SingPost apologises for publicity stunt???

What was supposed to be an eye catching publicity stunt for the YOG turned out to be an eye sore for the public. In this recent case, about 6 post boxes scattered around the entire country were spray-painted by this ominous character known as the "Inkman". Such a stunt was to publicize YOG with its theme being "Express Yourself".

Regarding this case, the stakeholders were the public, Singpost and A Group Of People. In response this to case, the public reacted negatively, it had apparently caused some sort of inconvenience to them, shocking them out of their comfort zones. The police which in the case represents the voice of the public said that "this whole episode had caused unnecessary public alarm and wasted valuable resources". For the SingPost, they were probably demoralised and unexpectant of this outcome from the public. To them, "it seemed like a good idea" to support the theme of YOG which was basically the freedom of expression, and hence, the idea of Graffiti. (a more youth orientated form of expression) In order market this theme, they employed the help of a local events agency A Group Of People who carried out this stunt along with its main character, the inkman. Thus, these two organizing parties who merely wanted to promote this idea ended up being baffled by its negative outcomes, having to explain their actions as well as apologize for it.

Now, what exactly is graffiti? In definition, it is markings, as initials, slogans, or drawings, written, spray-painted, or sketched on the sidewalk, wall of a building, the door of public toilets etc. Graffiti originated in the late 1960s and has been developing ever since. However, it is not readily being accepted as being art like those works found in galleries or museums. It is not strictly being denied the status of genuine art because of a lack of form or other base aesthetic elements. In my opinion, most of the opposition to Graffiti art is due to its location, bold, unexpected and unconventional presentation, but its presentation and often illegal location does not disqualify it as art. Furthermore, as we proceed into a ever changing contemporary society, many ideas and beliefs are being stretched and limitations are being questions. Especially in the form of art, what is art?

This graffiti stunt to me is definitely considered art, I mean, it is aesthetically engaging, vibrant, colourful, interestingly designed and there is a message behind it! Also, as it is a stunt, is it not like a performance art as well? Overall, this work of art is able to visually engage a viewer as well as convey its message, which is the freedom of expression, the essence of "Express Yourself". Furthermore, it is more youth centered and hence, very relevant.

Despite its aesthetic qualities, this graffiti stunt is considered as a sort of crime to the public and was taken very negatively. As the art world grows more and more and becomes more contemporary, the boundaries between art and society's perception becomes increasingly blurred.

In this case, some saw it as a crime, as if vandalizing the post box and hence, were worried it may spark of an increase of vandalism. For many, this stunt was unacceptable and stepped onto their morals and Conservative perspective, thus unable to tolerate it. Also, with this "Kiasu" nature integrated into many of us, many were very sensitive to this issue and would have preferred not to take the risk of exposing the younger generation to such acts. Moving on, with such narrow-minded Singaporeans, they were unable to see the light in the situation which was the artistic expression, instead, it was seen as a vandalising act and to some, vandalizing acts were only carried out by shady/ gangster/ criminal characters.

Overall, the lessons that can be drawn from this incident is that the public is not yet ready to accept this form of art, also, its not that we are distrusting of one another, in general, many would rather take precaution then to take risks in the form of freeing the mind and expressing one's self.