Mr. André 🇸🇪 André Saraiva • Mr A • Monsieur A , by met on Mar 3, 2015 23:52:28 GMT 1,

Mar 3, 2015 11:31:54 GMT 1 chaturz said:

Ill start by making the following statements:
1- I do not own any art by Mr A
2- I do not support the recent actions mentioned above

HOWEVER

I 100% agree with @speebe, of course he's an artist regardless of what anyone may think of his character "Mr A" I for one like the character and in fact he's been around long before the street art buzz. For anyone who thinks he was a nobody prior to exit I would ask you go and look back over any predating street art / graff / tagging books as there are an array that legitimise his work as a street artist.

As for the point made by met above I think it's a slightly pointless question / argument ( no offence) because it's easy to get all high and mighty / holier than thou with regards to an individual and an error of judgement they may have made but do those same individuals take a stance against corporates and and their unethical ways. Whoopty doo if someone chooses to buy art from Andre realising that he merely made an error in judgement like many of us have at one point or another. I find it more ironic that the people making judgements re the purchase of Mr As work are likely eating food produced by nestle/coca-cola (who taken part in unethical / immoral practices), buy cheap meat/eggs/milk ( promoting animal cruelty and driving farmers out of business) and either bank with or work for banks which.. Well do I even need to go there?

Maybe this is all a pointless rant but but let's have a little perspective. He's human , he made an error of judgement. This does not effect the legitimacy of his art.

Rant over.....till next time my UAA chums.

Thanks for your reply, and certainly no offence taken. I appreciate the willingness by you and Lesson1 to entertain and engage in this particular discussion, even more so after sensing reluctance by others to do so.

Jumping on and off my high horse is pretty much the only exercise I get these days, so I hope most will excuse the indulgence.

For clarity, here's my position regarding André and his recent actions at Joshua Tree:

(i) The stunt was deplorable and egotistical.
(ii) When the situation blew up in his face, André's handling of it was also disappointing. His lying and cover-up attempt were the responses of a panicky amateur caught in a tailspin, not what you'd expect from a media and PR-savvy man in his forties.
(iii) I like some of André's commercial work, respect his position in street art culture, and get enjoyment from seeing his characters on the street.
(iv) In isolation, the stunt would have little influence on me when considering whether to buy André's work.

Although I expressly referred to the moral flexibility or moral rigidity of individuals, my earlier questions were actually leading to a separate ethics issue — the one of double-standards.

I would posit the following:

The identity of the perpetrator determines how harshly their act of defacement in a national park will be judged.

In contemporary art market terms, André's commercial work doesn't have significant financial value, it isn't particularly sought-after, and his collector-base is quite narrow. To me, that makes the artist a soft target. An easy target.

My belief is that André is being judged more harshly for his actions because of this — at least in the public realm, including on this forum. People are more prone to openly condemn him since they lose nothing in doing so; his position is one of relative weakness. If André's work had been on everyone's 'Must Have' list, or if it featured significantly in their personal collections, the response would probably have been quite different. I believe some here would have remained silent, some would have attempted to rationalise the stunt, and any criticism expressed would (on the whole) have been more muted.

Mar 3, 2015 11:31:54 GMT 1 chaturz said:

Ill start by making the following statements:
1- I do not own any art by Mr A
2- I do not support the recent actions mentioned above

HOWEVER

I 100% agree with @speebe, of course he's an artist regardless of what anyone may think of his character "Mr A" I for one like the character and in fact he's been around long before the street art buzz. For anyone who thinks he was a nobody prior to exit I would ask you go and look back over any predating street art / graff / tagging books as there are an array that legitimise his work as a street artist.

As for the point made by met above I think it's a slightly pointless question / argument ( no offence) because it's easy to get all high and mighty / holier than thou with regards to an individual and an error of judgement they may have made but do those same individuals take a stance against corporates and and their unethical ways. Whoopty doo if someone chooses to buy art from Andre realising that he merely made an error in judgement like many of us have at one point or another. I find it more ironic that the people making judgements re the purchase of Mr As work are likely eating food produced by nestle/coca-cola (who taken part in unethical / immoral practices), buy cheap meat/eggs/milk ( promoting animal cruelty and driving farmers out of business) and either bank with or work for banks which.. Well do I even need to go there?

Maybe this is all a pointless rant but but let's have a little perspective. He's human , he made an error of judgement. This does not effect the legitimacy of his art.

Rant over.....till next time my UAA chums.

Thanks for your reply, and certainly no offence taken. I appreciate the willingness by you and Lesson1 to entertain and engage in this particular discussion, even more so after sensing reluctance by others to do so.

Jumping on and off my high horse is pretty much the only exercise I get these days, so I hope most will excuse the indulgence.

For clarity, here's my position regarding André and his recent actions at Joshua Tree:

(i) The stunt was deplorable and egotistical.
(ii) When the situation blew up in his face, André's handling of it was also disappointing. His lying and cover-up attempt were the responses of a panicky amateur caught in a tailspin, not what you'd expect from a media and PR-savvy man in his forties.
(iii) I like some of André's commercial work, respect his position in street art culture, and get enjoyment from seeing his characters on the street.
(iv) In isolation, the stunt would have little influence on me when considering whether to buy André's work.

Although I expressly referred to the moral flexibility or moral rigidity of individuals, my earlier questions were actually leading to a separate ethics issue — the one of double-standards.

I would posit the following:

The identity of the perpetrator determines how harshly their act of defacement in a national park will be judged.

In contemporary art market terms, André's commercial work doesn't have significant financial value, it isn't particularly sought-after, and his collector-base is quite narrow. To me, that makes the artist a soft target. An easy target.

My belief is that André is being judged more harshly for his actions because of this — at least in the public realm, including on this forum. People are more prone to openly condemn him since they lose nothing in doing so; his position is one of relative weakness. If André's work had been on everyone's 'Must Have' list, or if it featured significantly in their personal collections, the response would probably have been quite different. I believe some here would have remained silent, some would have attempted to rationalise the stunt, and any criticism expressed would (on the whole) have been more muted.