6 ms·
Am I the guy with the bong in his lap if I say that any man-made structure should be considered visual pollution?
by seanicus 5y ago
Am I the guy with the bong in his lap if I say that any man-made structure should be considered visual pollution?
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoWhat is the exhaust of the bong, then? ;->
- Kiboneu 5y agoYes, and it's probably time pass it around. Advertising introduces a visual symbol usually without cohering to the architecture and layout of the space, by design, to attract attention. So if all man made structures are visual pollution, I'd say that advertising would be visual meta pollution.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoI wouldn't say that about any man-made structure but you're definitely right about many of them.
- techbio 5y agoSome exceptional buildings (there are many, but not most) transcend their property/production purpose to have positive visual and aesthetic or other value (historical, innovative etc.) and be beautiful or something on their own; not visual pollution. But they were not built this way for no reason, assuredly the architects, builders, owners, and affiliates gain some goodwill/awareness/advertising value from an important structure in a meaningful location. Same then for every other structure, only at 10-100X less revenue per hundred impressions. Property is advertising. To the left.
- Nasrudith 5y agoIs a pile of manure visual pollution too? But intentional or not it makes the point that visual pollution is pretty arbitrarily defined.
- aaron695 5y agoYes, you stoned. Humans enjoy looking at man-made structures. Even loners on islands build. To live in invisible infrastructure would be unsettling. Seeing security is part of our happiness. As are ideas around wealth. And work and fulfillment. It also allows us to enjoy nature. Without it nature to us would be nothing, just 'is' Can't we start with information pollution - ads, and see how we feel?