Roaring, big hair for the gents, pungency.

I was going to go for, "It's a beast of a bar."

Totally in agreement with Yoss on this, but not much to add at this stage.

Back to the subject of specific ads, fortunately i dont have to witness many in the form of moving pictures as i very rarely watch tv shows. I did however see this the other day. Contained within it are a lot of things i hate

"Did I just mess it up" nah, someone else's fault aaaaaaaages ago dear.

Ah, but at least we piss on buses too.

Yossarian wrote:

I'm still looking forward to your response, ADKM.

Which one?

No wonder my Socialist Baboon Party didn't get off the ground.

The TPL is doing much better though.

Because Banksy is shit?

Very shit indeed.

I guess the problem is he probably should've said oi-with-stencils-and-dumb-images-macros on a piece of building that was more relevant to the topic?

Berlin has loads of street art. I doubt all the artists sought permission. The city's a better place for it, in my opinion.

And, to be fair, I quite like Banksy. Some of his stuff has been genuinely thought-provoking and affecting. The stuff on the Israeli wall, for example, was very nice.

Yossarian wrote:

Apparently, companies are allowed to monoplolise public space and plaster their names and logos everywhere without, as pointed out in that image krs posted, having asked my permission. They're allowed to invade my very home in order to try and affect the very way I think. I have issues with the morality and principles behind that, and as a result have sympathy towards those who are willing to subvert the corporatistion of our public spaces and actually use them in order to do something for the public (in as much as any art can be said to be made for the public, although these people aren't even charging for their work).

Yoss, this is the most hyperbolic post in the history of the forum!  Companies can't put their logos everywhere, and there are pretty strong restrictions on certain forms of advertising here so it's not like it's completely unregulated (witness tobacco advertising virtually anywhere else, drug advertising here in the US, and ads which spend all their time slating alternatives rather than extolling the virtues of the item).   

Even if they could put their logos everywhere, why should they have to ask your permission?  Fair enough if you don't think people should be allowed to own property and land and we should live in some sort of Marxist utopia, but we don't.  In a capitalist society, we allow brands to advertise, and your options are fairly limited if you're really that offended by wandering past a sign advertising Coke. 

Likewise, they're not allowed into your house.  They're allowed to advertise on TV and in magazines that you're entirely free to choose not to look at.  I'm sure in the past you've been an advocate of streaming services and torrenting most of what you watch, so how many ads are you actually exposed to?  You make it sound like the man from Pepsi is breaking in while you're not at home and installing ads in your bathroom or something. 

I also can't reconcile that I'm not allowed to own a shop and get angry when it's defaced by Banksy, but you are allowed to own a home and protest at advertisers showing you things in it.  If my private home is on a high street and visible to lots of people, I still don't think that gives Banksy a right to vandalise it.

Yossarian wrote:

But again, corporate money is allowed to take over our public spaces, why should it be a one way street?

Because the corporate money pays for lots of things in your area that benefit everyone.  Some character drawing tired social commentary on a wall only appeals to a handful.  More importantly, one of them's illegal, one isn't; and legislating to say that it's ok for Banksy to paint something artistic on the side of a shop, but not ok for some scrote to spraypaint my front windows in the middle of the night is quite difficult.

We need to let Banksy know that he can paint on your wall then Yoss.

Yossarian wrote:

adkm1979 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

I'm still looking forward to your response, ADKM.

Which one?

We've shown that a lion pissing on a tree can be a political statement in that it can be a challenge to authority, so how can you use an 'it's natural' argument to defend property ownership, but not one to defend street art?

I refute your opening assertion.

Elmlea wrote:

In a capitalist society, we allow brands to advertise, and your options are fairly limited if you're really that offended by wandering past a sign advertising Coke.

 
Who's 'we'? I'm not sure there was ever a decision made on that, not by most people anyway.

Because the corporate money pays for lots of things in your area that benefit everyone.

Ads generate more money for those corporations than they would get without the ads, which comes from consumers. So it's simply consumers paying for those services indirectly.

More importantly, one of them's illegal, one isn't; and legislating to say that it's ok for Banksy to paint something artistic on the side of a shop, but not ok for some scrote to spraypaint my front windows in the middle of the night is quite difficult.

'Because it's the law' isn't much of an argument. It doesn't sat why something's wrong.

Personally I don't see any need for street art to be legislated, that's missing the point of it. The fact it's not officially sanctioned is what makes it work - so people will paint over it, and then more will get painted. If only more of it were good.