Moose, public-spirited graffiti artist, cleans up

Ian Herbert,Roland Hancock
Saturday 26 June 2004 00:00
Comments

The Yorkshire graffiti artist known universally as Moose has what he believes is a cast-iron defence against accusations of urban vandalism.

He has devised a brand of street art which not only livens up city streets, but removes grime in the process. His method is to take any dirty inner-city wall or pavement, place a template over it and scrub the concrete clean, revealing an image as sharp as any spray paint which fades with time.

The artist's labours have brought in contracts from companies as diverse as Microsoft, Channel 4 and the drinks giant Diageo, and created art in improbable places - from Edinburgh signposts to London's Blackwall Tunnel. But the graffiti has pitched him into a legal spat with municipal leaders in Leeds, where he is based.

Much to the indignation of the artist's corporate clients, Leeds City Council demanded the "clean-up" of a piece of graffiti promoting Diageo's Smirnoff vodka in one of the municipality's gloomiest underpasses.

Smirnoff considers the artist's work a perfect way to reach a teenage market and is keen to commission Moose again. It claims the police were happy with the work's legality.

The row is a source of puzzlement to Moose, 39, who occasionally goes by his real name Paul Curtis, and who can earn more than £600 a day.

"As soon as I've done one it creates a lot of buzz; a lot of people start talking about it," he said. "It means I can create... images in horrible, shitty tunnels, dirty walkways, anywhere."

The source of the trouble has been a rather unfathomable message in 3ftletters for Smirnoff's "Lyriquid perfection" campaign, condemned by Gerry Harper, a Leeds councillor, as "sheer vandalism". Moose counters that he should not be prosecuted "for cleaning the walls". But Leeds City Council insists his work is illegal because any advertiser needs a permit. The Crown Prosecution Service says he may have been in breach of last year's Anti-Social Behaviour Act.

Smirnoff has removed the offending work - not because of the legality of the threat but by "its own volition" it said.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in