Urban Art Association

While I dont like seeing them either if it was a private wall and the owner agreed to let them paint the ad, I dont see the problem. There are a fair amount of 'private' walls in Williamsburg/Greenpoint that are 'rented out' and usually painted by skyhighmurals.com / colossalmedia.com
these building owners usually allow artists to use other walls for street artists etc.
iwould rather see these types of ads then the crap that they used to paste up. Have a feeling that im prob in the minority here but thats my 2 cents.

... bet i do ...

let's ban all PVC and where it is used by anybody ...

'According to www.pvc.org, PVC was used in the soles and uppers of modern shoes to provide a synthetic alternative to traditional leather, often allowing for more cost-effective production and innovative styles through its capacity to be moulded into shape. However, campaigners had been calling for phase-out of PVC for many years due to fact it creates and releases one of the most toxic chemicals – dioxin.

We have the same with globalstreetart and a few others. My take is that While privately owned was probably left and over time taggers have just assumed it a public space and therefore part of their territory.
I don't know but would seem to be more of a misunderstanding - maybe they should have cleaned it down and kept it blank for a while to signify it was in fact private space before trying to put a corporate funded image up

Whilst understanding your position (at least from a strictly aesthetic perspective), my own stance is the opposite: I would much rather see crap, pasted-up ads than street-art-style or graffiti-style advertising.

The impact of corporates deliberately trying to muddy the distinction between outdoor art and advertising is in my opinion an insidious one. This includes using mediums traditionally associated with street art or graffiti, like spray paint, as well as the forced association of placing such ads in close proximity to existing street art and graffiti. It's an attempt at cultural appropriation and it should be resisted — even if simply out of principle, i.e. regardless of whether or not an act of resistance may be seen as futile.

I'm very familiar but uncomfortable with the different rationalisations often advanced to excuse and help legitimise these outdoor advertising commissions carried out by artists.

For such cases, I believe compromise is in fact culturally harmful and that it's preferable for positions to remain polarised.

I would therefore actively encourage anyone to dog, go over or destroy these ads. And to keep doing so until companies and brands start to question the commercial viability and public-relations impact of marketing themselves in this manner.

The issue has previously been touched upon at various times, including on the LONDON Street Art thread. It was more recently discussed at greater length in another thread for a London wall painted by Dan Kitchener (regarding which I was pleased to find the Sony logo subsequently buffed, perhaps by Kitchener himself).

... Goodwin's Law ....

There are no public walls, private sector bought the UK long ago. ;-)

Surely companies have been paying for adverts to be painted on walls since long before graffiti existed as a movement in any recogniseable form?

I think I posted a pic a few moths ago of building site hoardings with the vinyl branding plastered all over then and they had a number of street artists imagery incorporated into the background.

The fact they are still there makes me wonder if the artists gave their permission and wasn't just a plain case of image theft

Streetart is (sadly) becoming a mainstream tool for many aspects of corporate promotion and regeneration

Maybe they just want to work in a building that doesn't look like a bank. Or maybe they're grafitti artists themselves. I do the job they do, and still love street art. Some of my friends in the industry are old school graf writers. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I like your print a lot, Prescription Art
You never deceipt me, always great ones !

A public wall is a wall where the owner has either given general permission to paint or, as is more often the case, where the owner has tolerated anyone going and painting.  This isn't a public wall but that still doesn't make it OK.  My main issue is the same as met's i.e. the appropriation of a culture I love by something to which it is diametrically opposed; however, the local context in which it's been done isn't much better. 

There's been a very long running campaign by local residents in St Werburghs, which is the next neighbourhood to the east, to remove 13 billboards, many of which were erected illegally. The local community in this part of the city have made it very clear that they want less large scale advertising but here we've got a national company and advertising agency blindly blundering into a local community and doing exactly the opposite of what people want and without the required planning permission for this kind of large, commercial advertising. Unsurprisingly, it didn't even take a day before Northampton's finest took care of business:


Here are some of the pieces that have appeared on that wall over the last few years.  Stik in 2011, Epok and Sepr in 2012 (I think), Sony and Rose in 2013 and Dan Kitchener in 2014:

... not quite true ...

... if it is in a conservation area then permission would be needed (not necessary planning). If a listed building then def permission needed.

... even generally:

If the mural is painted directly onto the existing wall, it may be deemed granted under the General Permitted Development Order 1995. Permission is not deemed granted by class C of the Order if a mural's contents are for the "purpose of advertisement, announcement or direction". What constitutes an "advertisement, announcement or direction" may be up for some interpretation and would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

... the above is all with the Owners permission in the first place.

This is a Grade II listed building and it is in the Stokes Croft conservation area but I was more trying to get at the point that locals don't want more advertising, rather than the issue of planning permission. Sorry, probably didn't explain myself very well.

This is a Competition on Inkies FB to win the print

7 colour screen print
Edition of 25 with hand finished 24k Gold Leaf and Diamond Dust on 220 gsm Somerset silk with deckled edged
Emboss stamped, signed and numbered by the artist
£500

link