Pictures of Sao Paolo before and after banning billboards leads me to support this idea.
Some examples (with a couple bonus pictures of London removing billboards): https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret....
Some examples (with a couple bonus pictures of London removing billboards): https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret....
It also takes over public space - the fountain at Piccadilly Circus has been used as a convenient meeting point, but in recent years the whole area has been inaccessible in the winter due to extra advertising hoarding.
And I say this as someone that abhors advertising.
The before pictures look like a vibrant and alive city where things are happening and commerce is being done. The after pictures look dull and dead.
That's what you get when you have competent, professional painters, typographers, photographers and designers deliberately trying to make their work exciting and attractive.
Without the ads, all you see is drab, flatly painted buildings, which are not nearly as exciting.
The feeling of excitement and aliveness does not require advertising, however. Some towns and neighborhoods revitalized their run down buildings by hiring artists to come and paint murals (which, to my eye look far better than virtually any ad), or commissioning other artwork (such as sculptures).
But even if that's not done, I'd personally much rather see flatly-painted buildings than advertising that's trying to manipulate me.
You would feel right at home around a neighborhood of commie blocks. Those look fine too if they were painted well and had decent art on them, but that doesn't happen. Nobody wants to pay for that.
You're used to a secondary attribute, so you associate it with the actual thing. It's like growing up with muscle cars, and associating loud noise with a powerful engine. Well, we've also got electric cars. Peace and quiet doesn't mean a slow car.
What could possibly go wrong?
I dont think the calls for ban are solely for aesthetic reasons
From the point of view of the victims, it as intrusion on their thoughts of attention, and almost always an attempt to implant a desire into their mind.
Ads are art to the same degree that cannibalism is gastronomy.
plus i m not sure if you re aware how extreme your position is
Most of our beautiful classical art was advertisements for the Church
most graffiti is uglier than ads
I guess that's why I hate so much of it.
Also the bloody hymns that are popular this season. Especially the castrati voices.
My taste runs toward punk, black metal, acid house, and trance.
Wait, aren't you the person who just wrote "think different"? I'm confused.
> Most of our beautiful classical art was advertisements for the Church
Sure, and Jesus was a Marxist, or something... If you try to force XXI century concepts into XIV century realities you can arrive at silly over-simplified conclusions such as the one above.
> most graffiti is uglier than ads
This is your opinion. Graffitis are not trying to manipulate me.
That being said I don’t disagree with the rest of your post.
Good one.
So maybe a couple years ago, being a klutz, I brushed a finger against a red-hot stovetop grill. There was a hiss, with ~no pain at first. And creepily, a delicious smell.
Took months to heal. And hurt like fuck.
But that smell. Damn.
The point is that the delicious food smell from burning myself severely was unexpected, distracting ... and worse, rather invasive, and hard to put out of mind.
So that's like being confronted by advertising that triggers some unconscious drive. It puts some new thought in your head, which leads you to do something that you otherwise wouldn't. So that'a invasive just like the smell of ones braising flesh, which bringsd up thoughts of eating.
That is, the riff that art to advertising is like gastronomy to cannibalism. Or at least, autocannibalism.
There's also similarity between advertising and sexual assault. The possibility that a victim -- like a victim of advertising -- will come to enjoy the experience. And end up being betrayed by their body. Which arguably is one of thge worst parts of the experience. Seeing ads is rather like brain rape.
The Eiffel Tower was built as basically an advertisement for Eiffel's company.
The Rainier R is also became an icon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainier_Brewing_Company#/media...
Eiffel paid a huge chunk of the cost of it, and had his name put on it. It's no different from businesses funding a sports stadium in exchange for it being named after the business.
It's awesome advertising.
I've often wondered why Microsoft didn't fund NASA probe missions in exchange for writing "Microsoft" on the side of the rocket or other such considerations. It'd be a win for all concerned.
Really? So I shouldn't be in most public spaces? I reject that notion.
The counter to my statement that I would agree with is "that's just one of the irritations you have to put up with in our society".
You know about them, but millions of people don't. Every day people learn new things that they never paid attention to before.
It does not just "look better in a photo". People are allowed to walk on their daily lives without being bombarded by flashing, highly targeted, hyper-optimised psychological manipulation. Without adverts that make them feel bad, inferior, missing out, all so they buy whatever shit the man with the money is peddling. They are allowed to decorate their buildings and public spaces with aesthetically pleasing art and decoration.
It's a major improvement in quality of life.
I'm fine with that. Most jobs in advertising produce little to no social utility, and the labor spend doing them should be redirected into more socially beneficial directions. Less ad targeting and construction of ever more garish billboards, more teaching and medical care, etc.