Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!)
187 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
I agree with you, Craig. It's not what I'd put on a sign, but it's not obscene, or anything else actionable. It's bad taste, and a bit silly, but that's pretty much half of what I see in public every day I drive around my town. Advertising usually is quite tacky.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
We have no discretion over the semantic content of a billboard (one-off, unique signs may be differenr), but there are (I think) advertising standards that would cover notions of offensiveness.
There is the Advertising Standards Authority - though that opens a whole other argument about whether industry self-regulation is just setting the foxes to guard the hen house then being surprised at the mounds of bloody feathers about the place.
-
Sure it's tacky and derivative .... but surely it's also a an attractive nuisance ... everyone and hir dog is going to want to tag it or burn it down, or steal a "W" for the flat kitchen's wall or ....
-
BenWilson, in reply to
One big difference: the Eiffel never pretended to be an ersatz imitation of anything.
I'm not so sure. It would seem to have been designed to outdo the Washington Monument.
-
mattgeeknz, in reply to
The difference between this and a billboard (and most public art) is that the borders of this sign's canvas extend far beyond the physical dimensions of the sign itself. This can be done with with wit: as with Banksy's graffiti on the Berlin Wall, with billboards altering the visual shape of the buildings they're on using optical effects, or with billboards talking to each other (Hell Pizza have done this several times). But the scale of this is much, much larger, and this isn't witty, no matter how many times Steve Fitzgerald mugs for the camera and explains the joke.
The sign is on airport land and is probably within Council rules, but the canvas is massive and encompasses a big chunk of Wellington. Do we have the right to vandalise a sign on private land, or to physically stop them from putting whatever they like on that land? No. Do we have the right to voice displeasure at a corporate artwork that purports to say something about Wellington as a whole? Absolutely.
Also advertising is transient. If you don't like a billboard you can take solace in the fact that it won't be there for more than a few months. This is permanent.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
This is about Infratil deciding, on behalf of an entire city that a significant piece of landscape is to be permanent home of a dad joke! Or, as Queen of Thorns wrote very well, the equivalent of a George Clooney moustache.
And don't raise the straw man of Moa, or the Asteron building, Craig. You can't justify the sign on Moa's advertising, you know that. And you also know you can't find the opposition to the Asteron building, as compared to the opposition to the WELLYWOOD sign. Straw men like that are easily burnt.
Damn, Scott, I can't get rid of you.
First, if you're going to come here and tell anyone what they really think you're not going to get a friendly reception. That shit will play over at the SubStandard and Kiwibog. Not here. Not ever. You do me and everyone the else the basic courtesy of assuming all arguments are made in good faith.
Yes, Scott I'm more fucking outraged by fugly buildings like the Asteron Center and the calculated vandalism of heritage buildings than that stupid sign. And I'm seriously offended by troll marketing. Damn skippy I have a fucking big problem with inciting criming offending (or pandering to homophobia) to sell better -- it's wrong even if YOU don't like the intended target.
I can't help but get that your mileage varies significantly, but your imputation of bad faith on my part is crossing the line from tiresome to downright offensive.
-
-
Gareth Ward, in reply to
Have I really made a mistake reconciling myself to the simple reality that the Sky Tower isn’t going anywhere?
Do I really really need to get laid?
Ha (and sorry but unable to view said cock and balls due to being @W - in the NSFW schema)
I do think those questions you raise there are the interesting ones though, this is a classic discussion of personal property rights coming up against broader property rights and social design. Gnomes make for a good logical argument at one end of that argument; painting an entire hillside with the word FUCK is another (although I'd be inclined to let both slide personally so maybe not). Defined colour, material and height of houses in the Lakes District are an interesting middle ground to compare to this sign.
I think one interesting point here is that a lot of dissenters (myself included) would probably applaud if one of those amazing works by Anish Kapoor or Neil Dawson had been taken out of Alan Gibbs' private estate and placed on that hill. So it opens that whole nasty "what's art" can'o'worms - although I still think that the broader community would have had a say in something that intrudes so significantly on their own properties and environment.
-
Ironically, I would massively prefer a giant garden gnome on the top of the hill. Provided it wasn’t one of those Tui gnomes. This is speaking as someone who has conducted dawn raids on the neighbours’ garden to retrieve a gnome that had been stolen from our front doorstep (long story).
Let’s not be disingenuous about why Jackson can get big movies there – cheap skilled labour.
The number of awards won by companies in the Weta group (e.g. list of awards won by Weta Digital) would suggest that companies are coming to NZ because of the quality of the work.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Matt:
I’m really sorry if this sounds condescending, and it’s not mean to be, but doesn’t it all boil down to I don’t like it? I’m very sorry if you got the impression I’m trying to crush anyone’s dissent. Hello, you did read my pan of Black Swan, right? :)
But I reserve the right to find much of the reaction, at best, disproportionate to the nature of the offence as I see it. (Which is no way abrogates anyone's right to exercise their freedoms of speech, assembly and to seek redress under the law.) At worse, it’s verging on the downright creepy and offensive.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
retrieve a gnome that had been stolen from our front doorstep (long story).
