![](https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/graffitieugene-1.jpg)
A reader (thanks Dan K.!) sent in this photo of a billboard in Eugene.
The billboard touts Dodge’s new Journey model and an image of the vehicle is next to the word, “Gasolean” and the phrase, “Best in Class MPG”. Underneath that phrase a graffiti artist has painted an arrow that leads to a bicycle.
It reminded me of the graffiti on a billboard on N. Vancouver Ave. in Portland from back in Spring of 2007.
My friend Sara owns a shirt with a bicycle on it that says \”MPG\” with a little infinity sign under it… It\’s too cute.
Ha! I hope we start seeing much more of this kind of creativity in the coming years…
Good one–it\’s fun to see advertising get corrected.
That \”best in class mpg\” is a joke anyway. It gets 19/25 with a 4 cylinder, 17/23 with a V6.
Studebaker did better than that 55 years ago. (1953 Studebaker Starlight got 28 mpg)
Dodge should be ashamed.
It cracks me up that they\’d show this bloated, gas-swilling lardwagon along with copy boasting of its amazing fuel economy.
Boasting without any actual numbers, of course: \”best in class\” amongst all the other bloated, gas-swilling lardwagons is probably in the neighborhood of 9MPH.
@foote
of course, the downside to the mileage of the 1953 Studebaker was the, at the time, very unrestricted emissions…
lol good call on that
\”bloated, gas-swilling lardwagon\”
-Hollie
That is pretty funny 🙂
This truth in advertising moment is quite refreshing…
Rubberside Down!
Cue the handwringing posters who will bemoan the property destruction and illegal act of graffiti. To me, the billboard itself, pre-modification, is destruction of the common eyespace, and its legality is only possible through the flow of millions of dollars into the right political hands. The story of the billboard industry is about as sordid as it gets, right up there with meatpacking and, well, the auto-oil axis.
So, any time someone goes out and fixes one of these blights on the environment with a subversive message, good on them!
I do not condone graffiti but that is pretty good!
you\’d think they would be able to draw a better bike though, how hard is that? a couple of triangles, a couple of circles and a few straight lines….
This is interesting, but: ( and I type this while still agreeing that this is your website and should post whatever the hell you feel like posting)
Graffiti is Vandalism. Not to mention rude, disrespectful, and illegal.
And, sorry Jonathan, but bringing graffiti to light in a even semi positive manner makes you part of the problem.
And yes, Graffiti is a BIG problem.
Right on schedule!
If you agree with what was done as being within a persons first amendment right ro free speech then don\’t complain when a billboard with a pro-cycling PSA is vandalized in the same way.
It\’s easy to side with actions like this when they align with your own point of view. The litmus test is when you are the victim of the same actions and have the same reaction.
That is a nice, playful little piece of commentary. It makes a good point while being playful and not overly heavy handed.
To Icarus Falling, lighten-up. This is an act of civil disobedience against waste, hubris and environmental devistation. Ask yourself, is a little paint any more or less criminal then driving an ineffecient landhog that is helping to destroy the planet? Sometimes illegal things need to be done, like non-whites riding buses, non-WASPs going to college and the rest.
Well Peejay,
I typed that partially for you, simply because you so wanted someone to.
And the other reason I typed it?
BECAUSE I AM RIGHT!
Sorry Dabby, er, I mean Icarus: Graffiti is a teeny, tiny little problem in comparison to those caused by motor vehicles – you know, global warming, dependence on foreign oil, hazardous air pollution, 42,000 deaths in the US each year, etc.
Your *opinion* may be that you\’re right – isn\’t it always? – but yelling doesn\’t make it so.
\” And the other reason I typed it?
BECAUSE I AM RIGHT!\”
With all due respect Mr. Falling, that is precisely the type of comment that I have urged everyone to try and avoid.
Whether you are being serious or not (I know you\’re a nice guy offline), I would appreciate you (and everyone else) from resisting the temptation to use the comments section for arguing and personality critiques.
