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

271–280 of 428 posts

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

#271

Post by nelsonic »

kevincox wrote: post #197
nelsonic wrote: post #6

This is awesome. Discovering this kind of post is exactly why I read HN and not other "news" sources. Agree with others that the "empty" billboard frames look off. But much better than attention-seeking adverts. Wish more cities would pass this kind of law. Billboards are such an eyesore especially the pointless political ads we are forced to see.

> Agree with others that the "empty" billboard frames look off This is also a temporary cost. Yes, the existing relics are unattractive but over time they will be removed and not replaced.

Totally! Removed or made into art or something practical. Love it.

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

#272

Post by schuyler2d »

mymythisisthis wrote: post #106
crazygringo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

The funny thing is, the classical art of Greece, probably looked much different than how we think about it. It was much more colorful and vibrant, it's just that all the pigment washed away. https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/styles/l... Cities adding art back onto the walls, is probably closer to how the ancient Greek cities actually looked. Our classical architectural view of pristine white walls i…

Indeed, worse than that the myth of white statues as an aesthetic was created by racist euronationalists in the late 19th c. https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/04/27/whitewas...

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

#273

Post by schuyler2d »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #167
mymythisisthis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is, the classical art of Greece, probably looked much different than how we think about it. It was much more colorful and vibrant, it's just that all the pigment washed away. https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/styles/l... Cities adding art back onto the walls, is probably closer to how the ancient Greek cities actually looked. Our classical architectural view of pristine white walls i…

I refuse to believe that the people who made some of the best ancient statues had an artistic sense of a 5-year old when it came to color... Obviously ancient status were colored but probably in a much nicer way. No way something like: https://static.frieze.com/files/inline-images/web-cg-h-102-a... could be even close to the original ( considering that the Romans generally managed to somehow get skin tones more or le…

Maybe you should reevaluate where your own aesthetic comes from https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/04/27/whitewas...

I think the reproductions suffer a bit because the distance these statues were from a viewer varied -- but just like murals

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

#274

Post by schuyler2d »

mcpackieh wrote: post #223
mymythisisthis wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if another problem might be fashion trends. Sometimes bright, contrasting, colours are in style and feel normal. https://www.apparelsearch.com/terms/images/cher-aerobics-leg...

I don't think the bright colors are the problem, just the opposite actually. Particularly in this example: https://static.frieze.com/files/inline-images/web-cg-h-102-a... The bright clothes are fine, but his skin is awful. It's flat and lifeless, like a cold corpse drained of blood. It looks like they put the primer coat on then left it unfinished; I think that's literally what they did. Maybe this look is what they…

I think it's also current museum aesthetics where they do enough to give you the idea but don't want to take any artistic license beyond what's provable. So the painting could have been more subtle especially for those close to the viewer

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

#275

Post by dirtyid »

thebradbain wrote: post #169
Luctct wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see, you just said that "We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty" and "Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building" (and holy shit, it really is awful) in the same paragraph! Don't you see the contradiction? In another comment here, someone said, "I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (...) I find it extremely ugly." Hey, "I find it extremely ugly" IS arguing ag…

Unpopular opinion, but Boston City Hall is an objectively VERY beautiful building. Brutalism is absolutely an acquired taste, but it is, by all measures, an objective style that can be measured against, in the same way classical or say, Spanish Mission architecture style is. In fact, some would even go so far as to argue that most Victorian/neo-classical architecture is just a chintzy facade with no real architectura…

>Brutalism is absolutely an acquired taste

Brutalism can be "sublime" under the right conditions, but the conditions are few and far between. It's not an aesthetic for everyday, hence many people's issue with it in prominent high traffic civi buildings. Otherwise it's a haunted house. Once in a while, on a moody night... chefs kiss.

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

#276

Post by wizofaus »

bkraz wrote: post #74

I recently learned Kyoto has rules about signage and specifically color saturation. Some of the rules seem too detailed, but the end result looks very nice. https://youtu.be/KuX3nu4jdo0

Slightly ironically given the gist of this discussion, the ad shown before that video was actually one I wanted to see and watched till the end (trailer for latest Indiana Jones movie).

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

#277

Post by p1necone »

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…

Personally I pretty much always prefer to see graffiti over plain grey concrete, even when it is just simple tags.

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

#279

Post by 404mm »

binthere wrote: post #260
404mm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very much against advertisements in media. If a service doesn’t come with an ad-free option then I don’t subscribe at all. I am not as radical when it comes to advertisements in the cities. 100% no to billboards. But if a local restaurant wants to advertise pictures of their dishes at their location (not across the town), that’s fine with me. As long as ads are local to the business, tasteful and in limited size…

Not everyone has $$$ to spend on a subscription service and they would locked out of content. Ads are necessary to promote accessibility of content in my opinion.

I agree with ad-sponsored or subsidized content, I just want there to be an ad-free option for those who put value in not having to see them.

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

#280

Post by rodgerd »

Luctct wrote: post #83
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.

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…

> None of those would have been accepted in any gallery some 30~40 years ago when standards were higher

It's funny to see someone wax pretentious about standards in art when they obviously haven't heard of, say, Diego Rivera, and don't know that Haring's heyday was "30 to 40 years ago".

You should have kept your mouth shut instead of embarrassing yourself.

Post reply on HN