people it spies on. Graffi ti art is a means of fighting this force. It takes control of the variables affe cting ones life. It is painting illegally to broadcast a message so urgent and in tolerable that one cannot waste time passively filtering through a paradoxical l egal system. Any advert that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is

6 yours. ith it. ce whose sking to

Its yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like w Banksy writes. Satirical subvertising is a necessary crime to fight a for potential consequences are irreversible. Asking for permission is like a keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

7 Works Cited Abramovi, Marina, perf. Rhythm 0. By Marina Abramovi. Naples: 1974. Acconci, Vito, perf. Following Piece. By Vito Acconci. New York: 1969. Banksy. C ut It Out. Vol. 3. Banksy, 2004. Butler, Don. Do Advertisers Know Too Much About Us?. Canwest News Service. (04 Feb. 2009). 12 Feb. 2009 <http://www.canada.com/En tertainment/story.html?id=1250021>. Butler, Don. You Are Being Watched. Ottawa Cit izen. (05 Feb. 2009). 12 Feb. 2009 <http://www.canada.com/Sports/being+watched/1 256769/story.html>. Graffiti Artist Banksy Pulls off Most Audacious Stunt to Date - despite being watched by CCTV. Daily Mail (14 April 2008). 03 Feb. 2009 <http: //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-559547/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-pulls-audaciou s-stunt-date--despite-watched-CCTV. html>. Marchetti, Nino. Targeted Advertising from Face Recognition. TG Daily. (28 Jan. 2009). 04 Feb. 2009 <http://www.tgdaily .com/content/view/41233/113/>. Web Speak; A New Industry, A New Language. Your We ekly Dotcom Dictionary. Daily Telegraph (London, England) (09 April 2001): NA. Cu stom Newspapers (InfoTrac-Gale). Gale. DISCUS. 12 Feb. 2009 <http://find.galegro up.com/itx/start.do?prodId=SPN.SP00>.