Mississauga Slim
Active Member
And jn_12, why would you want to fight advertising in the public realm as a whole? Does it cause cancer?
|
|
|
Light/Power poles being wrapped to stop them being flyered
- Thread starter gei
- Start date
Lenser
Senior Member
Not to answer for jn_12, but I'm surprised more folks simply don't know the answer to this. Particularly virulent strains of advertising in the public realm do indeed cause cancer. They cause Cancer of the Inner Eye. As of yet, there remains no cure.
Mississauga Slim
Active Member
Well, you know, people who run businesses and offer services want you to know about their products and services. They also want to influence you to give them your business. Traditionally, over the centuries, advertising has been the way to do that. Even charities use it. Seems reasonable. What kinds of advertising would you characterize as "virulent?"
Lenser
Senior Member
Hey, I'm was only kidding. Seems to me this thread could use some levity. The positions seem to be firmly entrenched and it looks like we've settled into a long war of attrition.
From another standpoint, I would imagine that virulent advertising is the very definition of successful advertising. Me, I only object to stupid, nauseating, horrid advertising. In North America, as far as I'm concerned anyway, that describes the majority of it. Which fact causes me no end of dismay, disgust, despair. It speaks ill of our culture, that we should permit such dreck to be visited so freely on us all. It's as if we lack imagination and character. Numbed to the very roots of our neurons by dumb-@ssed, predictable, useless drivel masquerading as sales technique.
Advertising may be something that business can't do without, but it's also a pox on society. In other words, I just can't see it as an either/or proposition. It's wonderful and obscene all at once. When it's brilliant, I can only applaud it and admire its inventors. When it sucks - when it's mawkish and shallow and insultingly, blandly despicably brain-dead, I despise it and sicken at the thought of how easily such stains spread.
As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.
From another standpoint, I would imagine that virulent advertising is the very definition of successful advertising. Me, I only object to stupid, nauseating, horrid advertising. In North America, as far as I'm concerned anyway, that describes the majority of it. Which fact causes me no end of dismay, disgust, despair. It speaks ill of our culture, that we should permit such dreck to be visited so freely on us all. It's as if we lack imagination and character. Numbed to the very roots of our neurons by dumb-@ssed, predictable, useless drivel masquerading as sales technique.
Advertising may be something that business can't do without, but it's also a pox on society. In other words, I just can't see it as an either/or proposition. It's wonderful and obscene all at once. When it's brilliant, I can only applaud it and admire its inventors. When it sucks - when it's mawkish and shallow and insultingly, blandly despicably brain-dead, I despise it and sicken at the thought of how easily such stains spread.
As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.
RC8
Senior Member
Visual pollution raises stress levels. You may personally like or dislike it, but if we as a society agree that higher stress levels are not beneficial then we need to collectively reduce visual pollution as much as possible.
This means getting rid of tags, posters, and private billboards and allowing architecture and high quality street art to take their place. Advertisement can then occur tastefully thereafter and in harmony with the streetscape.
Defending postering and/or billboards and/or urban grit is like defending this:
People who come from places where the public realm is in better shape are distressed when they meet ours. Just because we have grown used to it or even feel some affection towards it doesn't mean that we wouldn't be happier if some of the most invasive ads were gone.
I also happen to believe this needs not sacrifice vibrancy in any way. The best and most vibrant stretches of retail in Toronto along West Queen West also have the least invasive facades out of pretty much any street in the city.
This means getting rid of tags, posters, and private billboards and allowing architecture and high quality street art to take their place. Advertisement can then occur tastefully thereafter and in harmony with the streetscape.
Defending postering and/or billboards and/or urban grit is like defending this:
People who come from places where the public realm is in better shape are distressed when they meet ours. Just because we have grown used to it or even feel some affection towards it doesn't mean that we wouldn't be happier if some of the most invasive ads were gone.
I also happen to believe this needs not sacrifice vibrancy in any way. The best and most vibrant stretches of retail in Toronto along West Queen West also have the least invasive facades out of pretty much any street in the city.
dlam
Active Member
i dont live downtown, can someone take a picture of the new pole being wrapped? thanks!