adkm1979 wrote:Even your supposedly socialist/communist/whatever friends, who you would think would share your ideals, get upset when you use their things in a way they don't approve of, and you've gone mental when they've used things of yours that you don't approve of. You can take drugs and tell each other how much you love each other and the world would be a better place if everyone lived like you, but when it comes to the crunch you fight like street dogs over whose pan cooked whose noodles and whose bodily-fluid-stained mattress should go in whose unhygienic room.equinox_code wrote:I don't think Yoss was contending the point that our options aren't being limited. Why should they ask our permission? Of course within a capitalist society they don't have to. Some of us find this a bit shitty, and there's very little escape from it. I don't really agree with intellectual property anyway, but that's another topic.
Elmlea wrote: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.
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.Yossarian wrote:But again, corporate money is allowed to take over our public spaces, why should it be a one way street?
adkm1979 wrote:I refute your opening assertion.Yossarian wrote: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?adkm1979 wrote:Which one?Yossarian wrote:I'm still looking forward to your response, ADKM.
Yossarian wrote:Or around the websites I use (which of course I can block if I'm happy to deny websites any money to fund themselves), before YouTube videos, in newspapers (every newspaper in the country, in fact), or in the toilets if I go to the pub, or they get bloody emailed to me or shoved through my fucking letterbox. Don't make it sound like it's easy to avoid them, it's not.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.
JonB wrote:Who's 'we'? I'm not sure there was ever a decision made on that, not by most people anyway.
JonB wrote: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.
JonB wrote:'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.
Yossarian wrote:I never said you aren't allowed to get angry if your shop is vandalised, of course you are. My point is simply that street art provides a reminder that not every message that people ever choose to try and send to me is about making money, and that's something I appreciate in a world in which so much is dedicated to that sole pursuit.
Yossarian wrote:Or they make up ridiculous surveys to get their names into papers. Or just dress up press releases in such a way as to make them seem like news so that overworked journalists are fooled into typing them up and giving them free media space. Or encourage people to do ridiculous things in their names that will make them popular on the internet. Or get people to actually come up and approach you as you're going about your day to day life. Or they fly blimps over my garden (rarely, admittedly). Or hand things out to people who are doing things I may be interested in return for getting name checked.
Every depressing/hilarious post you've provided as a commentary on your life says otherwise.equinox_code wrote:Haha You're talking rubbish.
You've asserted that territorial pissing could be a political statement, but you haven't shown that it is. Even if you did, it's a challenge to authority which says nothing more than, "I wish to fight you for the area around this tree," and lacks the supposed satirical social commentary contained in Banksy's work. His vandalising my house does not translate as an invitation to fight me for the right to fuck any female passing through, or eat any day-dreaming wildebeest.Yossarian wrote:How so?I refute your opening assertion.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?Which one?I'm still looking forward to your response, ADKM.
Elmlea wrote:Although a lot of TV advertising is at least raw facts now, rather than stuff trying to colour the way you think. Ad for a mobile phone company? It'll just be saying "come to Sprint, you can get an iPhone 5 for $149 and we give you truly unlimited data." Not "come to Sprint, and people'll think you're cool, because we're an awesome cool rad company."
adkm1979 wrote:You've asserted that territorial pissing could be a political statement, but you haven't shown that it is. Even if you did, it's a challenge to authority which says nothing more than, "I wish to fight you for the area around this tree," and lacks the supposed satirical social commentary contained in Banksy's work. His vandalising my house does not translate as an invitation to fight me for the right to fuck any female passing through, or eat any day-dreaming wildebeest.
Absolutely, but that's because we know that we own that property, and nobody else has the right to do what they want to it.monkey wrote:Some people would definitely see vandalism to their property as an invitation for a fight.
Yossarian wrote:If advertising was generally like this, I think I'd take a great deal less of an issue with it. It's the whole lifestyle/branding aspect that really leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
adkm1979 wrote:Every depressing/hilarious post you've provided as a commentary on your life says otherwise.equinox_code wrote:Haha You're talking rubbish.
Elmlea wrote:Even the clothes companies here tend to be "come buy a suit this weekend and you can get another one free!" etc etc. There's not a lot of lifestyle branding outside of clothes and perfume and the suchlike. Even the cellphone companies use the Apple soft focus "isn't the iPhone great" stuff but finish with facts; "the iPhone 5 does have a great camera and we use it all the time, so why would you want to be limited with your data? Come to Sprint!"Yossarian wrote:If advertising was generally like this, I think I'd take a great deal less of an issue with it. It's the whole lifestyle/branding aspect that really leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
Elmlea wrote:No-one benefits directly from Banksy painting on something. Considering one of his was on a Woolworths or something, I don't believe the link that just because there's a painting on a building people will be more inclined to enter that building and buy something. Sure, people will come to look at it, but that's about it.
equinox_code wrote:Your understanding of 'benefit' seems quite restricted here.Elmlea wrote:No-one benefits directly from Banksy painting on something. Considering one of his was on a Woolworths or something, I don't believe the link that just because there's a painting on a building people will be more inclined to enter that building and buy something. Sure, people will come to look at it, but that's about it.
Elmlea wrote:I don't particularly like Banksy's style. But if you wanted to paint up a town centre and make it all a little bit more pleasant, then there are plenty of options that don't involve some often-sub-6th-form political discourse.
Elmlea wrote:How do you differentiate between vandalism and tagging and genuine art?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!