View Single Post
  #7  
Old 03-22-2013, 03:20 AM
Helo's Avatar
Helo Helo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
You either haven't been paying attention, or are too young to realize that there have been many protests against billboards through the years, in many places. Many places don't allow them, or neon signs. There was a huge outcry against American Apparel's billboard on Houston Street in NYC a few years ago - it was vulgar, sexist, and gigantic, and people protested it quite loudly. I think someone even vandalized it! Sometimes billboards are taken down if enough people complain.

Of course, in many locations and situations, billboards can be a blight. Just because they are commissioned and paid for, common sense will tell you that it doesn't mean everyone's happy about them all the time. Do a little research in online news archives for some history. Billboards can be provocative, crass, and/or block people's views of the scenery beyond. Of course not everyone likes them. But many billboard advertisements have made a positive impression and become part of popular culture. They are also used for public service announcements, not just ads.
I'm aware of the outcry against them, I'm also aware that nobody who can do anything about it seems to care.

Street art is taken as a "gateway crime" and a symbol of all that's bad and criminal about a neighborhood. Nobody in authority comes out and blames billboards for being a symbol of the over-commercialization of our society or or rampant consumerism, there are precious few op-eds that call for all ads to be removed from public view and no municipality provides support to citizens who want to remove advertising they dislike.

Quote:
Graffiti is just vandalism of someone's private property or government property -- and even if it looks good, it's still vandalism, unlawful, and costs the property owners or municipalities lots of money to remove it, just to satisfy the graffiti "artist's" own arrogant need to get away with something they know they shouldn't be doing. Those people are no better than then fare jumpers. They act so entitled and oppressed, but they are taking liberties with things that don't belong to them.
Malware and adware are vandalism of private property as well, we know who's doing it, and yet again I see no outcry from elected officials that there is a blight. Companies that participate in and fund these activities are plainly apparent, their NAME is in the ads this software spawns onto your machine, yet I see no serious effort to eradicate it from those who have the ability to do so.

Instead, I see millions being poured into vandal units in police departments, graffiti removal teams, graffiti-proof coatings on surfaces, and anti-street art propaganda spun from all corners.

And in the case of property that is in the public domain, why is there a need to remove it? The public placed the art there, why does it need to be removed?

Quote:
Graffiti and street art aren't always the same thing. But street art is acceptable if it isn't going against the law to be there.
Why does a work's legal status effect its right to survive? There's wonderful art across the world that is considered illegal by the government of where it was created, should that art also be destroyed because it violates the law?
__________________
=DISCLAIMER=
I am as direct as a T-Rex with 'roid rage and about as subtle. It isn't intended to cause upset, I just prefer to talk plain. There are plenty of other people here who do the nice, polite thing much better than I can. I'm what you'd call a "problem dinner guest."
Reply With Quote