From the Journal Record.

Monkey business
Hadden Hall developers consider future of graffiti art piece
By Brianna Bailey
Oklahoma City reporter - Contact 405-278-2847

A piece of guerilla art by famous graffiti artist XVALA was recently discovered in Midtown. Now developers working on restoring the 99-year-old Hadden Hall building, 215 NW 10th St., are trying to figure out what to do with it. (Maike Sabolich)

A piece of guerilla art by famous graffiti artist XVALA was recently discovered in Midtown. Now developers working on restoring the 99-year-old Hadden Hall building, 215 NW 10th St., are trying to figure out what to do with it. (Maike Sabolich)
OKLAHOMA CITY – A stenciled image of a monkey wearing lipstick that recently appeared on the side of a historic building undergoing renovations in Midtown is the work of a famous graffiti artist. Now developers working on restoring the 99-year-old Hadden Hall building, 215 NW 10th St., are trying to figure out what to do with the piece of guerilla art.

The black, white and pink spray-painted picture of a monkey appeared within the last few weeks on the side of the building. Workers from contractor Titus Construction discovered the artwork. Developer Midtown Renaissance is spending between $1.5 million and $2 million to turn the vacant building into high-end, one-bedroom apartments.

“We’re flattered such an acclaimed artist decided to perform his or her art on our property, but we’re not fans of graffiti, it is a form of vandalism,” said Chris Fleming, executive vice president of Midtown Renaissance.

The image is accompanied by a quote from pop star Miley Cyrus, who famously once told an interviewer “I’m not trying to be slutty.”

The picture is signed by graffiti artist XVALA, who often incorporates critiques of popular culture and references to celebrities into his work. The XVALA name was created and used by Tulsa artist Jeff Hamilton for several years before Hamilton turned the name over to another, anonymous artist earlier this year, said publicist Cory Allen, who represents XVALA.

Hamilton’s last big project using the XVALA name was a collaboration last year with New York sculptor Daniel Edwards on a house in Edmond adorned with nude sculptures of actors Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. The 4,000-square-foot home dubbed the Brangelina is on the market for $449,900.

A documentary about the house, Domestic Bliss: The Daniel Edwards/XVALA Project, will debut in New York early next year, Allen said.

The Midtown monkey piece is “a transition piece between the old and the new XVALA,” Allen said. The monkey is the last piece of art XVALA created in Oklahoma and the artist is now working out of Los Angeles, he said. Allen wasn’t sure why XVALA chose Hadden Hall as his canvas.

“If you ask him, he’ll never give you a straight answer, but the wall was fitting and he just saw the damage there and placed it there,” Allen said. “He wanted it to be in Oklahoma City and he didn’t want it to be exploited and wanted it to be somewhere where it would be found and not on a billboard.”

Midtown Renaissance may decide to preserve the piece of art on the side of the building, remove the graffiti using chemicals, or cut the painting out of the brick wall, Fleming said.

“It’s still kind of in the novelty stage and we haven’t really made it to the next step of trying to figure out what we’re able to do with it,” he said. “It’s just one of those things that just kind of showed up out of the blue.”

http://journalrecord.com/files/2010/08/bc-graffitti_ms_08-19-10-300x190.jpg

That is a surprising and refreshing response from Midtown Renaissance.

:congrats:

That is a surprising and refreshing response from Midtown Renaissance.

:congrats:

Agreed! It would piss me off, but what a great measured response!

It isn't even that good. I hope this guy didn't spend a long time doing this. And how do you give someone permission to use your graffiti name.

signed,
XVALA (and I didn't even get permission)

I can appreciate the pickle that they are in with this simply because the guy is famous...now don't get me wrong I love the arts, and recognize that there is plenty of art out there that I do not choose to appreciate and that it still serves a purpose, but if he is so famous then he ought to not be above the law and if the building were mine and I was renovating it, I would be royally pissed off!

First of all it does the exact opposite of what the developer is trying to do and that is the further gentrification of an area, while requiring that to preserve the "art" they would essentially have to remove that portion of the brick wall, causing huge expense and trouble in matching brick which is very difficult to do and always shows up as a patch job. I think that I would just chemically remove it with no greater regard than any other graffiti and send him the bill, and press charges and prosecute if he did not pay.

But that is my opinion...

Passing on the name makes sense.

After all, even long ago in storybook land, it was well known that
nobody would be afraid of the Dred Pirate Wesley

They should just leave it, I mean we do live in a large city right? It isn't the best piece of street art I've seen, but it's pretty cool, and what the hell, it's just a beige wall. Midtown could use some "unplanned" character here and there. Just Sayin'....

I can appreciate the pickle that they are in with this simply because the guy is famous...now don't get me wrong I love the arts, and recognize that there is plenty of art out there that I do not choose to appreciate and that it still serves a purpose, but if he is so famous then he ought to not be above the law and if the building were mine and I was renovating it, I would be royally pissed off!

