
Artists Commandeer (illegal) Manhattan Billboards - ivankirigin
http://blog.rocketboom.com/post/104404695/artists-commandeer-manhattan-billboards
======
tc
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_cowboy
Standard self-righteous anti-advertising screed being used to justify
vandalism. Nothing interesting to see here. Move along.

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

~~~
stavrianos
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.

~~~
ivankirigin
It's more like intercepting spam and replacing it with a haiku

~~~
stavrianos
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.

~~~
Retric
"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.

~~~
space_cowboy
Are you a cop or a judge?

~~~
Retric
No, but I might end up on the jury of your peers.

------
bendtheblock
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
> 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?

~~~
ankhmoop
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?

~~~
space_cowboy
>"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.

~~~
ankhmoop
_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.

------
neilc
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".

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

~~~
tc
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.)

~~~
warfangle
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.

~~~
dan_the_welder
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.

------
FahnRobier
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
I like NPA's legal hack! Here's the direct permalink:

[http://www.publicadcampaign.com/2009/05/how-to-convert-
illeg...](http://www.publicadcampaign.com/2009/05/how-to-convert-illegal-
third-parties.html)

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?

------
dougp
I liked the ads better.

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