Let\’s focus on the topic/story/issue. If you disagree with someone, tell us why and please keep everything intelligent and above the belt.
Thanks.
peejay- Give me your address. I\’ve got a few things I\’d like to present to the community and I figured I could spray paint them on the side of your house. Don\’t worry- It\’s all witty and funny and entertaining. You will love the way it improves the \’common eyespace\’ on your block.
What a great idea! Though I would of gone further and just burned down the billboard. So many billboards so few anarchists…
I deplore graffiti, but anyone looking at that billboard ad can see that the huge expanse of white space surrounding the vehicle was begging for something to fill it up. The art director can take the blame for this one.
It\’s kind of a poorly rendered image of a bike. That probably means it wasn\’t done by one of Portland\’s serious graf artists or activists. Just someone with a wild hair. CBS (note that it\’s their billboard) will probably send someone out, and it\’ll probably only be about a $100 job to paint that over.
Hmm, this reminds me of something…
Oh, right! That America is originally structured off of civil disobedience…*coughBostonTeaPartycough* and the general wish to get away from the English monarchy. Fine line between making a point of truth to people and feudal-era like gang turf tagging. Surely gray areas can be appreciated much like the oft gray skies of Portland? Seems I recall something in the Constitution along the lines of if we the people decide that the government is not complying with the wishes and best interests of the people, we have the right to replace that government…
Yay for the person that drew the bicycle and calling \’bull\’ on the advert.
/soapbox
While the statement \”I am right\” is the truth, it is also the truth that I did not need to type it. This I will admit.
It in no way is a personal attack on anyone, nor an attack on anyone\’s personality. It is a statement of my personal belief in my own stance. That much should be obvious.
And it is also a statement directly related to the \”issue\” in the article.
There is obvious truth and humor in this bit of graffiti. But it seems to me that this kind of thing contributes to the counter cultural vibe that some in the bike movement like.
I personally don\’t want cycling to be perceived as counter cultural. I want it to be commonplace and respectable.
why did Icarus get a reprimand but peejay\’s \’bring it on\’ (#10 1st sentence) and \’i told you so\’ (#14) is ignored.
Jonathon do you support vandalism as a way to promote biking over car travel? I didn\’t get that impression from the article, but have doubts with the obvious bias in your comments favoring those with a pro-opininon of the grafitti.
From wikipedia:
\”Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence. It is one of the primary tactics of nonviolent resistance. In its most nonviolent form (known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.\”
How is this lawbreaking incident relate to the \’demands and commands of a government\’? There is no law that states u must drive a \’bloated, gas-swilling lardwagon\’ (lol, great description Hollie).
IMO, this action falls into the \’bad publicity for the biking community\’ column. May be a bit subjective about this one, being that I\’ve spent to much time and community resources on cleaning up graffiti that could of gone to more beneficial purposes.
if considering actions similar to this ask yourself one question:
wwgd – what would gandhi do?
\”why did Icarus get a reprimand but peejay\’s \’bring it on\’ (#10 1st sentence) and \’i told you so\’ (#14) is ignored.\”
My comment was directed at the entire thread… it was Icarus\’s statement that pushed me over the edge and made me want to try and right the ship.
\”Jonathon do you support vandalism as a way to promote biking over car travel?\”
No.
Please understand that I was not taking sides in the story, and I was not taking sides in my critique of the comments.
Thank you.
If you don\’t like the Dodge billboard buy your own with a message about the cost savings that riding a bike provides. I would love to hear about any positive experience that someone has about getting their own personal property tagged. Anyone? This just lends credence to the misnomer that bikers are a bunch of punks.
Excellent point made by Brian. For real change to happen it has to be perceived as reasonable to be accepted by the public at large. Sadly, the most vocal and visible advocates of bicycles seem to revel in their rebel / counter cultural / scofflaw vibe and that makes it more difficult to convince people and policy makers that bikes and bike riders are normal folks and beneficial to solving traffic problems.
