vespa vandalism

[Brett]

Has anyone noticed those black-and-white pictures of people with scooters for heads? They're pasted up everywhere across the downtown.

I thought it was somebody trying to be Toronto's version of Banksy. But no — they're actually advertisements for Vespa:

http://spacing.ca/wire/2008/04/30/vespa-ads-not-cool/#more-3078

Says Jonathan Goldsbie of the Toronto Public Space Committee: "It’s pathetic. It’s anti-democratic. They [Vespa] believe that public space is just a blank canvas for a sales pitch.”

[GrannyGremlin]

BELLBOY! (sorry)

I've seen them all over this one (so far otherwise empty) storefront just W of Sherbourne (or was it Parliament?) on the S side of Queen. Maybe that'll be a dealership.

[Online Poker]

what a stupid, stupid campaign. playstation did the same in new york a year or two ago and it went over really poorly.

[calendarization]

well yeah, 'cos fauxreel caught their attention with various paste ups of punks and other weirdo queen west types, i guess they thought "hey this will sell scooters like hotcakes". i just don't get the hoopla, but that's because even if i could afford one i wouldn't get a scooter. and the whole public space thing/art getting bought out by corporate america/whatever is a drag. c'mon, plain and simple, they're a member of the college st/little italy BIA, right? if so, then either advocate heatedly for less spraywashing/broken windows and ease up on the postering hate-on, or quit with the 'edgy' advertising plan.

[Brett]

i think it's offensive.

there seems to be creeeping tendency of advertisers who think they can surreptitiously claim the public space. 'guerilla marketing' has to be ended.

[GrannyGremlin]

What about when we do it?

[drugMoney]

What about when we do it?

no really.

[GrannyGremlin]

?

[drugMoney]

?

i also want to know "what about when we do it?"

[friends explode]

Yeah i honestly don't really think there's a difference between "us" and "them" in this case, and to complain about this and give praise to someone else who is more "in the scene" doing it is a weird double standard; both are being used to sell something, it's just that stuff like Banksy and Lepos are being used to sell something intangible while the vespa thing is being used to sell... scooters. Before anyone realized they were Vespa ads, they all either thought they were cool or boring, now that people know a company is responsible, boring becomes wrong and cool becomes dumb. And none of the scooter people are on storefronts that actually contain stores: they're all on empty or condemned storefronts. And they're way less atrocious/annoying than the whole Val Kilmer thing, come on.

Personally I think they're cool, even if they are an ad campaign.

[calendarization]

i think it's offensive.

there seems to be creeeping tendency of advertisers who think they can surreptitiously claim the public space. 'guerilla marketing' has to be ended.

that's not going to be an easy fight. i can't see how advertising can effectively be scaled back to be less intrusive and not inappropriately in public spaces. sounds good, but i just can't imagine how it would happen.

and i hate the term 'guerilla' applied to anything other than actual warfare or covert insurgent operations. as in, "hey, we're wheat-pasting these cool little advertisements for scooters in abandoned storefronts, and we are just like che guevara in the hills, except we don't have guns and we won't get shot or tortured."

[jay_petroleum]

and i hate the term 'guerilla' applied to anything other than actual warfare or covert insurgent operations.

what about large monkeys?

[calendarization]

nah, they're cool. they actually live in the hills.

[unclear balms]

Yeah I noticed some of these at Richmond and Peter.  WAY more annoying/offensive than Val Kilmer... Val made me smile, Val wasn't trying to sell you something.  Maybe the illegal signs crew http://illegalsigns.ca/ will get on this.  Calling up/writing/publicly embarrassing Vespa is not a bad idea either.

[friends explode]

i think it's offensive.

there seems to be creeeping tendency of advertisers who think they can surreptitiously claim the public space. 'guerilla marketing' has to be ended.

that's not going to be an easy fight. i can't see how advertising can effectively be scaled back to be less intrusive and not inappropriately in public spaces. sounds good, but i just can't imagine how it would happen.

and i hate the term 'guerilla' applied to anything other than actual warfare or covert insurgent operations. as in, "hey, we're wheat-pasting these cool little advertisements for scooters in abandoned storefronts, and we are just like che guevara in the hills, except we don't have guns and we won't get shot or tortured."

but what if we do get shot and tortured for our wheat pasted advertisements... what then?

