Comments on: Calling Bullshit on Illegal Ads

By: Jace

Jace — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:45:35 +0000

It seems to me the point here is not the advertising is unwanted by the landlord (and thus graffitti); nor is it about free speech, as legal billboards are allowed in NYC.

The issue boils down to tax evasion and permits. This company has as much right to operate in this way as a hot dog vendor has the right to set up shop without a permit or paying sales taxes. From the fact that the company can build an entire busines around this shows that these by-laws obviously need more teeth or better enforcement.

That being said, and acknowledging the large amounts of actual public nuisances that are celebrated in the web site, this is more artistic vigilanteism than graffitti.

By: arbitraryaardvark

arbitraryaardvark — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:47:10 +0000

New York Constitution Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his senti-
ments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or a-
bridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
I do not agree that this public art is “illegal.” Tacky, maybe. An insidous plot to disrupt our neural networks maybe. But not illegal, under the constitutions.

By: Failermon

Failermon — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:10:00 +0000

Burn yay.

By: Failermon

Failermon — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:57:11 +0000

Ahhh. Thank you for giving me easy links to more lulz. Much thanks. (Y)

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:24:25 +0000

@ Daver:
There’s a difference between putting up things that make people smile while going about their daily business and putting up things that only add to the commercial images we are already forced to mass consume every single day.
And please do not ask people to refrain from being a physician living during the 5th century BC on a Greek island. Individuals have the right to decide what they will do with their own life, Daver.
(I’m sorry, but I couldn’t help becoming a little bit socratastical here…)

By: Kevin Bracken

Kevin Bracken — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:29:14 +0000

Call me late to the party, but I have to wonder why public space activism and advocacy is not a more popular cause here in New York.

Forgive me for drawing upon the Canadian experience, but Toronto has Spacing Magazine, the Toronto Public Space Committee, and the city’s largest city blog, Torontoist, is run and edited by public space zealots. Newmindspace was born from that ethos.

Down here, Public Ad Campaign is great and I would consider it analogous to IllegalSigns.ca in Toronto.

Of course this would probably lead the astute observer to ask, “Why don’t we start something more political?” which is a good question.

By: ozymandias

ozymandias — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:32:06 +0000

@Jason Eppink That was more of a snark at charlie for pretending vandalism and graffiti are god’s gift to the city, and advertising is satan’s love-child conceived from Hitler.

By: ozymandias

ozymandias — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:30:31 +0000

@RamboGoddam Are you really that bad with economics? With the ads, they are *paying* to put those up. That means that the person they are paying, landlords for instance, have extra money. This means they can have lower costs on other goods and stay competitive. Many cities defray the costs of public transit this way, yet this website seems to advocate the destruction of something that makes that $.50 bus fare possible.

And again, at least they bothered to get permission from *someone* before modifying their property. You make it clear that it works in your reply to stellacat, and then cry that it is a failure in your reply to daver…

Do you really think there is no point to advertising, or no reason to post more than one image? That ads do not increase the likelihood that people will go spend money on something?

“And I guess what really pisses me off more than anything is this bold-faced bullshit tactic of acting like the posters are actually available inside the buildings.” — At least they are *trying* not to be criminals…

By: Jason Eppink

Jason Eppink — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:26:44 +0000

@ozymandias FYI all charges against Walker Teiser were dropped because he wasn’t doing anything illegal.

By: ozymandias

ozymandias — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:20:23 +0000

http://www.publicadcampaign.com/2009/05/walker-teiser-gets-arrested.html <– looks like the graffiti is being handled.

Add me to the list of people who think that the landlords have a right to decide what gets put on their buildings, and the list of people thinking it is hypocritical to remove content that the landlords agreed to, and replace it with vandalism.

@Steve, the only difference between these ‘artists’ and the advertisers is the advertisers have permission from *someone* to put their content there.

I never understood how people can defend criminals and cry about how they get punished for destroying other’s property against their wishes, and make things look like ass while they are at it.