Elmlea wrote:

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.

I never mentioned voting. The process has clearly been a gradual one that has crept up on us for many years, but without any real discussion as any point as to whether it's a good idea. And now it's everywhere and it's hard to imagine putting the genie back in the bottle, but it causes antagonism more and more. The points that ads are more invasive than ever before, and no one's ever really thought to ask whether it's what we want or whether it's good for us are straightforward enough.

I think it's an entirely valid argument, as we're the sort of society that can be involved in making its own laws.

The law we have assumes private property a priori and much of it is based on that without any consideration of whether it's suitable. It's far fetched to say we make our own laws in any other than the most limited sense.

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.

Street art is there because people want to express in a way that is confrontational and perhaps irritating, as well as communal. Legality or designated space is the opposite of its intention. I like it because of that, as a kind of civil disobedience (I'm glad to see some people getting annoyed by it - it's doing its job), which at the same time means the people who do it can still be prosecuted for vandalism, or the art can be painted over or even sold by the owner of the property if things get wanky enough. I have no problem with that, but long may it continue.

Sao Paulo, as some of ye might recall, has been public ad-free for a while. Here're some pictures.

It is. The legislative scheme was very much "no one chose to opt into being bombarded with ads unlike buying a magazine or whatever so fuck this noise let there be none of it".

I think they need a few more murals though, it's a touch gloomy.

Brooks wrote:

I think they need a few more murals though, it's a touch gloomy.

I'm with you there, although they did rather miss a trick in leaving some of the hoardings in place and covering them with arts in the meantime.

Brooks wrote:

Sao Paulo, as some of ye might recall, has been public ad-free for a while. Here're some pictures.

That's all kinds of epic. Reminds me of a happier version of those pictures you see of old Soviet cities from the 80s. I think it speaks volumes that a cityscape without ads looks odd.

Brooks wrote:

Sao Paulo, as some of ye might recall, has been public ad-free for a while. Here're some pictures.

I should go and live there.

That advert for a Spanish beer where the lead singer of the band, the guy in drag, is singing, "Tonight, tonight, tonight, I wanna be with you," so, so badly out of tune.  I hate that advert, and it seems to be on more than most.

Bone conduction tech's nothing new but that kind of application is all kinds of rude.

On the graffiti issue, go to Berlin and see what a fucking mess it is.

Yossarian wrote:

There was a company that was trying to raise funds to create a machine that would beam adverts onto the moon using lasers. If they ever did, I'd feel entirely within my rights to find the machine and smash it into tiny little pieces.

I'll hold it down, you hit it.

Oh! That's it! Heston Wassischops' popcorn ice-cream. Piss off.

Derren Brown built his career on making his punters feel informed as he fooled them. Hesto targets in the same fashion. His food isn't 'oh, sounds nice', but 'look how adventurous I am!' pic.twitter #lookatme #datfuck. Middle-class catnip.

Let's see some real adventure, then. Let's see you mashing your expensive fairy cakes up and blending them - in yer poncy blender - with some milk and honey and Butcombe Gold. And a turnip.

[edit]

Commence anger roll... Magazine-certified experts recommending you start with a good something ('cause if it's not good, it might be bad!), for this-many-pounds from this-online-company. Yeah, I know your game.

You're you; you have an excuse.

Can't remember which channel this arrangement is with - but films are sponsored by 118 - and those fucking little "comedic" pieces they have bookending the ad break - really - fucking - annoying,

I'm aware of how desperately middle class this makes me sound, but Heston's Popcorn Ice-Cream has been sold out for the last week in Waitrose. Almost felt enraged enough to send a letter to the MD. Almost. 

It is gorgeous stuff, mind.

Escape wrote:

I can just about differentiate 'three' and 'free', but I can only manage 'teef'. This apparently indicates poor alignment and shit, so no 'paste adverts for me. You need tons of air and tongue height behind the 'th'.

You are using the wrong parts of your mouth.  Don't worry, lots of people do.  The 'th' at the end of teeth is a voiceless dental fricative.  The tongue should contact the bottom of the top teeth.  'Teef' is said by ending with a voiceless labio-dental fricative.  This time, the bottom lip makes contact with the bottom of the top teeth, instead of the tongue.