Diluted Dante wrote:How does a lion advertise then?
Diluted Dante wrote:So basically, lions are one trick ponies.
Which one?Yossarian wrote:I'm still looking forward to your response, ADKM.
Brooks wrote:There is no lionviathan then. What about the old baboon, he seemed a bit of an arbiter. Big stick and that.
adkm1979 wrote:Which one?Yossarian wrote:I'm still looking forward to your response, ADKM.
Diluted Dante wrote:Because Banksy is shit?
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).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).
Yossarian wrote:But again, corporate money is allowed to take over our public spaces, why should it be a one way street?
equinox_code wrote:Berlin has loads of street art. I doubt all the artists sought permission. The city's a better place for it, in my opinion.
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.
Elmlea wrote:But I'm sure you'd support someone's opinion that it doesn't make the city better too. And there's the problem in my last paragraph above; I'm sure there are some business owners or councils who wouldn't care that much if a genuinely beautiful, thought-provoking piece of art was put on their property. It's not much different from a non-commissioned mural. But where do you draw the line? If I don't like it, but others do, should I be allowed to paint over it? If it's just shit and a bunch of twats messing around, with no artistic merit, do we employ a team of graffiti consultants to tour the city and define which are art and which are just vandalism?equinox_code wrote:Berlin has loads of street art. I doubt all the artists sought permission. The city's a better place for it, in my opinion.
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.
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.Because the corporate money pays for lots of things in your area that benefit everyone.
'Because it's the law' isn't much of an argument. It doesn't sat why something's wrong.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.
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.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!