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.
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.
Technically, my inbox is owned by Google. I just look at it a lot. Kinda like billboards.
Again, the original postings weren't allowed (like spam to my inbox).
There are some who argue that billboards are like noise pollution, but with your visual instead of auditory space. I think that is partially correct, and so I don't mind this kind of corrective action.
Note that this kind of of public art display is exactly what makes NYC a vibrant place to live and other areas really boring. That kind of vibrancy definitely has economic value.
"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.
i believe the grievance is from a lack of 'commons.' there used to be a lot more space that was considered owned by the public, which is an idea that doesn't have much space in our contemporary society.
I believe the grievance is from juveniles that think it is cool to break the rules just for the sake of breaking the rules. Iconoclasts who all think alike.
Something tells me the "artists" aren't nearly as offending by indie music bands putting their stickers all over every available surface. It's not about principle, it's about hating "the man". Fashion.
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.