http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads Comments on 'pay £10 into a fund that aims to fill a public advertising space with something thought-provoking' en-gb team@pledgebank.com 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 2 hourly http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_897912 We are export/import of mobile phones. At a very cheaper rate. in stock are; nokia n90/n9001/n92/n93/n95.intererested buyer email to;pjamestore@yahoo.com. Philip James. PJ_ltd. http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_296531 The deadline is tomorrow. And that's a very much extended deadline. Less than 50 percent of the necessary people have signed up. Luke has easily got the best suggestion for what to put on it, but it's becoming academic. Ironically, what this pledge needs is.... better advertising. http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_292191 Luke's suggestion (as below) I think is the best yet. Let's not try and be fake-cool (that's been wrung dry - and '...intentionally blank' doesn't say why or by whom) but just explain what it was that happened and why. So: "350 people paid a tenner so there'd be no advert in this space" plus the website address for here so peops can read up on the thoughts we'd been having (and join in if they want to) would do the job nicely. It's little, and amateurish, but that's what's charming about it: it shows the potential that little actions like these can have. Are we gonna do it or wot?? Bethany. ----------------- "this space left intentionally blank" is cool, but in real life where adverts use EVERY tactic to stand out, I think that will not neccessarily be confused with an actual advert, but also ...just, not be as meaningful as it could be. Could we gety away with: "350 people paid a tenner so there'd be no advert in this space" that would stick in my mind all day http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_283114 "this space left intentionally blank" is cool, but in real life where adverts use EVERY tactic to stand out, I think that will not neccessarily be confused with an actual advert, but also ...just, not be as meaningful as it could be. Could we gety away with: "350 people paid a tenner so there'd be no advert in this space" that would stick in my mind all day http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_155664 Hello, Just to let everyone know I've added a forum to the ANA website, where we can all debate the various topics that have been taking up so much space on the Pledgebank website. Pop over and have your say: www.artnotads.com/forum Sazzy, I've kicked off a few topics that you might find interesting :-) Austin http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_155503 Hello, Short notice I know, but Mark Thomas is organising a demonstration in Parliament Square protesting the requirement to licence demonstrations. In order to attend you need to register on Thursday 24th August (tomorrow!) at Charring Cross police station. Most people are meeting there between 5:30pm and 6:00pm to hand in their application forms. The demonstrations (each individual will represent a single demonstration) will be one week later on the 31st August at 6pm. This is 100% legal! Any individual can legally demonstrate in Parliament Square provided they apply for permission 6 days in advance, which is what we shall be doing. All you have to do is decide what you're protesting about. I shall of course be protesting about the increasing amount of advertising in London! More details here: http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/08/help-defend-free-speech.html Please read that page, it explains everything that you need to know. See you there! Austin http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_130937 I had time today (when i should be working) to read some more of the posts on this fascinating topic. In reference to the question of who funds the Poetry on the Underground campaign, i can confirm that one of the funders is indeed the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, an organisation which gives cash to many deserving social and cultural causes all over the UK. Foundations exist to give money to to causes within their criteria - Maybe ArtnotAds will eventually function in this way - in that people apply for money to put up an artwork in an adspace. This thought made me think - what will be the criteria for exactly what artwork is chosen for the first space - as there seem to be loads of varying opinions on this. have you decided at what stage you will actually define this? http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_130010 I have not read all the posts. so apologies if this has been covered already. Firstly, I think this is a truly noble idea, so good on you Mr Plunkett. Secondly, I strongly agree with the point that Art is Good because it makes us think - it challenges our view of the world and it FORCES us to use our brains, this in a world when this activity is so rare. Even if this project does not 'work' in the sense that London becomes even a little more ad-free, I say no-matter. I think the point will be made more in publicity you generate for the project. the point of the project is not necessarily one four-week installation in one tube stn, but making people all over the world aware of WHY the idea is important/cool/ funky/whatever. This awareness campaign may be a better thing to spend the money on (plus for example, one ad space bought once a year), as otherwise it might become v expensive in ratio to effectiveness in the long term. Finally, I think that in London there is actually already a lot of art in public spaces, and in truth people living in London are very exposed to culture, music, poetry, etc even just in their daily commute/grind. I now live in a small town in Latin America, where the 'herd culture' you mention on your site is about 100 times more pertinent than in London - with a large portion of the community being unable to read or write and everything this portion of the community does (buys...) is influenced by brash television advertising. 