Marc Jacobs turns graffiti into $680 t-shirt


36 Responses to “Marc Jacobs turns graffiti into $680 t-shirt”

  1. chupsahey says:

    Annoying. All of it.

  2. dr_awkward says:


  3. Teller says:

    It might’ve said FART for all we know.

  4. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

  5. asterios9 says:

    Fire extinguisher graffiti always sucks.   There was some jerk who tagged a building on Van Brunt St. in Brooklyn with a sprayer, and it just looked awful.  It felt so oppressive to have to pass by it every week.

  6. scatterfingers says:

    Very nice. Turnabout is fair play and all that.

  7. Michael says:

    The real loser in all of this is the person who buys a $689 shirt.

    • lknope says:

       I think the real loser is the person who cleans the toilets of a person who buys a $689 t-shirt.

      • cinilak says:

         No seriously, it’s the idiot that bought something for $689 that is worth about a $1.

        Doing a degrading job is just another example of how retarded the society is today, that accompanies that t-shirt.

  8. bo1n6bo1n6 says:

    I will never spend more than $600 dollars on a T-shirt.

  9. penguinchris says:

    I do wonder if anyone buys something like that. I know there are crowds that wear the expensive designer Marc Jacobs and other designer label stuff (not the overpriced-but-theoretically-affordable stuff you might find in Bloomingdale’s, but the really expensive stuff from the boutiques). But t-shirts like this?

    It’s patently absurd on its face, and that’s the point, I imagine. It’s marketing. The SoHo crowd and internet menswear bloggers eat this stuff up (I follow menswear tumblrs and have seen this shirt pop up several times already) and Marc Jacobs gets some mindshare.

    Actually, Marc Jacobs has some surprisingly cool stuff, including rather cool (graffiti-inspired?) cartoon characters used as logos and on graphic t-shirts and the like. I dunno who wears it (it’s expensive) but I’ve seen it at Bloomingdale’s and thought it was neat :) But the point is, Marc Jacobs has some history with this sort of thing, they’re not a super-serious designer label that never has any fun.

  10. schlocktober says:

    Duchamp is spinning in his grave. Weeeeeee!


    Waitiminnit.  Look at the pink shirt again.  The ‘S’ in Jacobs is a ‘$’.  Could Marc actually be having a laugh at his own expense here?
    And notice, if the text is correct, it costs $9 LESS with Jacobs’ signature.
    I think we’re getting trolled.

  12. semiotix says:

    I’m not entirely sure what’s going on here, or which artist is the right amount of edgy such that I should root for him. But assuming a simple linear progression, I am looking forward to buying the $1.78 double-meta t-shirt featuring a picture of the meta t-shirt.

  13. Finnagain says:

    I’d like a trucker hat with the meta tee on it. 

  14. E B says:

    Kidult is lazy lol

  15. Donald Petersen says:

    Okay, and now Kidult is selling a pink tee picturing himself performing the actual tagging.  For $10. 

    Oh, we can’t tear our eyes away!

  16. Sinchy says:

    Kidult needs to be put on a watch list and barred from entering the USA.

  17. Jon Barnes says:

    Is it art?  Finally we have a way to decide:

  18. noah django says:

    anyone buying any of these shirts is a tool

  19. miasm says:

    no no no, you cannot take part in the discussion until you have chosen a side.

  20. Jiří Baum says:

    Copyright infringement?

    Kidult owns some valuable intellectual property here; Marc Jacobs (and Wilfry) are making unauthorised copies, which – as we all know – is piracy and funds organised crime and destroys jobs and contributes to global warming.

  21. Andy says:

    Gotta hand it to the Marc Jacobs team for turning this one on its head. Kidult can make t-shirts of t-shirts of t-shirts all he wants, he got owned. I don’t care much for either side of this fight, but Jacobs basically said “My people will buy my shit for $$$ no matter what you do”.  And he’s right, they will. All press is good press for a graffiti artist, but he didn’t “win” anything agains Jacobs. And Jacobs got free advertising out of it. I’d never heard of either until reading this.

  22. Wes Wright says:

    A painting of the shirt of the shirt of that graffiti.

Leave a Reply