First of all it does the exact opposite of what the developer is trying to do and that is the further gentrification of an area, while requiring that to preserve the "art" they would essentially have to remove that portion of the brick wall, causing huge expense and trouble in matching brick which is very difficult to do and always shows up as a patch job. I think that I would just chemically remove it with no greater regard than any other graffiti and send him the bill, and press charges and prosecute if he did not pay.

But that is my opinion...

I agree and I would send the bill to the guy in Tulsa who acknowledges the name was his. If he sold his id he better come up with the name he sold it to, or some cash.

There is a way to stop this illegal graffiti crap. Make it legal for anyone catching someone in the act to shoot them on the spot. It would quickly stop.

It's partially stenciled anyway. I've seen far edgier stuff passing by on railroad cars and I REALLY have my doubts that a Miley Cyrus quote will stand the test of time. If Xvala is supposedly famous use this for some quick (and free) publicity for your high end one bedroom apartment project and then remove it quietly in a few weeks.

Great reply from Chris, but what a pisser. If they leave it, I think it invites wannabee's to prove their "skills" on this and other walls in the area. If they remove it, they become an opressor of urban expression. Removing the brick would probably violate the historic preservation tax credits so needed to make these types of projects economically tolerable from a development standpoint.

Just bring back the Grafitti Bridge.

Just bring back the Grafitti Bridge.

In St. Pete, Florida they put up a big wall and then repaint it every month. Not sure of it helped or not.

I can appreciate the pickle that they are in with this simply because the guy is famous...now don't get me wrong I love the arts, and recognize that there is plenty of art out there that I do not choose to appreciate and that it still serves a purpose, but if he is so famous then he ought to not be above the law and if the building were mine and I was renovating it, I would be royally pissed off!

First of all it does the exact opposite of what the developer is trying to do and that is the further gentrification of an area, while requiring that to preserve the "art" they would essentially have to remove that portion of the brick wall, causing huge expense and trouble in matching brick which is very difficult to do and always shows up as a patch job. I think that I would just chemically remove it with no greater regard than any other graffiti and send him the bill, and press charges and prosecute if he did not pay.

But that is my opinion...

It's in a narrow alleyway between two buildings. No one will ever see it unless they are intentionally looking for it. It's only big enough for a pedestrian to walk through not even at arms length apart.

Since this isn't the typical gang graffiti seen throughout most of the city, and was done by a famous artist, it may have the opposite effect of drawing people to the newly developed housing. In other words, they may have an easier time selling the units with a little bit of famous urban art on the side, which is why it's taking them so long to decide whether or not they should remove it.

Since this isn't the typical gang graffiti seen throughout most of the city, and was done by a famous artist, it may have the opposite effect of drawing people to the newly developed housing. In other words, they may have an easier time selling the units with a little bit of famous urban art on the side, which is why it's taking them so long to decide whether or not they should remove it.

The artist isn't famous. He bought a name that is famous. If this is kind of work he produces he sucks. Which probably explains why he had to purchase the graffiti name in the first place. I mean really, buying a graffiti name - how lame is that?

A lot of you don't seem to have a lot of knowledge of urban culture. Its not that uncommon for a graffiti artist to pass (not sell!) on his name to an apprentice to carry on his legacy. I just wish some ppl would appreciate the value in the art that some of these extremely talented graffiti artist create. They have very limited avenues to express their artwork and until someone gives them somewhere to outlet this talent its gonna happen on the side of random buildings. BE THE SOLUTION NOT THE PROBLEM!

I just wish some ppl would appreciate the value in the art that some of these extremely talented graffiti artist create.

I think more people would appreciate it if an extremely talented graffiti artist actually painted anything in OKC.

The "art" in this case looks like something fingerpainted in a special needs class.

Jessica Alba wasn't appreciated.

That's it, I'm now going to buy one of those apartments because of the "famous" graffiti

haha, I'll take two.

I think more people would appreciate it if an extremely talented graffiti artist actually painted anything in OKC.

The "art" in this case looks like something fingerpainted in a special needs class.

I don't really like a lot of abstract artwork but that doesn't mean it was any less difficult or time consuming for the artist to create. Just cause you don't think its art doesn't mean other ppl do. Thats the beauty of art.

I don't really like a lot of abstract artwork but that doesn't mean it was any less difficult or time consuming for the artist to create. Just cause you don't think its art doesn't mean other ppl do. Thats the beauty of art.

I see...

So if I took a bucket of day-glow orange paint mixed with liquid fecal matter, splashed it against the side of a building downtown and signed the name XVALA with a stencil cutout, it's abstract art..

got it..

It strikes me as Dadaism or a Dadaist-inspired work. Look it up, Okies might appreciate the form's sentiments.

