Urban Art Association

Thanks for the information, Larry David.

Shame about the hotel plans as far as I'm concerned. It's not like there's a genuine shortage of hotels in the neighbourhood, especially if one ventures a little further east along Old Street and Great Eastern Street. I suspect it will end up being some kind of polished and financially-exclusive boutique establishment — comparable to the Zetter Hotel, the Zetter Townhouse, Malmaison or the Rookery, each to the west and within a few hundred metres of the Hat & Feathers.

When active as a pub-restaurant, the Hat & Feathers seemed poorly run and had an off-putting middle-of-the-road atmosphere. But the building itself is a landmark; I'm very fond of it. If the current owners had allowed it to remain a pub, new and competent management could have transformed it, without great difficulty, into a vibrant and characterful institution. 

I've just now seen the night shot posted by Dan Kitchener. Given that my earlier post contained a mini rant about massive advertisements in the area, I think I now understand why he was perhaps reluctant to respond directly.

The famous logo of a multinational corporate behemoth painted on the building (at the bottom-left, naturally positioned closest to eye level when viewed from the street) shows that my initial reference to "mural" was mistaken.

This term was used by me in its strictly artistic sense. Mea culpa. In this instance, I expressed myself too hastily.

That said, I do look forward to reading the thoughts of other forum members on the subject. No doubt we'll get a few Nick Naylor "Yuppie Nuremberg defense"-type of comments, and that's fair enough.

How long are the UV lights on for at 9pm @dankitchener ? as I have just passed it now and they are off.

In truth, I'm not a fan of your work generally, though I do recognise your talent and admire your work ethic.

If my specific reasons are of interest to you, let me know and I'll do my best to set them out honestly and dispassionately.

[In a different thread, I recall we previously discussed the addition of websites and social media details to street pieces. That's a separate subject on which I'll probably elaborate further at some point in the future.]

Notwithstanding the above, it should be stressed that I have comparable views regarding the work of many other artists. So please don't think I'm singling you out; it's nothing personal. As a whole, I really have no problem with your paintings. My focus and attention are just drawn elsewhere.

With the Goswell Road x Clerkenwell Road piece, however, the corporate logo is an issue for me. I'm a stickler when it comes to terminology and would argue that the inclusion of the reference to Sony transforms your work. To my eyes, it ceases to be a mural and instead becomes one giant painted advertisement — just like (albeit more subtle than) the huge painted ad for Pilsner Urquell on the other side of the building.

I should emphasise I'm fully conscious of the benefits that this corporate-gun-for-hire work can offer you and your career. It's a very big deal, the recognition and validation are flattering, to other companies and the general public at large it looks great on your CV, it offers access to high-visibility walls otherwise unavailable, it may open new doors and result in fresh opportunities going forward, it allows you to make a living and continue doing what you love, etc, etc.

That said, what this kind of collaboration also creates is a direct association between (i) you and the style you're well known for and (ii) a multinational.

While this no doubt elevates your work and gives it additional prestige in the realms of business and advertising, from a fine-art-world perspective I believe it serves to undermine the credibility of what you create — and, in the mind of viewers, it risks relegating your work to decorative corporate backdrop.

There's an additional and separate perspective worth considering. Here's an excerpt from an artist interview which is very much in line with my own thoughts on the matter:

"On the street my work has, first and foremost, a bigger impact. That's the unique thing about graffiti: it's huge, it hits you in the face. You go into a gallery because you want to see art, but on the streets graffiti gives you no choice. And this is obviously a good thing because our cities are ugly and billboards are our only eye candy. Graffiti is the big 'f**k you' to advertising—hence my dismay when I see them working together."

— Conor Harrington

Slight update to the timing of the UV lights, they are now on from 9pm until Midnight every night and not all night long!

Have to take a visit, bring an Essex boy! Any thoughts of prints based on these?

Cool stuff dank! Reminds me a more abstract version of Gregory Thielker's Under the unminding sky series. Love that kind of stuff, especially this one:

Couldn't agree more. And so refreshing to read, instead of squabbles or "that's shit" type comments.

I only have access on my phone. As such, I've not been able to spot the reference to a corporation in Dan's piece. Where is it? Or is it that the piece was commissioned by a corporation?

I see. Thanks met.

Thanks for that DBSON, seems like we both have a passion for rainy street scenes!

