Oh dear.



Edit: Page turn fantastico

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).

Yes, it was slightly hyperbolic, but in fairness, advertising does end up pretty much everywhere. If you live in a city, it's almost impossible to escape from.

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.

Well no, I don't really think that they should have to ask my opinion, but as you rightly point out, my options for living on this planet are extremely limited if I don't want to see adverts. My point in this thread isn't about advertising itself, but more about street art, and I feel that street art becomes far more valid a form of expression in a world where we're willing to allow those that can afford it to shove their logos and branding down our throats constantly as a simple reaction against that and a way to allow people to feel a bit more ownership over public spaces.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

The corporate money is first and foremost designed to benefit the corporation and its shareholders, claiming that it's any other way is deluded. There may be secondary benefits to the public, but no corporation would be spending that money if they did not feel it would ultimately profit them.

Yossarian wrote:

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.

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.

Just remembered, they also get displayed on my games console and in my games. They get posted to me inside an envelope containing tickets I've purchased (not even ads related to bloody gigs) or other goods I've purchased. Or they work themselves into the films or TV I'm watching so that I have no choice but to look at them if I want to consume a piece of entertainment. Quite aside from the ones which are now so prevalent in my Facebook newsfeed that I've essentially stopped using the service on a day to day basis, companies manage to encourage people that I'm friends with on social media to do their fucking advertising for them thus getting around every level of defence I've got set up all so that someone can win some piece of tat. Or they populate apps I download with no option to get rid of them (I am always willing to pay for an ad-free version of an app).

JonB wrote:

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

Without being facetious, "we" as in society, because we haven't tried to make it illegal or fail to respond to it in a way that makes it pointless.  It's a bit daft to suggest that we should vote on everything like that, but as the vast majority don't seem to be offended by seeing the occasional Coke billboard on their morning commute, I like to think that's effectively tacit acceptance.

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.

And because those ads generate more money, companies are willing to pay billboard owners to place their ads.  And because billboard owners get paid to place ads, they're willing to pay large chunks of money to councils and their ilk for permission to site the billboards somewhere.  The initial cost of setting up the ad definitely has a percentage that feeds through to the landowner, and if that landowner is the local council then they've benefited from it.  There's some sort of legislation to stop private landowners going too mental with this, but the company advertising isn't the only one who benefits.

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.

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.

I think it's an entirely valid argument, as we're the sort of society that can be involved in making its own laws.  If enough people wanted street art legalised, then it'd end up being tabled by MPs and discussed, and if enough people wanted it that way it'd end up having a good chance of happening.  Instead, we respect peoples' rights to not have their property vandalised.

I don't like much street art.  I can see the artistic merit in some of Banksy's stuff (although that Coke bottle one is horseshit), but in general I'd rather not have shitty graffiti daubed around my home town.  I also don't think it's right that because some twat with a spraycan likes it, the council or indeed me have to pop along with a pile of paint and spend money and time fixing it.

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.

Which is entirely fair enough.  I find it easy enough to tune out most ads, and actually find some beneficial.  I saved $750 on my last car by spotting an ad which said I could get a voucher if I did something.  I don't mind the ads on the Xbox dashboard because they sometimes show me something I actually do want and didn't realise was available; and I'm not buying it because of the advertising directly.

I just don't see that a big Coke billboard somewhere is making any difference.  They spend more money on marketing than any other company in the world, I read somewhere once (I think) and yet I never drink Coke products, nor do I have any particular feeling for the brand.  We can fast forward ads, or stream/torrent all our shows; 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."

It's pointless to over-discuss anyway; your distaste for ads is probably similar to my distaste for graffiti and vandalism.

equinox_code wrote:

Haha You're talking rubbish.

Every depressing/hilarious post you've provided as a commentary on your life says otherwise.

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.

How so?

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.

Some people would definitely see vandalism to their property as an invitation for a fight.

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.

Woah, woah, woah, you're suddenly adding 'satirical social commentary' to your requirements? Before you simply stated that I should come back to you if a lion makes a political statement. Moving the goalposts much?

And as far as it being a political statement goes, 'politics' means related to the governance of a particular area, what'd more related to governance than 'I'm in charge here?'

adkm1979 wrote:

equinox_code wrote:

Haha You're talking rubbish.

Every depressing/hilarious post you've provided as a commentary on your life says otherwise.

Seriously, what's provoked this tone?

In response, fuck you.

To pull up just one point amongst many in all that rubbish you typed, i've never even lived with anyone who shared my 'socialist/communist/whatever' ideals. So yea, you're talking rubbish.

Hell simply using attractive people in ads is part of the whole lifestyle/branding nonsense.

I'd rather walk through streets of graffiti than streets of advertising. That's all I've got to add here.

www.cartoonmuralartist.co.uk

If its not a revatar its not worth bothering..

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.

Your idea of benefit again seems quite limited.

Elmlea wrote:

How do you differentiate between vandalism and tagging and genuine art? 

This is how Banksy wins.