'orrible stuff. So, on reflection, i think changing minds about advertising in London will be a breeze! http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_104359 Hi Heather, and thanks for the excellent question. There are several reasons why I personally feel a work of art would be "better" than an advert: In my eyes, "better" would be defined as "thought-provoking". We've spent some time here discussing the merits of a blank sheet in place of an advertising hording. However the original idea of ANA was to stimulate people's minds by replacing intrusive advertising. Adverts aren't primarily intended to stimulate the little grey cells. Some do, of course, but that's always secondary to their main motivation: to get you to spend your money with the sponsor. All adverts have this as their driving motivation. The message is repetitive, even given the frequent ingenuity of advertisers: BUY OUR PRODUCT, repeated ad nauseam. This doesn't seem to be a "view" or an "idea". Very little advertising - if any - is there to sell a new perspective. It's there to sell a product. And it certainly isn't there to benefit the public, it's there to benefit the private concern that funds it. A work of art, on the other hand, is more often than not an attempt to present a point of view, an idea. It is there to stimulate and provoke. You are welcome to love it or loathe it, to talk about it, to find it beautiful or disgusting. Any reaction is fine, and you don't have to spend a single penny. You're not being told what to think, you're being asked what you think. Any comments or questions, please post them here or to artnotads@gmail.com I'll be posting a few thoughts on related matters at the ANA blog: www.ArtNotAds.com/blog/ http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_103859 It sounds like a nice idea but surely you will simply be replacing ads for products with adverts for artist's views/ideas. Why should we assume that will be any better for Jo Public? http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_44264 Hello. Thanks for all the constructive comments, and for the usual entertaining detraction. And so, with the time for decision-making fast approaching, it seems we have the following broad options for the anti-ad: 1. A blank sheet with nothing on it at all. 2. "This space left intentionally blank", and no other wording. 3. A work of art/inspiring text/etc. 4. Any of the above, with a reference to ArtNotAds.com somewhere on the poster. My personal suggestion is to go for option 2, but use the phrase "this intrusive advert has been replaced"? The benefit of using this phrase is that when you type it into Google.com, the first link is to this page. And so the statement is made, and for anyone who wants to research it, they'll find the driving force. Of course, we could put a nice picture on it too! As for raising the funds, what do people think about the use of www.fundable.org? It would only leave us one month to raise the cash. Even if we don't raise enough for a large ad on the tube, we may be able to raise the money for a smaller ad on the tube, or in a newspaper - perhaps even a national paper. Any thoughts? In response to some of the points that have been raised: In fact, I *have* tried recently to write to my MP about the use of intrusive advertising in public places. Although the otherwise excellent www.WriteToThem.com didn't manage to send my message, I'll be writing again, and I would ask you to do the same. It only takes 2 minutes using www.WriteToThem.com so give it a go. I'd suggest you ask for your MP's thoughts on the subject, and ask about the laws governing the renting of public space for advertising. Perhaps it would be a good idea to write to your local council too? Suggesting that the public always make the "wrong" choice when given an option is a strange argument. This kind of thinking leads to the conclusion that the people who make the rules are beyond reproach and don't deserve scrutiny. The ultimate conclusion to this line of thought must be that we should live in a dictatorship, and be thankful to do so. Democracy (at least in theory) is fundamentally based on choices made by the public. Surely it's likely that well-informed members of the public are quite capable of making decisions that affect... erm, the public? Perhaps it is possible that ill-informed people would be poorly equipped to make decisions, but then an obvious fix for that would simply be to improve the quality and availability of the information upon which decisions are made. But instead, the decisions are made by private concerns. Taking decisions out of the hands of the public doesn't automatically mean that better decisions will be made. The quality of the information is still paramount, and of course, any other motivating factors such as money have to be considered. When it comes to funding the Tube, as has been said before, this campaign isn't just about the Tube. However, since the question has been asked, here are my thoughts: The advertisers aren't donating money to public services. They are paying for "mind-share", for their intrusion into your life, for the chance that you can be convinced to change your habits and consequently give them some of your hard-earned cash. There is no point in placing advertising on the Tube (or anywhere) if it doesn't raise revenue. The revenue is raised from the people who look at the ads. In a Tube filled with adverts, you give your money to the advertisers who basically cream some off the top and give what's left back to the Tube. Wouldn't it be good to cut out the middle-man and just pay for a public transport system? Finally, it's certainly not true to say that "we sold" public space for intrusive advertising use. But regardless of who actually sold it, it's time to take it back. http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_43965 I have tried to read most of the posts, its coming to the deadline of the pledge, what type of "Ad" are you all going to do, some random art or some words like: "I sold my TV to pay for this AD, I felt better about it so I'm telling you!" etc. just an idea off the top of my head so don't beat me :P ?? http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_23879 Sorry, Oli F, but what I said was true. The public were never consulted over advertising on the Tube, but the choice they would face would be stark. Whilst you would find many of them agreeing with you, I doubt too many of them would side with you. Are you sure you aren't confusing cynicism with accurate observation? Just type "wanker" if that's what you mean. If you'd prefer to try to change my mind, something intelligent wuld be of more use to both of us. http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_23872 Who sold our public space for advertising? We did. Did anyone write to their MP to beg for advertising on the Tube? No. Did anyone (and I include anyone here) write to their MP to beg for advertising to be withdrawn from the Tube? No. If you give the public the choice they make the wrong one. Here's how it works: Me: Do you want Tube fares increased? Public: No Me: Do you want advertising on the Tube? Public: No Me: Do you want to increase