Wasn’t me. (Shut up, Dobby, or I’ll let Gollum eat another finger.) Um, carry on. Nothing to see here.
-
Sacha, in reply to
One big difference: the Eiffel never pretended to be an ersatz imitation of anything.
It also didn't have writing on it saying "Paris, the city of cheese" or suchlike.
I understand content is beyond the ambit of planning/consent authorities (and thank you for the detailed explanation, Tom). The organisation I'd expect to want some say over the silly Welly sign is their regional tourism/economic development agency. That's their job.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Excellent
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
But the passion for or against is interesting. People are actually trying to do something or not. Wouldn't it be nice to see a bit more of this attitude with regard the country as a whole and the direction we are going there. Further up someone mentioned being an example of democracy if the protesters influenced a change of mind. Yes I think that would be refreshing.
I also think this thread is proof of the passion albeit in a small not insignificant way.;) -
BenWilson, in reply to
The sign is on airport land and is probably within Council rules, but the canvas is massive and encompasses a big chunk of Wellington.
I'm not sure what you mean by a massive canvas. The sign is as big as it is. Do you mean it can be seen from a massive chunk of Wellington?
No. Do we have the right to voice displeasure at a corporate artwork that purports to say something about Wellington as a whole? Absolutely.
Is it purporting that though? I thought, like Hollywood, that it was referring to a suburb in which a lot of movies are made. It's "Hollywood, in Wellington".
Even if it were purporting that, it's still an opinion, something people are allowed to express in NZ, so long as it doesn't break some quite basic rules. That is actually one of the things I most like about NZ, one of the few things that made me weep as I flew into NZ after my first trip abroad, that it is a place where people are allowed to be tacky. After flying into a dozen cities that looked as uniform from above as Coronation Street, there was something quite appealing to the idea that you can paint your house red as a fashion statement, or make a stupid joke on your land, or put a tacky gnome in your garden.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
It also didn’t have writing on it saying “Paris, the city of cheese” or suchlike.
No, for nine years the tallest building on Earth was a giant billboard for Citroën -- even my sense of laissez faire would baulk at the Sky Tower being turned into a giant JumboTron . :)
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It also didn't have writing on it saying "Paris, the city of cheese" or suchlike.
No, it was "Paris, boasting the biggest penis in the world for 40 years". Which is cheezy, but still awesome, IMHO.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
That is actually one of the things I most like about NZ, one of the few things that made me weep as I flew into NZ after my first trip abroad, that it is a place where people are allowed to be tacky.
Well it certainly will convey that message for visiting dignitaries, tourists even Monarchy and suchlike as they enter the Capital via aeroplane :)
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I think another reason the sign has caused so much outrage is the process of it being announced in advance, yet the public being told that it's a done deal. If it had suddenly popped up over night, people still would have been upset, but I think would have come around to it, or grumbled but not made too much fuss.
I think the biggest irritant for me - besides the idea that the airport gets to brand the whole city, and without consultation, which is appalling - is that when it became clear that everyone hated it, they opened the floor to suggestions for other signs. As if the hill couldn't possibly survive without of any number of stupid-arse huge-lettered monikers.
Of course there are more egregious things to worry about in the country, possibly worthier of our outrage, but that people reacted to that particular act of imposition by a corporate board of a message designed to define who we are makes me not sorry at all. Kinda proud actually.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Well it certainly will convey that message for visiting dignitaries, tourists even Monarchy and suchlike as they enter the Capital via aeroplane :)
Heh, yup, they get to see that NZ actually isn't "Little England" after all, but a nation that makes its own tasteless and lame jokes. Most likely they will then be greeted by some awful Maori tack, during a powhiri. They will not see any actual Maori warriors until they meet the Governor General, our most beautiful mixing of English and NZ silliness in a single human being.
-
Paul Campbell, in reply to
That is actually one of the things I most like about NZ, one of the few things that made me weep as I flew into NZ after my first trip abroad, that it is a place where people are allowed to be tacky.
And whenever I came back to visit all I could feel was that cultural cringe - "oh god, how sad, they're trying too hard" - now I've moved back I guess I've gotten used to it, still looks tacky though.
Wellington has that wonderful wild windblown coast you see as you fly in, with scrubby stuff just hanging on the last thing it needs is the tattered remains of a giant sign
-
I think the biggest irritant for me - besides the idea that the airport gets to brand the whole city, and without consultation, which is appalling
Whilst at the same time unavoidable since the decline of sea travel.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Well it certainly will convey that message for visiting dignitaries, tourists even Monarchy and suchlike as they enter the Capital via aeroplane :)
Anyone who can survive the traditional APEC silly shirt perp walk is not going to be terribly traumatised by that. Unless there's a headwind, in which case, I hope Lizzie Windsor doesn't have a corgi in her lap.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Wellington has that wonderful wild windblown coast you see as you fly in, with scrubby stuff just hanging on the last thing it needs is the tattered remains of a giant sign
I will bottle the first person who mentions wind farms. You have been warned.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
"oh god, how sad, they're trying too hard"
But they are trying. I personally rate that over not trying.*
Edit: or worse, not being allowed to try.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.