3 ms·
Eh, "reverse graffiti" is still graffiti - unauthorized works of art - it's just usually less permanent. In this situation, it'd be more like buying ads for th
by pavel_lishin 3y ago
Eh, "reverse graffiti" is still graffiti - unauthorized works of art - it's just usually less permanent.
In this situation, it'd be more like buying ads for those parked domains to reflect the previous content, or whatever else.
- maxbond 3y agoSome of the examples in the Wikipedia article are authorized. Maybe you consider authorized (reverse) graffiti to be a (reverse) graffiti aesthetic on a mural though.
- maxbond 3y agoIt popped into my head today why I think this is the right comparison. When you power wash a wall, you reveal the color/texture it had before it was degraded by exposure to the environment. In an analogous way to how walls grow over with ivy, moss, and grime if they aren't maintained, websites tend to fall into disuse and become parking pages. So restoring the original content feels analogous to power washing the grime off a wall and revealing the original bricks. It's subjective though, reasonable people may disagree. If someone did what you proposed and called it reverse graffiti, I wouldn't argue the point.