Urban Art Association

A link to the Chronicle article would help. Not a Fan of this type of Muralism regardless of this piece or any controversy. BIP is known to court the cities institutions and play by their rules creating safe and likable imagery at a Large scale. There isnt much depth in his murals from my perspective, I dont see him engage the city or being part of its historical graffiti/street art history. This is just another form of the Bland muralism that has taken over not just San Francisco but many cities over the past decade.

You mean he doesn’t make you money, not commercial enough?  Let’s keep the artists we value identity or location a secret but not the ones who don’t make us money or like even if taking on social issues in their own way? 

See him engage with the city, a city that continues to push out the artists that made it what it is, that helped create it. Let’s trade those artists for the tech millionaires to buy your art right... come on man.

Make Me money? This has nothing to do about making money. Because I posted as a gallery dont get it misunderstood that I have not personally as an artist/curator/director of the Gallery painted for over 25 years murals and graffiti in the Bay area and San Francisco. Ive been around longer the street art phase of muralism and painted illegal and legal murals around San Francisco since the early nineties and have watched so many phases of this cities walls. I feel this allows me to have an opinion about this artist and this subject. As far as commercial, this artist is as commercial as it gets for land owners to put a nice mural on their building. I am not a fan of his art period which would be a reason I would or wouldnt represent any artist. So before you attack my intent to comment as a gallery understand that there are people that have been painting murals much longer than BIP, and way before he ever got on the scene with his New form of Bland muralism. 

This artist chose to let the reporter in his studio, allowed him to take his photo and talk about his work. I am sure the artist welcomes the publicity even if his studio address was shared. He is a commercial muralist this is his job, he doesnt paint illegally he has no reason to be hiding. Its not like the reporter outed some 
real graffiti artist who could face jail time for being found out. Lets calm down and call it like it is. This guy is more likely to get more business from the article than he is getting in trouble. As Liberal as SF is I doubt anyone will beating his door down cause he has a common stance like most people against police brutality in the SF Bay area. 

He’s an artists that you don’t like, I get that. But acting as if he wanted his address given out is a joke.  He’s painting a controversial mural about cops.... not sure you fully understand the consequences unless you just blindly trust the police? If so then you wouldn’t understand the piece.   Additionally, as with many anonymous artists, including the most famous, they typically work through intermediaries to keep their identity hidden. His trust was broken and there were consequences.