[jay_petroleum]

http://spacing.ca/wire/2008/04/30/vespa-ads-not-cool/

[friends explode]

also, was Obay™ uncool? I think not.

[jay_petroleum]

at least Obay used legal ads

[calendarization]

but what if we do get shot and tortured for our wheat pasted advertisements... what then?

i'd say the appropriate language would be "all-out class warfare". you can just call yourselves guerillas then, and carry a kalashnikov along with a bucket and brushes.

[friends explode]

but what if we do get shot and tortured for our wheat pasted advertisements... what then?

i'd say the appropriate language would be "all-out class warfare". you can just call yourselves guerillas then, and carry a kalashnikov along with a bucket and brushes.

I want to call myself gorillas and carry a banana in the bush

[westeyes]

i own a silverback vespa

[Brett]

Yeah i honestly don't really think there's a difference between "us" and "them" in this case, and to complain about this and give praise to someone else who is more "in the scene" doing it is a weird double standard; both are being used to sell something, it's just that stuff like Banksy and Lepos are being used to sell something intangible while the vespa thing is being used to sell... scooters. Before anyone realized they were Vespa ads, they all either thought they were cool or boring, now that people know a company is responsible, boring becomes wrong and cool becomes dumb. And none of the scooter people are on storefronts that actually contain stores: they're all on empty or condemned storefronts. And they're way less atrocious/annoying than the whole Val Kilmer thing, come on.

Personally I think they're cool, even if they are an ad campaign.

I don't think Banksy is trying to sell anything. His pieces seem to be about encouraging debate and drawing attention to larger, important societal issues. His pieces that aren't politically motivated are at least entertaining.

The Vespa ads are just about implanting the Vespa brand in the back of your mind, as if they're leaving subliminal messages in the public realm. It's trickery in the sense that some company is making you think you're viewing art or graffiti when in fact you're being subjected to brand presence. It's manipulation.

In my opinion, the ads aren't cool. They're sort of banal. It's just a guy standing there with handlebars for a head. There's no narrative twist or questions being posed. Nothing remotely clever.

[Online Poker]

i own a silverback vespa

slammin

[thatguyoverthere]

I want to call myself gorillaz and see how long it takes Damon Albarn to sue me.

 

[friends explode]

Yeah i honestly don't really think there's a difference between "us" and "them" in this case, and to complain about this and give praise to someone else who is more "in the scene" doing it is a weird double standard; both are being used to sell something, it's just that stuff like Banksy and Lepos are being used to sell something intangible while the vespa thing is being used to sell... scooters. Before anyone realized they were Vespa ads, they all either thought they were cool or boring, now that people know a company is responsible, boring becomes wrong and cool becomes dumb. And none of the scooter people are on storefronts that actually contain stores: they're all on empty or condemned storefronts. And they're way less atrocious/annoying than the whole Val Kilmer thing, come on.

Personally I think they're cool, even if they are an ad campaign.

I don't think Banksy is trying to sell anything. His pieces seem to be about encouraging debate and drawing attention to larger, important societal issues. His pieces that aren't politically motivated are at least entertaining.

The Vespa ads are just about implanting the Vespa brand in the back of your mind, as if they're leaving subliminal messages in the public realm. It's trickery in the sense that some company is making you think you're viewing art or graffiti when in fact you're being subjected to brand presence. It's manipulation.

In my opinion, the ads aren't cool. They're sort of banal. It's just a guy standing there with handlebars for a head. There's no narrative twist or questions being posed. Nothing remotely clever.

Yeah but isn't it the responsibility of the viewer to impose a narrative on a static piece of art? The assumption of a lack of narrative in these pieces comes from the understanding that they're created (at least partially) by a company trying to sell a product; if you didn't know that's what they were for, the assumption might be made that they're social commentary. I'm mostly just trying to play devil's advocate here, because clearly they're not on the level of, say, Banksy. But even still, you say that the vespa ads are about implanting the vespa brand in the back of your mind; couldn't it be argued that Val Kilmer/Lepos/Banksy/etc are about implanting the idea of discourse and narrative as much as the Scooterheads are about trying to sell scooters?

