The 'new' sty;e bus shelters have been appearing around town. Compared to the old one they have rounded supports (likely to be harder to write on) but most notably, have a wall of advertising. The ad blocks the view of the sidewalk completely from the road (think of a kid running out from behind). The ad also seems ugly and unnecessary (though no doubt it saves us all 2 cents on bus fare).
I haven't heard any outcry about the ads, as opposed to the graffiti on bus shelters. Both the ads and graffiti are attempts to 'brand' something to the public - is one worse than the other on our bus shelters?
3 comments:
Interesting to codify advertising as corporate graffiti, and even more interesting that there's been no outcry.
The city of Sao Paulo has recently banned all outdoor advertising, logos , billboards, saying it is visual pollution.
I think that the "visual pollution" analogy is a good one. It all essentially impinges uninvited on our brains, and yet we are conditioned to accept it (which causes one to wonder how effective it all is).
Graffiti is viewed as 'bad' and causes outrage, yet corporations try to tie ad campaigns into the 'vibe' of graffiti, to the point of Sony Corp. even paying people to graffiti to promote the PSP (which seems to have backfired spectacularily - see http://gothamist.com/2005/11/20/opinionist_corp.php)
this might just be a attempt at lowering bus fare..and stopping the oncoming bus strike
Post a Comment