Case in point, check out any blog rants about cyclists. What do they have in common? The bike riders think they own the road, don\’t have to follow the laws, hate on anything with a motor, blah..blah..blah. Are they basing that opinion on the 95% that ride responsibly or rather the scofflaws, vandals, and drunks amongst us?
Big media\’s billboard got vandalized. No doubt it will be reported by other big media outlets as another \”crime\” perpetrated by bicyclists. So my question to Mr. Tagger is, \”What benefit did you accomplish with your free speech?\”.
My question to Mr. Maus is, \”What benefit are you creating by publicizing this vandal\’s act?\” Especially when your site gets cited by big media in this town as the de facto voice of Portland cycling.
And the revenue stream that is supposed to accrue from this public service message?
The tax abatement write-off Chrysler\’s 300 million dollar loss earned them earlier this year will more than cover the cost of this billboard.
How exactly can I earn back the money I will have spent saying something positive?
Grafitti is wrong, yet civil disobediance is an obligation.
Whyat – What do you think Network Media\’s response would be if you asked to buy a billboard advert or commercial time on radio or TV to promote a message saying car culture is bad for the USA?
I can assure you that you would not be able to buy ad space promoting this message, because they wouldn\’t sell it to you.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3581/adbusters_ads_busted/
i like it! and the previous one was even funnier – \”Need a car?\” \”No!\”
Thanks, BURR.
We are in the dying days of democracy in this country. I say this not as a radical, but as a rational person who is disgusted with being \”sold\” one war so far, and more to come, with having our constitution shredded in the name of security, with the environmental havoc being wreaked on this world for the sake of \”economic growth.\” People who share my views are regularly characterized as radical in the national media and not given a platform to speak on our public airwaves by those who control them.
So, yes, I smile at this illegal act, even as I admit it should remain illegal. The opportunities to speak the truth are so few that they are not always the easy ones, not always the legal ones.
Oliver, you got me thinking and I have been thinking about this all night.
\”civil disobedience is an obligation.\”
I\’m assuming you mean moral obligation? I have to completely disagree – I don\’t remember that as part of any ethics course I ever took. We ARE obliged to follow our INFORMED conscience and be true to our own ethics even when the law says differently, but I think the actions you take to work for something you believe in are completely up to you. The person who is legally lobbying congress is not being immoral because they aren\’t breaking laws to get their point across. That is absurd. The person who stands in front of the billboard holding a picket sign with the same message is making the same point without breaking a law. I actually think that if there is a way to follow your conscience using legal means, you are morally obligated to do so. Because I think we are morally obligated to live as peacefully as we can and hence, follow the laws of society as long as they don\’t violate the laws of God (or whoever/whatever guides your conscience). There are numerous examples of legitimate civil disobedience (Rosa Parks, Ghandi standing up to the british so his people wouldn\’t starve, draftees refusing to participate in war, etc…) but this guy who painted on the billboard was just being a wise-ass. And he did a good job because it was really funny. But his actions hardly qualify as civil disobedience in my book. Maybe this is a question for that guy who does the ethics column in the oregonian. I love that guy.
Well I agree with Jonatahn. Graffiti on a giant ugly billboard touting gas-hogs is a whole world different from graffiti expressing the \’turf\’ of a criminal. This is merely correcting the big media in the only way available.
How is this different from people who put bumper stickers like \’I\’m changing the climage\’ on SUVs?
\”My question to Mr. Maus is, \”What benefit are you creating by publicizing this vandal\’s act?\” Especially when your site gets cited by big media in this town as the de facto voice of Portland cycling.\”
Brad,
My editorial decisions are not based solely on \”what benefit\” the story creates.
Sometimes I simply share information about what\’s going on out there.