[Brett]

Yeah i honestly don't really think there's a difference between "us" and "them" in this case, and to complain about this and give praise to someone else who is more "in the scene" doing it is a weird double standard; both are being used to sell something, it's just that stuff like Banksy and Lepos are being used to sell something intangible while the vespa thing is being used to sell... scooters. Before anyone realized they were Vespa ads, they all either thought they were cool or boring, now that people know a company is responsible, boring becomes wrong and cool becomes dumb. And none of the scooter people are on storefronts that actually contain stores: they're all on empty or condemned storefronts. And they're way less atrocious/annoying than the whole Val Kilmer thing, come on.

Personally I think they're cool, even if they are an ad campaign.

I don't think Banksy is trying to sell anything. His pieces seem to be about encouraging debate and drawing attention to larger, important societal issues. His pieces that aren't politically motivated are at least entertaining.

The Vespa ads are just about implanting the Vespa brand in the back of your mind, as if they're leaving subliminal messages in the public realm. It's trickery in the sense that some company is making you think you're viewing art or graffiti when in fact you're being subjected to brand presence. It's manipulation.

In my opinion, the ads aren't cool. They're sort of banal. It's just a guy standing there with handlebars for a head. There's no narrative twist or questions being posed. Nothing remotely clever.

Yeah but isn't it the responsibility of the viewer to impose a narrative on a static piece of art? The assumption of a lack of narrative in these pieces comes from the understanding that they're created (at least partially) by a company trying to sell a product; if you didn't know that's what they were for, the assumption might be made that they're social commentary. I'm mostly just trying to play devil's advocate here, because clearly they're not on the level of, say, Banksy. But even still, you say that the vespa ads are about implanting the vespa brand in the back of your mind; couldn't it be argued that Val Kilmer/Lepos/Banksy/etc are about implanting the idea of discourse and narrative as much as the Scooterheads are about trying to sell scooters?

No. Because discourse doesn't cost anything. Vespas, however, start at about $4,000.

And why should it be the viewer's responsibility to impose a narrative on a static piece of art? Nobody asked to see this art, and many people wouldn't agree that it even is art.

[Franks2000inchTV]

Guys public space means anyone can use it. Even companies.

The problem isn't things like this, which you can just poster over if you don't like them, it's things like massive video screens an billboards which are privately owned.

[pee on poo]

YOU PUSSIES YOU CAN NOT HANDLE THE POWER OF A BEAUTIFUL VESPA (WOMAN).

[Brett]

Yeah, but there's regulations against advertising on public space. Companies can't just alter public space to serve their profit interests.

Here's a good example of art in the public realm:

[pee on poo]

PEE

[forthercords]

Has anyone noticed those black-and-white pictures of people with scooters for heads? They're pasted up everywhere across the downtown.

I thought it was somebody trying to be Toronto's version of Banksy. But no — they're actually advertisements for Vespa:

http://spacing.ca/wire/2008/04/30/vespa-ads-not-cool/#more-3078

Says Jonathan Goldsbie of the Toronto Public Space Committee: "It’s pathetic. It’s anti-democratic. They [Vespa] believe that public space is just a blank canvas for a sales pitch.”

I believe one of those ads are up just outside one of the entrances to the closed downtown Sam The Record Man. I was wondering what that was.

[slinky]

There's a few in Roy Square (RIP) too. I didn't know what they were before reading this thread.

[Scott M2]

I'm of the opinion that street postering for small local events/lost cats and such is appropriate
and that companies that can afford to rent official billboard space should be doing just that.
A big billboard with just an antlerhead dude upon it would be cool.

[pee on poo]

please to meet you hope you guess my name (its pee on poo)

[lexomatic]

i think it's offensive.

there seems to be creeeping tendency of advertisers who think they can surreptitiously claim the public space. 'guerilla marketing' has to be ended.

that's not going to be an easy fight. i can't see how advertising can effectively be scaled back to be less intrusive and not inappropriately in public spaces. sounds good, but i just can't imagine how it would happen.

and i hate the term 'guerilla' applied to anything other than actual warfare or covert insurgent operations. as in, "hey, we're wheat-pasting these cool little advertisements for scooters in abandoned storefronts, and we are just like che guevara in the hills, except we don't have guns and we won't get shot or tortured."

i have serious issues with the projected ads on sides of buildings.
that seems more "guerilla" than this poster campaign

[MaryQuant]

I'm of the opinion that street postering for small local events/lost cats and such is appropriate
and that companies that can afford to rent official billboard space should be doing just that.
A big billboard with just an antlerhead dude upon it would be cool.