It isn't art, it is vandalism.

It isn't art, it is vandalism.

Agreed, Larry. If you do it on your own or approved property it's art. Otherwise, it's vandalism. For those who think otherwise, what if this was spray painted on your front door? Would you still consider it art and think it should stay?

Agreed, Larry. If you do it on your own or approved property it's art. Otherwise, it's vandalism. For those who think otherwise, what if this was spray painted on your front door? Would you still consider it art and think it should stay?

I agree completely. The poster who said, "We do live in a large city, right?" seems to think that allowing thugs to vandalize and destroy property is somehow "cool" and "urban".....If this is "art" I invite EBAH and others to move to the great cultural centers of Detroit or Newark. True cities of great art and cultural progress. (cough, cough).

I agree completely. The poster who said, "We do live in a large city, right?" seems to think that allowing thugs to vandalize and destroy property is somehow "cool" and "urban".....If this is "art" I invite EBAH and others to move to the great cultural centers of Detroit or Newark. True cities of great art and cultural progress. (cough, cough).

Hahaha, well, thats a little extreme. First off, I live in a section of town with actual, genuine, graffiti, graffiti that is a mark of violence, and is meant to mark territory and instill fear. There is a HUGE difference in that small stencilled piece and and the kind of graffiti that is painted on the house next door to me (I'm not kidding, it's there right now). I am not saying that it should be legal to paint private property. I am however saying, that if it were my property, and it as painted on what appears to be a side alley wall, I'd just leave it there. I am also not saying the city should save it, or that we should rally to keep it preserved. The comment I made about this being a large city, is I think, a valid one. I realize that graffiti is bad, but it is also part of the unique beauty of a cosmopolitain city. There is some that needs to be destroyed, and cleaned, and if the owner of this property wants to do that, it is more than his right to do so. However, a certain amount of these kinds of works lend a city a certain aesthetic that all the planned redevelopments couldn't achieve in centuries. This is why MANY property owners in many cities in the US and Europe have preserved numerous (questionable) works of art by street/graffiti artists. I mean really, go to New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or even Dallas, San Antonio, St Louis, etc and it is quickly apparent that street art, and artistic graffiti are inseparable from the urban fabric and provide a constant reminder of a cities culture. BTW, I have been to Newark, but not Detroit, and it's not as hellish and uninhabitable as many would lead you to believe.

It isn't art, it is vandalism.

Actually, it IS art, and it IS vandalism....

Actually, it IS art, and it IS vandalism....

The average Okie is a legal-literalist and doesn't take the time to consider such liberal concepts as "nuance." It's all black and white... clearly it's vandalism and that's the end of the thought process. You're not going to win the argument... might as well just give up and allow them to have the faux-historic cookie-cutter SandRidge-inspired corporate nightmare, with urban chicken coops, that they so desire.

There is a way to stop this illegal graffiti crap. Make it legal for anyone catching someone in the act to shoot them on the spot. It would quickly stop.

Hey, great idea. And next let's start cutting the hands off of buglers and stoning adulterers...

Hey, great idea. And next let's start cutting the hands off of buglers and stoning adulterers...

Jeez! What's your problem with bugle players?

It's kinda funny that the posters here pretty much responded to this exactly how I suspected they would, to a T.

Hahaha, well, thats a little extreme. First off, I live in a section of town with actual, genuine, graffiti, graffiti that is a mark of violence, and is meant to mark territory and instill fear. There is a HUGE difference in that small stencilled piece and and the kind of graffiti that is painted on the house next door to me (I'm not kidding, it's there right now). I am not saying that it should be legal to paint private property. I am however saying, that if it were my property, and it as painted on what appears to be a side alley wall, I'd just leave it there. I am also not saying the city should save it, or that we should rally to keep it preserved. The comment I made about this being a large city, is I think, a valid one. I realize that graffiti is bad, but it is also part of the unique beauty of a cosmopolitain city. There is some that needs to be destroyed, and cleaned, and if the owner of this property wants to do that, it is more than his right to do so. However, a certain amount of these kinds of works lend a city a certain aesthetic that all the planned redevelopments couldn't achieve in centuries. This is why MANY property owners in many cities in the US and Europe have preserved numerous (questionable) works of art by street/graffiti artists. I mean really, go to New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or even Dallas, San Antonio, St Louis, etc and it is quickly apparent that street art, and artistic graffiti are inseparable from the urban fabric and provide a constant reminder of a cities culture. BTW, I have been to Newark, but not Detroit, and it's not as hellish and uninhabitable as many would lead you to believe.

Outstanding post! It won't go over with the hardcore law-and-order types and neocons here, but I can't imagine putting it any better. It is funny that the definition of "urban" of many people on this board is probably scrubbed, mowed, freshly painted, and super-duper clean. Kind of like Edmond with tall buildings and a little more density (but plenty of parking, of course). Real cities aren't like that so much.

