Putting aside the validity of the Splasher's objectives, the art blog Eyeteeth has suggested that it's worth analyzing the Splasher's techniques in the context of other art movements such as "the Dadaists acts of destruction, Jackson Pollock's drip paintings, the Francis Alys work where he punctured a can of paint in a museum and wandered with it throughout the neighborhood, dripping all the way and ended up nailing the empty container to the gallery wall." Though Eyeteeth writer Paul Schmelzer ultimately condemns the Splasher's agenda as "hokey," he notes that street artists might "relax a little" and "reconsider the tenuous canvas they're using."That seems to simplify my argument, making me sound a bit more easygoing about the Splasher's efforts than I really am. So, to be clear, this passage from my post fleshes out Gehrke's sample:
Such readings seem far too generous for work that's over-wrought to the point of feeling like an art-school prank. The critique is too easy, taking only a few seconds to accomplish and with little personal risk, and it's mean-spirited instead of mischievous, like the Dadaists it refers to. At the bottom of each wheat-pasted poster accompanying paint blasts is a warning (which those who've seen the posters first-hand say is bogus): "The removal of this document could result in injury, as we have mixed the wheat paste with tiny shards of glass."All that said, thanks for the link-up, Utne friends.
Given this, the Splasher's anti-art sentiment reads as anti-artist.