Artists Commandeer (illegal) Manhattan Billboards(blog.rocketboom.com)
blog.rocketboom.com
Artists Commandeer (illegal) Manhattan Billboards
http://blog.rocketboom.com/post/104404695/artists-commandeer-manhattan-billboards
6 comments
Standard self-righteous anti-advertising screed being used to justify vandalism. Nothing interesting to see here. Move along.
I agree that anti-advertising screeds are annoying, but surely you agree that the works are more aesthetically pleasing than a movie poster?
Beside the point. You wouldn't take it upon yourself to change people's clothes on the street, no matter how much better your fashion sense is.
It's more like intercepting spam and replacing it with a haiku
The difference is, your inbox is yours. Those walls belong to someone, and if they want to turn a profit renting the space to advertisers, that's their business and no-one else's.
edit: Questions of legality aside, I mean.
edit: Questions of legality aside, I mean.
Technically, my inbox is owned by Google. I just look at it a lot. Kinda like billboards.
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.
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.
"NPA Outdoor operates over 500 street level billboards in NYC ranging in size from approximately 4’x4’ to 50’x12’ all of which are said to be illegal."
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.
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.
[deleted]
i believe the grievance is from a lack of 'commons.' there used to be a lot more space that was considered owned by the public, which is an idea that doesn't have much space in our contemporary society.
some wiki info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_land
some wiki info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_land
I believe the grievance is from juveniles that think it is cool to break the rules just for the sake of breaking the rules. Iconoclasts who all think alike.
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.
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.
Give me the art over the ads any day. In large cities, our vision is violated by garish sprawling advertisements from public places, so even if the property is private, it still infringes on the individual.
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.
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.
> our vision is violated by garish sprawling advertisements from public places, so even if the property is private, it still infringes on the individual.
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?
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?
I believe the most interesting aspect of your comment is the conflation of individual, corporate, and commercial speech as "free speech".
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?
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?
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that corporate personhood conflates individual, corporate and commercial speech. Attempting to treat them as separate things might work philosophically, but seems like a legal dead-end. (If you were attempting to speak from a philosophic rather than legal perspective, ignore this paragraph.)
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.
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.
>"Your position is predicated on the idea that other's speech and property rights trump speech rights"
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.
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.
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.
Yes. However, I can also choose to not read Hacker News, or The New York Times.
Someone has been watching The Corporation too many 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.
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.
This just seems like vandalism. If the original billboards truly are "illegal" (which I'm skeptical of), it is a matter for the city government, not a bunch of "artists".
> If the original billboards truly are "illegal"
They are. It's called "flyposting". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyposting
They are. It's called "flyposting". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyposting
Flyposting is by definition illegal ("Flyposting is the act of placing advertising posters or flyers in illegal places"), but that doesn't answer the question about whether these particular ad billboards are illegal. The question is whether the original billboards were placed with the permission of the property owners.
Permission from the property owner isn't enough; you need a permit to post advertisements (except in certain circumstances, IIRC). It is possible that the artists checked for permits before declaring the posters illegal.
There are some people who actively work to get illegal billboards removed: http://illegalbillboards.org/ http://illegalsigns.ca/
There are some people who actively work to get illegal billboards removed: http://illegalbillboards.org/ http://illegalsigns.ca/
I wouldn't call painting over temporary plywood walls covered in movie Ads vandalism.
If a stranger (carefully) picked the lock to your home, then proceeded to vacuum-clean your carpets, mop your floors, and wash your windows, would you not call that breaking and entering?
(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.)
(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.)
Most of these temporary plywood walls, when they initially go up, are covered in stenciled signs saying "post no bills."
Week or two later, and they're covered in these cheap poster ads.
Week or two later, and they're covered in these cheap poster ads.
Well I flyer for my business and we typically put a single flyer in several locations, sticking to billboards or phone poles.
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.
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.
If the owners of the temporary plywood walls recieved any money, I would.
But, I don't live in a city. If warfangle is right then I guess not.
But, I don't live in a city. If warfangle is right then I guess not.
Read the May 3rd post at http://www.publicadcampaign.com/
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
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
I like NPA's legal hack! Here's the direct permalink:
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?
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?
I liked the ads better.
Hey, RB. Haven't been there since Amanda threw herself to the floor kicking and screaming. ABC wasn't it?
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.