Night time pic, love this as it captures the depth of UV colours perfectly!, SONY commissioned the piece via Global Street Art, SONY logo is painted in bottom left of the piece, along with the #Ican which refers to their campaign regarding low light imagery, of which my piece relates to.

Amazing stuff Dan, so so good.

Cheers to Poly Mindset . It's a pleasure seeing someone else offer their opinion on this type of commercial collaboration. I hope a few others will step up and do the same.

To further expand on my own position, while I have reservations about but also appreciation for advertising generally, my particular objections with outdoor advertisements — especially on walls and billboards — are their physical locations and scale.

Massive street advertisements take up a greater amount of space in my field of vision. They're more intrusive, more difficult to ignore, and therefore more disruptive to my quality of life. Their prevalence alters the atmosphere of London, other metropolises, and the neighbourhoods within them. On balance, that change in my opinion is for the worse, even if some of these ads happen to be well-executed, including when their main imagery or illustrations are aesthetically pleasing.

So this isn't about just theory for me. I'm not arguing in some bubble or vacuum, purely for the sake of debate.

My stance is a militant one because I believe both this kind of public discourse and direct action on the ground has a potential influence, however small, on decisions made by others — decisions that will affect the appearance of our cities, and by extension our culture.

It's been mentioned and written many times before (like in this recent article), but there are actual battles taking place between artists and corporations (even if large sections of the public may be oblivious to their existence or simply not care). Battles in cities and towns, over territory and specific wall space, for positioning and for exposure. It's asymmetric warfare of course. And it'll come as no surprise to anyone that the odds are regrettably extreme, weighed heavily against the artists.

Like Harrington, therefore, I get a little disheartened whenever I see what I often consider to be public-space-related Faustian bargains being struck by some artists with corporations, the brands they own, their advertisers or their other lackeys. Each time such a pact is made, it serves to further legitimise, to normalise this behaviour, gradually and by increments.

Now, as previously expressed, I do understand there's a lot of grey area with this subject, that the situations aren't always black-and-white, and that valid and convincing arguments may exist on all sides.

Nevertheless, this doesn't make me an agnostic sitting on the fence.

Many may beg to differ, but I think that (regardless of how one dresses it up) the cumulative effect of these business agreements is to undermine and weaken the position of other artists who have chosen to take a stand and to not compromise on any artistic-integrity level through commercial product endorsements. While I'm a little embarrassed about using perhaps exaggerated or melodramatic analogies, for me the impact of such business agreements on the underdog — on those other artists, on their respective cultures or subcultures, and on local communities — is comparable to that of the actions of strikebreakers.

And in the end, this affects the visual landscape for most of us who live in cities.

So I'm very comfortable expressing a gentle and sincere (and, above all, carefully considered) "Fúck off" to the collaborators, despite the fact they may be decent, pleasant people trying to earn an honest living.

Some of them are even friendly acquaintances of mine, with whom I happily chat and have drinks on occasion. They do separate paid work I appreciate and fully support. But to my eyes and on this specific issue, they are the enemy. They are the ones I and others are fighting. They are the fifth column, if you will.

So here's my 3 x 8ft x 8ft live paintings from this years Latitude Festival. This was my 5th festival and second time curating the art in the Woods for Lavish. A superb festival with great people and atmosphere and some top art from amazing artists. This year we had Dale Grimshaw, Cairne Griffiths and Tom Mead and myself, each creating one 8ft x 8ft painting per day. Some pics of my finished murals.

Day 1


Day 2


Day 3

I am continuing my fascination and exploration of the city at day and night, distorted by the rain of windows, puddles reflecting lights, neon and colour and the chaos of rush hours. I want to freeze a moment in time, and really see the beauty all around, that so many people miss on their daily rush to and from work. Capturing the atmosphere, the electric energy of the moment, the beauty of the abstract shapes and distorted shadowy figures caught in amongst the 'Liquid Lights'.

I have created two 24 x 24 inch original paintings and one smaller 'detail' painting that is 24 x 12 inches.

They are mixed media, acrylic, spray paint, paint marker and brush and paint on deep edged box canvas, each one signed on the reverse.

Inspire by the amazing photographs of Bryce Hughes.

'Bluster' and 'Light Trails'



All three are now available from me at dankitchener.bigcartel.com/