Oh, happy day, when meanderings around the blogosphere unearth a little gem.
Today, the jewel is stickers (pictured above) that say, “You Don’t Need It”, from a site called the Anti-Advertising Agency; the site explains the stickers thusly:
They are easy to carry around town, and by placing the stickers onto advertising (or other objects), the ad is detourned, often in humorous and interesting ways.
I love that these stickers can turn a commercial monologue into a public dialogue. In other words, an ad that previously dominated a public space is co-opted by the users of that space. Think of how many ads you absorb on a daily basis – now instead of being a victim to them, you can talk back. By placing a sticker on an ad, you’re changing the meaning of the ad and making it into something new…like when Dada artist Marcel Duchamp took a urinal and called it “Fountain.”
As a reader named Katie said in her comment on yesterday’s post,
In our culture we have an information overload – we are constantly absorbing and digesting the mass media all around us, and it is so easy to just go along with it and do what everyone else is doing. It takes a conscious effort to break from that and recognize that we too can create – and to make space for that creativity.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
For me, this really crosses the line from creativity to vandalism. I appreciate the sentiment, but it crosses a line for me.
Who’s a valid target? Any ad? Only ads by “evil” companies? How big is your company before they’re evil? etc, etc.
John – I guess you’re right that it’s vandalism… but I think it’s still creative. I believe putting one of these stickers on an ad is, as I said, creating a dialogue where there was once only monologue.
Sure it’s vandalism, but of what? Ideally, a big, garish Sony ad, for instance?
Not all vandalism is bad.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it’s not unethical to vandalize advertisements by companies that are 1.) ruining public spaces with their advertisements by 2.) selling you things that you do not, in fact, need and which may be 3.) unhealthy or harmful to people, because they very likely 4.) committed a raft of ethically questionable moves to get the product they’re advertising to market in the first place.
Name me a single advertisement for anything you’ve seen on a bus stop, a park bench, or a public urinal that isn’t violative of basic human decency. Your automobile, your sugary soda-pop, your low-carb submarine sandwich, your no-money-down offer for whatever, your latest motion picture … I don’t care if you’re a big company, or small. I don’t want your stupid goddamned advertisement assaulting my retinas wherever I go.
Go ahead and say that detourning advertisements crosses a line. It is dialogue, whether the other side’s listening or not. As to whether it is “legitimate” dialogue is a moot point. What do I care if the dialogue is legitimate? Who’s granting the legitimacy? The goddamned advertiser? Screw them and everything they stand for. May they all be boiled alive in vats of their own poison piss, and screw anybody who sides with them; they deserve whatever shitty fate awaits them. May they choke on whatever other Flavor of the Month bullshit’s being shoved down their collective craw. Feh. I will have nothing to do with the likes of them. Who would side with advertisers over the creative and witty sorts would slap “you don’t need it” stickers on ads? I know which camp I’d rather have over for cocktails.
Think about it: In one deft move, with four words and a sticker that costs pennies per unit, you can undermine a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. I love it.
Bottom line: Do you consume, or do you create?
And, probably more importantly, are you in cahoots with the right people?
Which side are you on, chump?
The correct term describing these stickers is “culture jamming.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming)
Advertising, at least 99% of it, is a blight on our landscape and an insult to our intelligence. Anything that allows the public to speak back should absolutely be upheld and promoted.
Hi, I just wanted to plug the DC Counter Culture Festival which is at Dremo’s in Arlington this Saturday starting at 4 PM.
Flux will also be going on up the street at Danville Body Shop up the street.
Come on over the river!
Touched a nerve on this one… :)
Without delving into a defense of my own cocktail hour conversational acumen, or trying to build cred as an anti-consumerist member of the counterculture, I’ll address a few points. (And as a preface, I’m a contrarian. I’m mostly just arguing because I like arguing.)
Advertising is essential. Without advertising, we are effectively unaware of what options are available to us. This morning, I looked at an advertisement in the paper and circled three concerts I want to go to, and was made aware of a new art exhibit in town I was interested in seeing. The newspaper didn’t cover them, they were in ads. It’s with only a hint of irony that I point out the post above this one, which is an advertisement. Advertising helps me discover new restaurants I wish to patronize, new products I wish to purchase, new services I wise to procure. Not everything can be discovered by the cool guy up the street and popularized by word of mouth. It’s not feasible.
Advertising is also, as one of the anonymous folks above pointed out, often a blight on our landscape, and aimed in an exploitative and manipulative manner. It preys on the weak (and face it, the strong too), and takes advantage of the worst parts of human nature. It has the power to be disruptive to our daily lives to the point where we do nothing but tune it out. In addition to the positive advertising I mentioned above, I also learned about a sale for overpriced clothing I don’t need, and was pushed further down the self esteem spiral for not owning a large flat screen TV several feet larger than I want or need. The advertising managed to negatively affect how I felt about my place in the world. Huzzah.
