Artists Commandeer (illegal) Manhattan Billboards
blog.rocketboom.com
blog.rocketboom.com
We're trying to make a point here that the public should be the ones using the public space and not commercial and private interests.
This guy lives in a different world. Equivocation aside, those 'public' spaces are privately owned. When this guy says that the 'public' should be the ones to decide, what he really means is that he thinks his opinion of how the space should be used ought to trump that of the owners who pay to own and maintain their property.
edit: Questions of legality aside, I mean.
Again, the original postings weren't allowed (like spam to my inbox).
There are some who argue that billboards are like noise pollution, but with your visual instead of auditory space. I think that is partially correct, and so I don't mind this kind of corrective action.
Note that this kind of of public art display is exactly what makes NYC a vibrant place to live and other areas really boring. That kind of vibrancy definitely has economic value.
If you are making money by breaking the law and annoying people then I have far less sympathy for them than if their legal private property where damaged. IMO, It falls under the category of destroying illegal campaign advertising on public land.
some wiki info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_land
Something tells me the "artists" aren't nearly as offending by indie music bands putting their stickers all over every available surface. It's not about principle, it's about hating "the man". Fashion.
Billboard advertising can be oppressive, because people are exposed to the ads without consent, and they are, well, big. The very root of advertising is that companies seek to "create" a need/desire in the individual, which can ultimately exacerbate the worst aspects of consumerism - loss of community values, commercialisation of childhood etc.
Maybe the action of these artists isn’t "the answer" but it's definitely an effective way of making people think.
Can you explain to me how your stance doesn't equally disapprove of people saying things that you disagree with (which is quaintly called "freedom of speech") ?
> people are exposed to the ads without consent
Oh noz!
Why, exactly, do you think that your proposed "right not to see things you don't want to see" trumps the right of others to advertise on their own property / speak their own minds?
Why, exactly, do you think that your proposed "right not to see things you don't want to see" trumps the right of others to advertise on their own property / speak their own minds?
Your position is predicated on the idea that other's speech and property rights trump speech rights -- that is, the artists' free speech rights are constrained by the property and free speech rights of the advertisers and owners.
Does this not imply that there could be constraints on the exercise of free speech insofar as it infringes upon the rights of others? Could pervasive, unavoidable public advertising, explicitly designed to instill desire through emotional manipulation, somehow infringe on my rights as an individual to not listen?
I don't see why a corporation should have any less right to free speech than an individual: governments can step on the toes of a company just as easily as a person. Nor do I see why commercial speech should not be protected: I could argue that nearly everything is tied to making money. (Painting a billboard may not be explicitly commercial, but the more exposure people have to such art, the more likely they are to buy it. It's another form of advertising, even if that's not the artist's intent.)
Property rights trump speech rights. If you are on my property, I can tell you to shut up and go away. If I own a wall, you do not have the right to draw on it.
Nobody is forcing anyone to look at a public billboard. It may be hard not to - but it's also hard not to listen to people preaching on street corners. These preachers are probably just as emotionally manipulative. I wish they weren't there, but I'm glad they have the choice.
Edit: I don't think I was very clear. My main point is that if you draw a line between what speech should and shouldn't be protected, I think you will always end up with some speech which needs protecting but is on the wrong side of that line. It will be the kind of speech which a lot of people don't like, but I think that's the most important kind of speech to protect.
That's typically how it works. Paul can ban people from his site. The New York Times can prevent you from publishing an article on its pages. Neither infringes on your free speech rights, as understood by law and Western intellectual tradition.
Yes. However, I can also choose to not read Hacker News, or The New York Times.
When I don't want to see ads - I don't live near high traffic areas. When I don't want my child to be a mindless consumer - I teach him to know better. When I want to see art - I go to the many galleries throughout the city I live in.
They are. It's called "flyposting". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyposting
There are some people who actively work to get illegal billboards removed: http://illegalbillboards.org/ http://illegalsigns.ca/
(I'm assuming here that the original advertisements were placed with the permission of the property owners. Otherwise the placing of the initial advertisements was vandalism, as is replacing them with something else.)
Week or two later, and they're covered in these cheap poster ads.
Whats really gross is when an ad agency uses a "street team" to carpet bomb every available surface.
I also provide a bulletin board for public use in my establishment. I regularly have to remove the posters of people who put up ten or more and cover up other peoples flyers.
I also remove the flyers that people put on my front windows, the bathroom mirrors and even tabletops.
So really I see this issue as exactly the same as managing a message board. Encourage good content and delete spam or your board becomes a ghetto with a lousy signal to noise ratio.
As far as the artists go, whether they are better or worse than the ads is a subjective decision. If anything they are at least creating a dialogue which is worth something.
But, I don't live in a city. If warfangle is right then I guess not.
It explains the difference between first-party signage and third-party signage. It sounds like this group had been targeting illegal third-party signage and that a certain company (NPA) had found an ingenious legal way to have third-party signage classified as first-party signage.
Rob
http://www.publicadcampaign.com/2009/05/how-to-convert-illeg...
OTOH, a New Yorker once mentioned to me there were people (other than the property owner) who had de facto control over the 'flyposting' in certain areas; if you paid them, you could be sure your posters were up (and not covered by others). It seemed vaguely like a protection racket. Can anyone else confirm or refute that it sometimes works that way?