Don’t need to say much here, as it has all been said. Celebrated urban infiltrator who not only invades, but also maps his moves. Here’s a few we spotted in New York.
The approach that Invader takes to the city is one that calculably measures space and aspect and responds with site specific intervention. The variables that determine scale and form are typical of the illegal artist; visibility (of piece and of artsit when installing), risk (of apprehension or injury), camouflage (contextual blending consistent with city branding), amongst others. Invader explains some of this in a FAQ type interview here.
The map is the only artefact that contains a permanent record of a point in space and time wherein the ‘connection’ between the individual pieces is visualised. Invader is not consistent in the manner of production of these cartographic records; the New York map is a pixelated version of Manhattan with the subway routes shown, Manchester, a Roman and medieval informed morphology, is described in terms of its rivers, major roads and railways. In each case the maps can describe a particular type of marginal or interstitial space in the city, be it an alcove or pediment, corner or capita.
Is this what it takes to remove a ‘vader?