I think many people in this thread are making the common mistake of thinking this site is all about bike activism and that I am some sort of non-profit with a mission to only show bikes in their best light and post stories that help \”further the cause.\”
I presented this story based on a photo and text that described the photo… yet several people assume that somehow I\’m in favor of graffiti and that simply by publishing the story I am for vandalizing billboards, civil disobedience, etc…
That is just not the case.
I thought people would be interested in seeing the billboard, so I posted the story. That\’s it.
I think it\’s artistic act of defiance. I think it\’s simply great because of it\’s counter culture message. TODAY cycling IS counter culture.
Billboards pretty much are graffiti (in my view) so I don\’t see the problem here. And why, if I were so inclined, would I want to buy the space from some lame-ass corporation when I could get the point across for the price of a spray paint can.
\” Graffiti on a giant ugly billboard touting gas-hogs is a whole world different from graffiti expressing the \’turf\’ of a criminal\”\”
You are entirely wrong about that!
It is no different to graffiti a billboard protesting gas use than it is to express gang turf or anything else. Even spraying your own \”art\” onto an unauthorized service is graffiti, and you should be forced to spend many, many hours scrubbing your \”art\” and the \”art\” of others off of the sides of \”our\” community.
Graffiti is graffiti.
Rude and crude.
Tell that to banksy.
Icarus falling, not saying I support graffiti (although I find this to be funny yes because it supports my ideals, and no they may not have been right to do it)but what did you think of the stencil of Brett before they removed it. Was this justifiable and should it have been kept?
– Just currious
I thought that the stencil of Brett was a nice gesture, (I of course knew Brett, and the whole thing saddens me immensely) that was justifiably removed because it was technically Graffiti/vandalism.
The same stencil could/should have been approved ahead of time, and then applied, and we would still be able to see it for years to come. I believe it could still be approved, and reapplied, just as it was before.
Sadly, no matter how nice, well intentioned, or artistic, vandalism and defacing of public property is a real problem.
There is no room for a double standard on this note. If we decide that artistic graffiti is ok, then we are obligated to allow the gangsters, for example, to decide that their tags claiming turf are also artistic and ok to apply.
I am certain that this point can be understood and agreed to by most of you , if not everyone.
#1. Never said artistic graffiti should be legal. I just see a place for it, is all.
#2. It\’s a simple world you wish to live in if you cannot (or refuse to) differentiate between interesting, subversive, content-rich messages and stupid tags.
Here are some examples.
There is no room for a double standard on this note. If we decide that artistic graffiti is ok, then we are obligated to allow the gangsters, for example, to decide that their tags claiming turf are also artistic and ok to apply.
I am certain that this point can be understood and agreed to by most of you , if not everyone.
What, that grafitti is the greatest scourge of society ever?
LOLz! (good try though)…
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/
Some of you cannot even comprehend a simple and well explained point.
This makes me sad.
I think part of Icarus\’ point is the question of who gets to decide what is \”artistic\”. One man\’s art is another\’s vandalism.
the only difference between advertisements and graffiti is that someone paid for it. advertisements are far more offensive to my eyes. why should i be subjected to them just because someone paid for it?
i applaud underground efforts to subvert, correct and create dissenting art against this eye-pollution…
One man\’s simple and well explained point is another man\’s circular logic.
Because you declare all public paint to be the same does not make it so. That makes me sad.
While it may be illegal to throw a pie in Dick Cheney\’s face, that pie must be thrown!
I despise billboards myself, but they are as legal and permitted as they are huge and ugly.
I dislike bill boards almost as much as I dislike
say, maybe….
Graffiti?
Doesn\’t change any facts relating to my fully explained and correct points regarding vandalism/graffiti.
I think the point is that if you disagree with vandalism, if you think vandalism is wrong, then you can\’t use it to fight your battles. The end doesn\’t justify the means. After the battle you want to be able to look back and know that you did it right and didn\’t trample anyone in the process. Yes, it was funny. But no, it wasn\’t right. Why are you all trying to defend this?