Artists Commandeer (illegal) Manhattan Billboards

http://blog.rocketboom.com/post/104404695/artists-commandeer-manhattan-billboards

by ivankirigin • 17 years ago

29 32 17 years ago

blog.rocketboom.com

dougp• 17 years ago

I liked the ads better.

neilc2• 17 years ago

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".

ivankirigin4• 17 years ago

I wouldn't call painting over temporary plywood walls covered in movie Ads vandalism.

tc2• 17 years ago

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.)

Radix• 17 years ago

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.

teej• 17 years ago

> If the original billboards truly are "illegal"

They are. It's called "flyposting". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyposting

neilc2• 17 years ago

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.

tc2• 17 years ago

From the video:

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.

space_cowboy4• 17 years ago

Standard self-righteous anti-advertising screed being used to justify vandalism. Nothing interesting to see here. Move along.

ivankirigin4• 17 years ago

I agree that anti-advertising screeds are annoying, but surely you agree that the works are more aesthetically pleasing than a movie poster?

sachmanb• 17 years ago

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

space_cowboy4• 17 years ago

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.

bendtheblock• 17 years ago

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.

tjic• 17 years ago

> 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?

ankhmoop2• 17 years ago

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?

dmix• 17 years ago

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.

FahnRobier• 17 years ago

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

gojomo• 17 years ago

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?

apstuff• 17 years ago

Hey, RB. Haven't been there since Amanda threw herself to the floor kicking and screaming. ABC wasn't it?

Artists Commandeer (illegal) Manhattan Billboards

Related Stories