|
|
|
Crispin Sartwell encourages the defacing of billboards and other public advertising in a piece on the L.A. Times op-ed page:
What I do endorse is the art of graffiti and the concept of culture jamming. If advertisers feel free to monopolize public space — from highways to the airwaves to the Internet — with their commercial messages, we ought to feel free to deface these messages, critique them and replace them with our own."
How about defacing some WS Playboy Crips "ads."
Other pundits around for a Monday:
*George Skelton gives Bustamante a big kiss. (LAT)
*Ron Brownstein examines Bush as a decision maker. (LAT)
*Chris Weinkopf memos Gray Davis from the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." (Daily News)
*More dissection of the L.A. Times Poll on the recall by Mickey Kaus and Dave Jensen.
*Earl Ofari Hutchinson says blacks are nervous about Bustamante -- it's that "n-word" slip up and more. (Pacific News Service)
Expect a Weintraub posting (unless he's off) on Ueberroth later today. The candidate is stopping at the Bee for a chat. As always, see Rough and Tumble and other sites on the right side of this page for recall news and views.
Updated 8:46 a.m.
Hmmm...some people feel that tagging is acceptable because commercial outdoor advertising is so pervasive? Angelyne's billboards are just her way of marking territory (physical or mental)? Interesting point--
On a completely different topic: the weekend SUV vandalism apparently carried out by eco-terrorists. Question #1: the LA Times quotes law enforcement types as saying eco-terrorists are not centrally-organized and directed, but loosely affiliated around core beliefs and Internet links. Is this similar to the what the US military is facing in Iraq?
Question #2: The LA Times story byline lists three reporters. The Daily News credits Associated Press. Does the DN have a San Gabriel Valley bureau or is that "foreign" news?
http://outdooradvertising.blogspot.com
Posted by: ted at August 25, 2003 10:11 AMOnly a moron liberal could call for more graffiti.
Posted by: Luke Ford at August 25, 2003 10:27 AMI saw the professor's column as an indictment of the college that allows him to call himself a philosopher. It was based upon a falsehood, rendering any conclusions meaningless.
Advertising is legal; graffiti is not? There is advertising which is illegal, and graffiti which is not. What makes most graffiti illegal is not that it is non-commercial (and by the way, there have been instances of commercial graffiti) but that it is placed without the permission of the property owner (private or public). Legal graffiti can be art; it can be commentary; it can be opinion. Illegal graffiti is vandalism.
Posted by: vic pulver at August 25, 2003 10:52 AMSartwell is a blithering idiot, and I'm SURE his op-ed means he'll stand in a window and salute anyone who spray-paints words to that effect on his garage door. I have a rather long diatribe about this piece on my blog, if anyone's interested:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/000162.html
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 25, 2003 12:43 PMwe offer 11 000 pages=300 chapters (from 28 years) summarizing 300 years of research-developement
all you aver wanted to know about wall-writing
of LA Observed
No one's going to come out in favor of graffiti. However, Sartwell's article does serve as a nifty criticism of outdoor advertising, particularly in the public domain. This topic is particularly close to my heart, as several South Bay cities have begun allowing commercial advertising on street banners to raise money for charitable activities. All this while trying to remove billboards on major streets. Sartwell reminds us that from a philosophical viewpoint, outdoor advertising is much more invasive and offensive than graffiti.
Posted by: Garrison at August 25, 2003 08:20 AM