taxes to pay for the Tube? Public: No Me: If we use the advertising money to avoid fares increases, do you want advertising on the Tube? Public: I suppose so I just thought I drop in to see if there was any danger of the pledge being met. And there isn't. What a suprise. http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_17009 Hi. As I mentioned in an email that all the pledge signers should have received, here are a couple of thoughts: First, I've started blogging on the ArtNotAds.com website. Expect biting incisive commentary a-plenty. http://www.artnotads.com/blog/ Second, it seems that we won't hit our target of 300 people by the time the pledge expires. That's not a problem, though. The question is, what to do with all this good will? One notion I've had is to collect the funds from the pledge subscribers, and put it into a "collecting pot" at this site: http://www.fundable.org This will allow us up to 25 days to collect the cash. People can contribute using either a credit card or PayPal. Of course now we have to finally answer the question: what will be on the anti-ad? It's time to make the decision! As always, I'd love to know your thoughts. Comment on the PledgeBank forum or email me direct. http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_15273 Jonathan, thanks for the comments. Very succinct. I couldn't agree more with your penultimate paragraph. This is exactly what I'd like to know: who sold our public space to the advertisers? And how can we get it back? I've been struck by an idea which is a sort of compromise that might make some people happier. What if adverts had sell-by dates? If an ad has expired, if it has been visible for longer than it was contracted, then it should be covered. And what better to cover it that an anti-ad? (Of course, we have to decide what that should be!) What do people think? This is of course more of a long-term goal. The goal of this pledge is, as ever, to replace an intrusive advert with something more thought-provoking. But I see ArtNotAds as a long-term prospect, so it's interesting to think about how it could work. Let me know your thoughts! Feel free to email me, or post a comment here. I've updated the ArtNotAds.com website, after neglecting it for a few weeks due to my personal life getting in the way. In the background I've been tinkering with some blogging and bulletin board systems, so hopefully I'll get them up and running soon. Please check the site out and let me know what you think. Austin http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_15220 The suggestion that tube stations were once filled with ads in the Edwardian days is very interesting. I imagine, however, that given major/international media weren't around at the time, it was all local advertising, pasted up by local businesses and organisations, with the net result of benefitting the local community. Buying a product or service on the basis of one of these adds stood a good chance of improving the regional economy. Anyone could advertise too, presenting people with a free-speech tool that didn't lock out the poor with extortionate costs. However, now the ads are fewer and larger, should we be happy? I suggest not: gone is the link between us and the brand, and having a better opinion of an advertised product often doesn't net any local benefit at all. Since advertising is big business, and consumers have never been more cynical, advertisers now try every (underhand) trick in the book to get people to think of their products in a particular light. Whether an ad suggests that a guy is not sufficiently desirable unless he uses a particular razor, or a girl is not sufficiently slender unless she uses a specific brand of perfume, big-bucks advertising taps into our subconscious and tells us that we are not good enough. But, naturally, they present themselves as the kind providers of the remedy, and we only need to give them some mindshare, and our lives will be made more fruitful. This poisoning of the private mind, in my view, is why people are frustrated at this kind of use of public space. Who, for example, wants to have adverts on the tube? Did commuters lobby their MPs until it was done? Which shoppers want to see billboard ads in the public spaces they used to think was their town centre? Do householders in council properties really want to see advertising hordings outside their bedroom window? On whose authorisation did these public spaces become private rentable property? Anyway, this is an interesting project - pleased to see someone propose it! http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_7934 my last message does'nt seem to have registered on the page - i assume chucked out for being abusive. however i feel the need to express my deep desire for a shaggy dog story once more. it will occupy and entertain bored minds while on the journey and leave them with a lasting thought provocation as they will be left wondering "what the hell was that about??" - "where was the plug??" or "has advertising become so obtuse that i just miss the point??" or even better "am i going mad?" in which case they are handily placed to top themselves at the next stop. maybe we can up suicide rates with this campaign - and thereby give advertisers the compelling argument that commercial publicity actually saves lives!! awesome. i will stop drinking coffee now. http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_7849 To Jonathan or "Jon": If you are so keen on advertising on "the tube", you should stick a poster on yer heid. Kind regards http://www.pledgebank.com/artnotads#comment_7824 Nice idea! For what to put up, I'd love a Buddhist text (which I will have to ponder) - BUT instead I agree that it would be even better to have something restful than something thought-provoking. A simple caption that explains what it is would be lovely - like 'This space bought and left blank to give you a rest from advertising'. I think there should be a link to the artnotads website added, so that people can pursue it if they are interested. If I saw such a slogan on a noticeboard, I would be so happy, and want to know how to help and join in! Simplicity would be even better than art (even though this is part of the stated aim of the site). To oppose excessive advertising is an even more important aim than putting something else interesting in its place. Finally, to all those people who want to oppose this idea, I think you'll agree that it's not something that in itself will harm you or your aims, so it might be that much more productive to go and find a motion you do support, and get involved with that. Love to all.... (hippy-style - so what??)