Pod Bluman, well known for his role in several guerilla projects, doesn't regard guerilla projection as an issue, and he's not alone:
"We rarely get more than half a dozen or so onlookers, so there are never any huge crowds leading to problems. Most of the projections are of a corporate advertising nature anyway, so it's very rare to do anything that is truly controversial." It seems that the Police are fairly indifferent to it as well; despite a major security threat closing Parliament Square and Whitehall, Bluman and his team sat on an empty Westminster Bridge merrily projecting onto the Houses of Parliament without any intervention. "I have been searched under the prevention of terrorism act, and also under the firearms act," comments Bluman, "but generally the most they try and hassle you with is illegal parking."
Whilst some clearly see a bright HMI type of future for guerilla projection, Ross Ashton of E/T/C UK views such hit-and-run raids rather differently. "In these days of burgeoning legislation covering areas such as health& safety, it is increasingly important for our industry to work in a professional manner. Many work to increase the professional attitude and appearance of their businesses and the industry as a whole, and this is then rapidly undone by the activities of the few who go headline-grabbing."
The trade press comes in for criticism as well, L&SI included: "Too much publicity is given to these projects, which only goes to enhance their status. The flip-side of the coin, highlighting the damage done, has never been presented." Ashton is referring to the relationships carefully cultivated with local authorities, heritage bodies and the Police. He also points out that there is a safety risk that is not managed since high power lighting or lasers can blind or distract drivers. Ashton does acknowledge, however, that there is occasionally a philosophical argument to be made for legitimate political demonstrations, but remains adamant that "there is no excuse for carrying out guerilla projections for commercial products." Local authorities and other public bodies agree.
A spokesperson for Westminster Council made it clear that they viewed the recent commercial projections on historic monuments such as Marble Arch as totally unacceptable. Surprisingly, the Police were slightly more laissez faire - a source from the Metropolitan Traffic Office commented that "they can cause distractions to drivers, but it is arguable how much more so than the many other ones that abound."
Ross Ashton's views are echoed by others in the industry. Fourth Phase London refuses to rent kit to those they suspect of using it for guerilla-style projects. "We might get the equipment confiscated or otherwise labelled as being involved," commented MD Alan Thomson. "It can be frustrating turning up to meetings to be accused of doing unauthorized projections." It was pointed out by another rental company that such views are fairly academic. "We also try and go by the book, through councils and so on, but often the process is so slow, the moment is lost, particularly on political causes of the day: local authorities perhaps ought to look at their own procedures."
So do 'by-the-book' companies lose money? Almost certainly: one person we spoke to pointed out that clients often shy away from the idea of projection because of the volume of complaints generated by illicit operators. And does it hurt the guerillas? It can do: one was fined by the courts for breaking an injunction that bans projections onto St Paul's Cathedral. It seems likely that such prosecutions will become increasingly commonplace as more buildings become the subject of such injunctions.
In all, there appears to be stalemate between the two camps. Until some common grou