Here's the problem.  Who determines if it is "small" or "local"?    Posterring for your DJ night at a bar in Kensington is OK.  How about for you bar on College street where cover is $20 and they usually pack in 400 people on a weekend.  Or Guverment.  That's $8,000.  (which no one ever pays taxes on) It's OK for that bar to poster?   What about a CD release party for a local band.  Now how about a band on Universal?  Universal can certainly pay for a legal billboard. 

Let's let are politicians know we won't put up with it.  And soon they'll appoint a body to judge whether your night or event is "indie" or "local", or "unsuccessful" enough to warrant a free pass on postering bylaws.  Or they'll crack down and no one will be able to promote their gig or night in this city again.  Let's not give up our postering rights.  It's like free speech, if you want that right, you have to put up with hearing speech you don't agree with.

[pee on poo]

do you guys like the beatles or the beach boys or both okay?

[Scott M2]

I'm of the opinion that street postering for small local events/lost cats and such is appropriate
and that companies that can afford to rent official billboard space should be doing just that.
A big billboard with just an antlerhead dude upon it would be cool.

Here's the problem.  Who determines if it is "small" or "local"?    Posterring for your DJ night at a bar in Kensington is OK.  How about for you bar on College street where cover is $20 and they usually pack in 400 people on a weekend.  Or Guverment.  That's $8,000.  (which no one ever pays taxes on) It's OK for that bar to poster?   What about a CD release party for a local band.  Now how about a band on Universal?  Universal can certainly pay for a legal billboard. 

Let's let are politicians know we won't put up with it.  And soon they'll appoint a body to judge whether your night or event is "indie" or "local", or "unsuccessful" enough to warrant a free pass on postering bylaws.  Or they'll crack down and no one will be able to promote their gig or night in this city again.  Let's not give up our postering rights.  It's like free speech, if you want that right, you have to put up with hearing speech you don't agree with.

Those are some good points. It seems it's All or Nobody for street postering.
I suppose if it's looked at as an ethical and not legal issue then blogs & boards like this are an appropriate place to discuss the appropriateness of the scale of such campaigns.

[GrannyGremlin]

Here's the problem.  Who determines if it is "small" or "local"?    Posterring for your DJ night at a bar in Kensington is OK.  How about for you bar on College street where cover is $20 and they usually pack in 400 people on a weekend.  Or Guverment.  That's $8,000.  (which no one ever pays taxes on) It's OK for that bar to poster?   What about a CD release party for a local band.  Now how about a band on Universal?  Universal can certainly pay for a legal billboard. 

Let's let are politicians know we won't put up with it.  And soon they'll appoint a body to judge whether your night or event is "indie" or "local", or "unsuccessful" enough to warrant a free pass on postering bylaws.  Or they'll crack down and no one will be able to promote their gig or night in this city again.  Let's not give up our postering rights.  It's like free speech, if you want that right, you have to put up with hearing speech you don't agree with.

This is what I was prodding for earlier.  Thank you.  It's a double-edged sword like that. 

BUT, there is middle ground (rules as to where specifically things can be put and how big they can be - size restrictions especially would help weed out the big timers).

[TheGoodWIll]

frankly, with the internet and other media to tell me about any sort of thing i'd be interested in (such as local shows) I'd rather not see any of it. Bassically it IS all or nothing like it or not and nothing from my view is better. The companies with money will just pay people to poster public domain and cover over every available space. It all comes down to bucks. those who dont have em get squashed, just like in private advertising which is why public domain is available in the first place...hmm full circle. companies shouldnt be allowed to use them, but they HAVE to be allowed to use em so scrap the whole thing and get the obnoxious ads outta there. I dont care that Mark Oliver is spinning at Guvernment again...he does every week hes the house DJ...why advertise him so much, he isnt even that good a DJ!! ugh!!!!