Both of those paragraphs are (as I see it) true. Duality. Almost nothing is all good or all bad. And I’m not on either side. I use advertising in my personal and professional life, and I avoid advertising in my personal and professional life. But more to the point, which side I’m on doesn’t matter. Advertising isn’t going to go away. It’s like weather now… it just exists.
So, I look for things I like in it. David Lynch did perfume ads. I enjoy laughing at Super Bowl ads. Learn to love what you cannot change.
I know none of that addresses the initial vandalism issue, but I’m not up for a coherent defense, I’m more up for playing devil’s advocate. Have fun. :)
For me, it’s not about whether all advertising is good or evil – it’s about being able to talk back. For example, remember when there didn’t used to be ads before movies in theaters? My husband boos at the ads, and I love it; why should we have to sit there and accept that sitting through ads is part of the “entertainment experience” for which we just paid 9 bucks? To me, these stickers are just another way of booing.
“Touched a nerve on this one… :)”
Yup. Kind of a sore subject to those of us who don’t like the fact that civic space s and public aesthetics have been all but ceded to advertisers and commercial interests without anyone’s say-so — other than that of the commercial entities themselves.
“Without delving into a defense of my own cocktail hour conversational acumen, or trying to build cred as an anti-consumerist member of the counterculture, I’ll address a few points. (And as a preface, I’m a contrarian. I’m mostly just arguing because I like arguing.)”
That’s all well and good. I’m not aiming for counterculture hipster points, either. I find hipsters and kneejerk down-with-The-Man types tiresome, too.
“Advertising is essential.”
Wrong. Human beings have thrived and prospered for thousands of years without it. That’s not to say it doesn’t have its place in making economies more efficient. But it is far from “essential” for a healthy, prosperous society.
“Without advertising, we are effectively unaware of what options are available to us.”
Wrong. Advertising is not the primary means through which human knowledge is disseminated, though I fear I may be proven wrong about that one in the not-too-distant future.
“This morning, I looked at an advertisement in the paper and circled three concerts I want to go to, and was made aware of a new art exhibit in town I was interested in seeing. The newspaper didn’t cover them, they were in ads.”
Buying a newspaper and choosing to look at the advertisements (which are an inherent part of their value) is a far different matter than having commericial messages thrust in your face without your consent.
“It’s with only a hint of irony that I point out the post above this one, which is an advertisement.”
Yeah, I found it remarkably unsubtle as well.
“Advertising helps me discover new restaurants I wish to patronize, new products I wish to purchase, new services I wise to procure.”
Again, not all advertising is bad. Advertising in civic spaces — the target of our neo-Situationst pranksters/culture jammers/whatever you wanna call ‘em — is the topic I’m addressing and is distinct from advertisements you’ve come into contact with through your implied consent (buying a newspaper, attending a movie, etc.)
“Not everything can be discovered by the cool guy up the street and popularized by word of mouth.”
Smells as little ad hominem to me …
“It’s not feasible.”
Actually, it’s provably feasible. Examples abound: Remember how Snakes On A Plane took off? How about Blair Witch? Ever heard of a little thing called YouTube?
“Advertising is also, as one of the anonymous folks above pointed out, often a blight on our landscape, and aimed in an exploitative and manipulative manner. It preys on the weak (and face it, the strong too), and takes advantage of the worst parts of human nature.”
I agree.
“It has the power to be disruptive to our daily lives to the point where we do nothing but tune it out.”
I disagree, and so do others who have studied advertising and its effect on the human mind, culture, politics, et cet. You cannot ignore its effects any more than your skin can ignore sunburn if it is subjected to the sun for too long. That’s why advertising in public space is so insidious, and thinking that you have, in fact, tuned it out is precisely what advertisers want you to think. Far better to be aware of the messages they’re trying to sneak past your filters.
“In addition to the positive advertising I mentioned above, I also learned about a sale for overpriced clothing I don’t need, and was pushed further down the self esteem spiral for not owning a large flat screen TV several feet larger than I want or need. The advertising managed to negatively affect how I felt about my place in the world. Huzzah.”
My point exactly. You’ve been so conditioned by advertising that you’re not even self-aware anymore. Imagine: Your failure to possess a consumer item has engendered in you feelings of low worth. It’s actually affecting your opinion of yourself. The need for a big-screen TV is not a function of being human. The need has been created by advertising.
“Both of those paragraphs are (as I see it) true. Duality. Almost nothing is all good or all bad.”
A misreading of St. Thomas Aquinas. If you accidentally poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick, is that partially good, somehow?
Some stuff is, in fact, all bad.
“And I’m not on either side. I use advertising in my personal and professional life, and I avoid advertising in my personal and professional life. But more to the point, which side I’m on doesn’t matter. Advertising isn’t going to go away.”