It's kinda funny that the posters here pretty much responded to this exactly how I suspected they would, to a T.

Awesome.. you're a prophet..

Go spraypaint tonight's winning powerball numbers on the side of a church downtown... be sure to sign it as XVALA so it's defined as "art"

See, I thought what Jessica Alba was doing downtown was cool. I think this is cool, too. I see a lot of graffiti in Calgary, even in the extremely expensive parts of downtown and the Beltline. What are you gonna do about it?

I agree that we need to bring back the graffiti bridge. Make it something that it's easy for the "artists" to get to, and that it's safe to stand still and look at it from a distance (and not have a truck barreling down at you).

Outstanding post! It won't go over with the hardcore law-and-order types and neocons here, but I can't imagine putting it any better. It is funny that the definition of "urban" of many people on this board is probably scrubbed, mowed, freshly painted, and super-duper clean. Kind of like Edmond with tall buildings and a little more density (but plenty of parking, of course). Real cities aren't like that so much.

But where do you draw the line? What if the graffiti is pornographic or racist? Is it OK because it's some kind of social or political statement and real cities are like that? Do we need a city graffiti board that decides what will be approved or removed?

Outstanding post! It won't go over with the hardcore law-and-order types and neocons here, but I can't imagine putting it any better. It is funny that the definition of "urban" of many people on this board is probably scrubbed, mowed, freshly painted, and super-duper clean. Kind of like Edmond with tall buildings and a little more density (but plenty of parking, of course). Real cities aren't like that so much.

Yeah, the immaculately clean and gentrified future envisioned by some folks kinda makes me think of Pyongyang...a tightly controlled facade to show business travelers, but not much genuine character and not much life. What it comes down to is this: If the owners of the building want to get rid of it, they can. If they want to leave it, they can. Seems like some people want to make that decision for them and then get the hanging party together. Of course, overreacting wildly is something that comes naturally on the internet, so I'm not too shocked.

I've lived in rough neighborhoods in other cities, and the (non gang) graffiti is quite literally the least of their problems.

What it comes down to is this: If the owners of the building want to get rid of it, they can. If they want to leave it, they can. Seems like some people want to make that decision for them and then get the hanging party together. Of course, overreacting wildly is something that comes naturally on the internet, so I'm not too shocked.

I've lived in rough neighborhoods in other cities, and the (non gang) graffiti is quite literally the least of their problems.

Yes, business owners can decide for themselves what to do about graffiti but there is expense involved. It's not like they just say "OK I don't like that" and it disappears. Should that just be a legitimate cost of doing business? I have seen no posts here making decisions for the business owners, just a discussion about what is and isn't appropriate. And no one is suggesting that there aren't worse problems than graffiti. Does that mean that we should only be concerned with worse problems?

This thread is how you know society is in the tank. The bar for proper civic conduct is set so low and people STILL can't seem to get over it. It is sad when vandalism has to be nuanced 8 ways from Sunday instead of just calling it what it is - vandalism.

EBAH - I am going to have to call you out on your statement that you would just leave it if it was on your property. Give me your address and I'll come over and paint something on your house (you can even pick which exterior wall) and let's see how long you keep it up. Maybe I'll airbrush in a Virgin Mary image and then you can have 1,000 Catholics a day in your yard for the rest of your life.

http://image04.webshots.com/4/9/11/7/69891107EYDsUZ_ph.jpg

Outstanding post! It won't go over with the hardcore law-and-order types and neocons here, but I can't imagine putting it any better. It is funny that the definition of "urban" of many people on this board is probably scrubbed, mowed, freshly painted, and super-duper clean. Kind of like Edmond with tall buildings and a little more density (but plenty of parking, of course). Real cities aren't like that so much.

Ditto.

Without getting into the "right versus wrong" argument, I went over and looked at it. It is in a pretty innocuous place. The developers should be thrilled at the attention it has brought to their property without any contribution of their own. Whether they take it off or leave it, it has brought attention to the area and that inadvertently doesn't seem like a bad thing right now. Pretty remarkable response for something tucked away from even the alley itself.

Real "guerrilla" marketing. "Gorilla." lol

I wouldn't put it past MR's paid marketing folks either. They came up with that entrepreneurial contest in the Plaza Court which seems innovative enough. This falls right in. Taking cues from the Mad Men paid women shoppers fighting over a ham. Just throwing that theory out there. The resulting deep ideological debate is amusing none the less.

Urban, you have some interesting points...and if it IS a marketing/PR gimmick then more power to them...BUT it could easily backfire (as those types of things sometimes do)...what if that graffiti leads to others, and others and others. It only takes one person writing on a bathroom wall before everyone thinks its OK to do so and the stall is quickly covered. Yet a week earlier, there wasn't any and hadn't been for years.