I think that the issue should not be framed as Art Vs Advertisement but instead, as interaction versus limitation or conversation versus monologue. The issue is that there are spaces that have been designated as purely for the dissemination of information regarding commerce, corporate interests, events and communication, and that these spaces must only be received. It is very problematic that the circulation of information is controlled and regulated by systems of bureaucracy that sanction and decide the content and placement of communication. This intensely hierarchical system that dictates our public sphere prevents unwanted information that is not congruous with the agenda of the companies or governments that control advertising from being disseminated. It is not democratic in its current state but obviously has the potential to be a useful mechanism for democracy.
The art in the advertisement is undeniable, but the conflict is in who gets to speak and how are we spoken to? Does the soliloquy of advertisement that speaks regardless of who is there to hear, warrant a response? And if so where is the platform for such a response? Unfortunately, given the current situation of how we organize ourselves within the public domain, there is no space for dialogue between promulgated information and the public’s reaction. It is purely a circumstance of reception, of feeding.
There are obvious problems associated with an interaction with the environment that is open and unhindered. Our current structure that dictates the movement of bodies, how they organize, express, direct and occupy themselves, is one that is intensely arranged by bureaucracy, administration and regulation. These structures function as a filter to protect from disorder. Whether we are managed within our workplace, our hospitals, institutions of education, or the coercive measures of police and roving dangers such as criminals, our behavior is allowed agency as long as it fits within acceptability. It is difficult to think of a situation where the minute details of our lives and presences are not being tracked and codified.
Thus, it is difficult to imagine a situation, especially in the public sphere, where we could function and interact with our physical environment beyond the bureaucracies of community boards, panels, police and even assertions of private property. It seems absurd to think that a company could finance such an insane amount of capital into advertising in the public sphere and have their investments be precariously vulnerable to the public’s intervention. It seems even more absurd that a governing system would allow its citizens to express their opinion either verbally or physically anywhere without permission, permits or overview.
This project was a symbolic challenge to these coercive systems that decide the behavior of our daily lives. It was a gesture of complexity and disorder beyond the capacity of these systems. It was a moment of democratic interaction.