We got rid of slavery, smallpox, and polio. Surely we can take real estate ads off of park benches. I’d like to be able to once again walk 50 feet in public or even take a piss in a public urinal without being assaulted by a fucking ad. Is that too much to ask?
“It’s like weather now… it just exists.”
Only if you don’t resist it. And people are changing the weather, too, lest we forget.
“So, I look for things I like in it.”
I look for things I like in puppy killings. Does that make puppy killing OK? Weak logic.
“David Lynch did perfume ads.”
That’s possibly context-twisted enough to render it more interesting than a mere ad, but the appearance of a revered auteur within an ad does zero on its own to justify its existence, ethically. And again, I’m concerned only with ads in public spaces, ads to which I have not consented, and which are the targets of the sticker campaign.
“I enjoy laughing at Super Bowl ads.”
My definition of “entertainment” must be vastly different.
“Learn to love what you cannot change.”
More workplace-motivational-poster claptrap. Would you learn to love it if someone came by your house and poked you in the eye with a sharp stick every morning?
“I know none of that addresses the initial vandalism issue, but I’m not up for a coherent defense, I’m more up for playing devil’s advocate. Have fun. :)”
Also, I can’t believe I missed this quote from the site, which seems germane to the discussion:
“To know what you prefer,
instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world says you ought to prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.”
-Robert Louis Stevenson
Hear hear Anonymous! Thank you for articulating what I feel everyday, when I am sick and tired of sounds, smells, and noises being shoved down my throat. I am printing out your comments and sharing them with friends…but not in way that would qualify as advertising your position, per se.
John A, I stopped reading your rebuttal after you opened with “I mostly argue because I like arguing”.
Also, isn’t “learn to love what you cannot change” the national motto for every repressive regime?
Some good points in there, and I’ll agree to disagree on others… mostly because we’re coming from different filters and worldviews on a lot of these issues. Those are tough things to cut through in a message board format. The sensory overload you’re talking about (in ads, traffic, people, etc.) is one of the reasons I left the east coast.
I have other thoughts on the Stevenson quote, but I don’t want to throw out more fuel for the fire. Rest assured, I agree strongly with the quote, but that the worldview differences I mention above probably mean we approach it in different ways.
Also, Amanda, I was poking fun at your TV earlier. :)
And come on, anonymous ii, EVERYONE likes arguing. It’s why we post on message boards. If you aren’t arguing, you’re agreeing, and that just leads to stagnation. ;)
I’m also trying to run an oppressive regime at home with two kids, so I need to practice the rhetoric.
Toodles!
Personally, I think it’s starting to cross into at a grey area between art and vandalism. And just that, a grey area, where in general I could easily imagine fair arguments on either side of the issue, and with it probably coming down the details of individual cases/uses.
I do agree that, wherever you see it falling on the ethics side of things, it’s unquestionably creative and clever.
I’m Steve Lambert and the Anti-Advertising Agency is my brain child. I really enjoyed reading this discussion.
There’s a couple things I would like to add; yes the AAA is mainly talking about outdoor advertising and yes, we can live without it. For example, billboards are regulated in many places across the country. In my home state, California, there are heavy regulations on cigarette and alcohol billboards, especially near schools. There are also several states in the US which have banned billboards entirely – Vermont, Alaska, Maine, and Hawaii. Taking it further, São Paulo, Brazil has banned outdoor advertising starting this month. The São Paulo ban is very new and we’ll see how it turns out, however, my point is that the world and the way it works is not set in stone. Things can change.
Regarding the line between creativity and vandalism – these 1×8 inch vinyl stickers are pretty harmless. I have yet to find any that left permanent damage. Also, it never ceases to amaze me how much respect people have for private property – even when it’s an advertisement placed in public space. Our public space, our common spaces, have become a pay-to-play game and I believe individual citizens should be able to particiapte in the dialogue of public spaces without spending a small fortune. In my opinion, if there is acess to public spaces it should be democratic not capitalistic.
Additionally, many people don’t realize how much outdoor advertising is itself illegal. We did a project last week about this and, rather than reiterate the whole thing here, I will direct you to the project decription and associated links.
One last thing, one of the comments about creativity and vandalism reminded me of this quote from artist Barry McGee about graffiti:
“There’s a lot of talk of how damaging graffiti is and the destruction that happens with graffiti, but there’s actually no damage. It all can be removed or painted over with a roller. So there’s the media’s idea of damage and destruction, this thing that’s slightly askew. To me, if there’s commercial jingles from the ’70s or ’80s that I remember and that are stuck in my head, that’s damage to me. Like you’re driving down the street and all of a sudden you’re humming along to some commercial that you remember when you were a kid – to me that’s far more damaging. The billboards are very subversive, and advertising is very subversive, whereas most of the stuff that’s done on the street is very close to the truth. There’s not so much subversion involved. “
Again, I appreciated the discussion. Please feel free to contact me directly.
Steve