This may be advertising. I don’t know. I’m not even sure it qualifies as graffiti, although I don’t think graffiti necessarily has to be painted on. The original graffiti was scratched in stone—in fact the word comes from the Italian for “scratch” and the Latin and Greek for “to write” and I really don’t know where I’m going with this.
And even if it is advertising it’s still art. At least I think so. Whether advertising can be art—and whether art itself is a form of advertising since art often compels us to think differently about the world except it tackles big philosophical concepts whereas advertising tries to compel us to think differently about our need a piece of chocolate cake even though we just ate a huge entrée—is a question I can turn over in my mind for hours even though I get bored with it after about ten seconds. I’m still not sure where I’m going with this.
If it’s advertising it’s terrible advertising because even though it’s trying to sell me honey it’s not trying to sell me a specific brand of honey, but it also caught my attention, and frankly I think the best advertising is the kind that gets my attention and is so funny or so compelling or so thought provoking that I remember the commercial but completely forget what it’s trying to sell, and now I’m really starting to wonder if I’m ever going to get anywhere with this.
To wrap up here’s something else I saw in the same area that I thought might or might not have been graffiti. It disappeared pretty quickly which made me think it was graffiti, but it was really well-done graffiti—the stuff I look for that compels me and others to think about the distinction between vandalism and art without providing any simple answers. Simple answers are for advertising.