I think the members of the ‘anti-graffiti society’ have got all this wrong.
Surely once a major company uses the style of graffiti it is simply that, ‘a style’. If a company decides to use an image of graffiti it no longer makes it graffiti. It is just a way for the large companies to attract a specific market.
Also the image or ‘graffiti’ that is being used is usually commissioned, which argues the fact that the companies are supporting illegal graffiti, but instead paying an artist or designer to come up with a concept. The fact that this happens to be graffiti in the Adidas case surely just reflects that the graffiti style is a strong marketing tool.
I’d also like to point out that graffiti has had a huge influence on the whole design and advertising world and without it the industry would have a huge void to fill.
Andy Bellamy, by e-mail