Observer » Kidult

Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 4: Revenge by $10 T-Shirt

Foster Kamer — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:30:55 -0400

Could this become any more wonderful and/or absurd? Apparently, yes.

Last week, French street artist Kidult took a fire extinguisher full of pink paint, and unleashed it on Marc Jacobs' SoHo boutique last week, painting the word "ART" over the store. Marc Jacobs had some fun with it on social media, and then, commodtized the ostensible political message by turning a photo of his painted store—which is vandalism or art, depending on how you see it—into a $700 T-Shirt, with the caption "Art by Art Jacobs." Kidult, the artist, was pissed, and made it known.

Jacobs may have the pricier shirt, and may in fact be fairly credited with the cannier move in this little battle, but Kidult has now fired back with a shirt of his own.

It shows the artist, in the act of tagging up the Marc Jacobs store.

And it is, to be fair, pretty great:

Kidult Tweeted out a picture of the shirt to the Marc Jacobs International account, poetry in motion, offering up his new wares: "@marcjacobsintl u got the one for the dumb ass, i got the one for the people, Real power is people ..."

Exclusive news of the shirt—which is on sale at Kidult's website—originally appeared on graffiti blog 12oz Prophet. If you'll remember correctly, Marc Jacobs' shirt (below) retailed for around $700.

Kidult will apparently be selling his for about $10.

Maybe had Jacobs used his brand equity to sell a bunch of "Art Jacobs" shirts at $10 a pop, Kidult would've been corned, and his latest play might not be as crafty as it is. Fact is, this image is kind of wonderful, and is the kind of thing one could easily picture becoming a symbol of whatever retail rebellion Kidult is speaking to, or simply, aspiring street artists (or their fanboys who appropriate for the sake of fashion).

Given the choice between the two shirts—or at the very least, the pricepoint—we might be inclined to buy Kidult's shirt. To that effect, we may have spoken too soon: Marc Jacobs might've just been outplayed.

PREVIOUSLY:

Marc Jacobs Store Vandalized by Graffiti Artist, Whose Graffiti Was Then Appropriated by Marc Jacobs
Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2: When Jacobs Turns Vandalized Store Into $680 Shirt
Marc Jacobs vs. The Street Artist, Round 3: The Mannequins Get Involved

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

Marc Jacobs vs. The Street Artist, Round 3: The Mannequins Get Involved

Foster Kamer — Mon, 14 May 2012 15:17:50 -0400

On the night of the Met Ball, the Marc Jacobs boutique in SoHo was vandalized by a French street artist named Kidult, just like Supreme, Louis Vuitton, and Hermes had done to them. The next morning, Marc Jacobs made light of it by turning it into a canny social media (and thus: marketing) joke. After that, Marc Jacobs and Company decided to turn it into a $689 T-Shirt, and moreover, turn an indictment of capitalism into an indictment of street art.

Needless to say, Kidult is pissed.

He recently fired off a few unhappy Tweets to let the world and his followers know how he feels about Marc Jacobs' appropriation of his art:

And Re-Tweeted by Kidult to his followers:

As far as the Marc Jacobs store and its employees are concerned: They seem to still be having a great time with this.

Anyone in SoHo this weekend who happened to stroll by the Mercer Street boutique would've spotted this in the window:

For those who rightly can't make out this poor piece of citizen photography, that it is a mannequin, in the window display of the Marc Jacobs store in SoHo, wearing a green bandanna, sunglasses, a Marc Jacobs bag, and of course, the now-infamous Art by Art Jacobs "piece" (pictured above): A light pink shirt, with a photograph of the vandalized Marc Jacobs store, that retails for almost $700. And yes, they're actually selling it.

The Observer contacted a press representative for Marc Jacobs to ask: Does Mr. Jacobs himself know about all of this? Was he involved in any of the direct decision-making? Have they sold any of the shirts? And finally, who the hell is running their Twitter feed, and have they been promoted over the last two weeks? The fashion label has yet to return a request for comment.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2: When Jacobs Turns Vandalized Store Into $680 Shirt

Foster Kamer — Fri, 11 May 2012 15:30:46 -0400

Earlier this week, on the night of the Met Ball, the Marc Jacobs boutique in SoHo was hit by French graffiti artist Kidult, who has famously vandalized Supreme, Hermes, and Louis Vuitton, among others. The hit? Kidult took a fire extinguisher filled with pink paint, and sprayed the word ART over the front of the store (seen above).

As a crew cleaned it up the next morning and Kidult took to Twitter to brag, Marc Jacobs and his canny reps turned the stunt on its head, capitalizing on the graffiti artist's own work to the benefit of their own marketing: By Tweeting it out as "Art by Art Jacobs" and Instagramming an 'artsy' picture of it. Kidult, clearly on the scene, tried to make his presence known, but it was too late: Jacobs had won that one.

By the social media tape, onlookers were amused.

A few graffiti purists were definitely pissed at the scene of a fashion label managing to turn ostensibly subversive and damaging art on its head. Some simply didn't understand the entire thing (like this stuffy French guy):

To which Marc Jacobs made it clear that, yes, he knew exactly what he was doing. Artistic intent, indeed:

But a social media coup simply wasn't enough. Rather than end this thing in a stalemate, Marc Jacobs and his team have taken this thing one step further, making very clear his subversion of the supposed subverter. How?

He made a T-Shirt of the entire episode.

The T-Shirt is simply the picture that appeared on Twitter, with the same caption, on a pink shirt.

It looks like this:

Even better? According to the Marc Jacobs Twitter, "Available now for $689. Signed by the artist, $680." And according to The Cut, yes, they're actually selling it.

Conclusion:

Provocations of Marc Jacobs will not go unanswered.
While it is inherently difficult to root for capitalist enterprises, any artist trying to subvert something through destruction for attention (such as Kidult clearly does) is difficult to root for as well.
Especially when the response is as crafty, canny, and genuinely more artful than the provocation it's answering.

Jacobs, in this situation, has made one hell of a commentary about the absurd commoditization that some street art has yielded, and how easily ostensibly subversive art can actually be subverted, facile as it so often is, and it may be the best take on the matter since Exit Through The Gift Shop.

In short: Marc Jacobs wins.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek