Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

amusingplanet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 428 posts

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#201

Post by lo_zamoyski »

crazygringo wrote: post #88
Luctct wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither murals nor graffiti is art. None of those would have been accepted in any gallery some 30~40 years ago when standards were higher and the world didn't suffer from the high number of grown-up men who are hooked up on comic books and animated cartoons it suffers through today. A lot of it is just vandalism. None of it seems to be made by or for adults. 99% looks like it's made by some comic book fan on LSD. Alw…

Just so you know, the exact same thing was said about pretty much every major art movement over the past century and beyond. When you say, "None of it seems to be made by or for adults", the same was basically said of Salvador Dalí and Andy Warhol and Paul Gauguin and Henri Matisse. The more things change, the more they stay the same. :)

That's not a very good argument. Putting aside the present topic, this argument doesn't address the substance and instead lazily falls back on an association fallacy: "if people said P about A in the past and we no longer think that, and you say P about B, then you must also be wrong". It's the same kind of progressive argument people use when they categorically dismiss any criticism of new music as just the same old hate old people always have for "new things". Boring, dismissive, unthinking, and refuses to consider that there might be valid criticism apart from the crankiness that does, in fact, exist. It assumes as a premise that art cannot be bad, or that it cannot be an expression of cultural decadence, whereas I claim that it can.

And I would actually claim that most Warhol is trash, good swaths of Dali worthless, and both Matisse and Gaugin mixed bags.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#202

Post by olalonde »

npteljes wrote: post #71

As an individual, I'd welcome no advertisements everywhere. I think ads were abused long enough. It's just a leech on the human life.

I am almost the opposite. The busy signage is one of my favorite things about Hong Kong. I wish more cities were like that.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#203

Post by lo_zamoyski »

lIl-IIIl wrote: post #186
Luctct wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>"I studied art in university, am an artist myself" Garbage argument. Why? I would assume "what is art?" is a subject on which much time is spent in art school.

That's not a question for artists, but philosophers of art, which, of course, artists can also do, but generally, most artists are really bad at philosophy.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#204

Post by eberfreitas »

carlosjobim wrote: post #200
eberfreitas wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it is the opposite, it is a scream from those who don't really have a voice in the city. Really recommend watching the documentary PIXO, you can find the full doc in YouTube with english subtitles. [edit: suggesting the documentary]

> Actually it is the opposite, it is a scream from those who don't really have a voice in the city. It is most certainly not. This romanticizing of criminals and vandals is not any kind of compassion. Who would like their neighborhood or home turned into a hell scape? Edit: To those who downvoted my comment, go look up some pictures of how these neighborhoods look when they are all covered in tags. Ask yourself if yo…

Well. "O buraco é mais embaixo". But by the tone of your message I can see there is no point in trying to develop this any further.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#205

Post by dlisboa »

carlosjobim wrote: post #161
kibwen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since this law was adopted, there's been an increase in full building graffiti, which is not banned. Now 10 years later, it is more likely to see one of these nowadays than an empty outdoor frame Nearly all of these look like murals, not graffiti (these are distinct forms of street art). Regardless, those photos are beautiful and I'd love to have those instead of billboards in my city.

Almost all of the city of São Paulo is covered in gang graffiti, buildings covered in these rune-like tags from top to bottom. It is extremely ugly, and of course also unsettling since it is a signal on who runs the city.

Those aren’t gang tags at all, they’re quick and easy graffiti (albeit illegal in most cases) that is done by people trying to either fit in or showcase themselves. Most of the murals shown in this thread that are considered “art” were painted by artists who started off doing the Pixo letters. While much loathed and a bit of an eyesore they’re the single most unique thing about the city, nowhere else in the world or even Brazil has anything like it.

The only gang graffiti you’ll see in São Paulo are written in plain letters or numbers (“PCC” or 1533), nothing like Pixo.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#206

Post by ufo »

kibwen wrote: post #57
alganet wrote: post #37

Some additions: Stores also cannot use their full façade for advertising. Branding colors and details are OK, but logos cannot be too large (don't know the exact rule). The law is picky. Some stores cheat by having a glass façade, and using LEDs inside that glass. Like this: https://imgur.com/a/CLdUD1C Since this law was adopted, there's been an increase in full building graffiti, which is not banned. Now 10 years la…

> Since this law was adopted, there's been an increase in full building graffiti, which is not banned. Now 10 years later, it is more likely to see one of these nowadays than an empty outdoor frame Nearly all of these look like murals, not graffiti (these are distinct forms of street art). Regardless, those photos are beautiful and I'd love to have those instead of billboards in my city.

In Brazil, grafite means respectable street art such as murals. For vandalism we say pichação, or pixo.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#207

Post by retrac »

causality0 wrote: post #114
kibwen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since this law was adopted, there's been an increase in full building graffiti, which is not banned. Now 10 years later, it is more likely to see one of these nowadays than an empty outdoor frame Nearly all of these look like murals, not graffiti (these are distinct forms of street art). Regardless, those photos are beautiful and I'd love to have those instead of billboards in my city.

Are building murals not associated with ghettos outside the US? Where I live you know if you start seeing big faces on walls you're in the bad part of town and need to be careful.

A local store or library decorated with a mural of some idyllic park scene is almost cliche here in Canada. Typical is a giant yellow sun and, yes, the obligatory detached smiling heads. I've seen abstract geometric patterns more often lately. Often done by schoolchildren, or for some community social event. Sometimes commissioned with actual artists. Bridges and underpasses, particularly pedestrian ones, are also candidates for murals. Quite a few like that in Toronto.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#208

Post by oivey »

causality0 wrote: post #114
kibwen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since this law was adopted, there's been an increase in full building graffiti, which is not banned. Now 10 years later, it is more likely to see one of these nowadays than an empty outdoor frame Nearly all of these look like murals, not graffiti (these are distinct forms of street art). Regardless, those photos are beautiful and I'd love to have those instead of billboards in my city.

Are building murals not associated with ghettos outside the US? Where I live you know if you start seeing big faces on walls you're in the bad part of town and need to be careful.

It’s not associated with ghettos in the US, either, almost by definition. A mural implies a property owner has usually paid and maintains a piece of art for public consumption. For the mural to survive (no actual graffiti over it) means the community respects the investment and property, too. Ghettos are areas of abject poverty where that sort of community for structural reasons isn’t happening.

Just because the suburbs don’t have murals doesn’t mean that urban areas that do are dangerous.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#209

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

alganet wrote: post #37

Some additions: Stores also cannot use their full façade for advertising. Branding colors and details are OK, but logos cannot be too large (don't know the exact rule). The law is picky. Some stores cheat by having a glass façade, and using LEDs inside that glass. Like this: https://imgur.com/a/CLdUD1C Since this law was adopted, there's been an increase in full building graffiti, which is not banned. Now 10 years la…

I'm reminded of Valparaiso, Chile. Beautiful place.

https://www.google.com/search?q=valparaiso+chile+street+art&...

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#210

Post by hypertele-Xii »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #203
lIl-IIIl wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I studied art in university, am an artist myself" Garbage argument. Why? I would assume "what is art?" is a subject on which much time is spent in art school.

That's not a question for artists, but philosophers of art, which, of course, artists can also do, but generally, most artists are really bad at philosophy.

University begins with philosophy so the question would indeed have been asked.
Post reply on HN