Billboards Do you like giant advertising billboards? I have asked this question to several of my friends. The answer varies from complete indifference to great distaste but it is generally agreed that they are not very beautiful to look at. There are not many who on this basis then challenge their right to exist. Not many have actually thought about it and tend to take on the role of apologists for the advertising industry, resigning themselves to a 'rational' excuse for 'unavoidably' necessary activity of publicising consumer products. But hey, it shouldn't be that easy. After all public space belongs to all and there is a moral obligation that would seek avenues to advertise do in accordance with established rules. Certainly the controlling authorities must establish a better system of control and punitive measures. In this country though, this isn't easy. With so much publicity money being poured into billboard advertising, we are talking about jobs in the printing industry. So unions are involved in it too. The leader of the biggest Italian trade union and the mayor just happen to be comrades from the same Democratic Socialist party. The Comune di Roma is well aware that Billboards are not generally well liked. About two months ago, there was an investigative feature on RAI-TV on a program called 'reportage' on this very issue, after the Comune issued yet another edict vowing to remove illegal billboards. What the reporters found was that their removal was to be entirely funded by the Comune, i.e. at the tax-payers' expense. An official said that the fines received from the guilty parties would compensate for the cost. When the question was asked why the Comune didn't impose a rule that the perpetrators ought to pay directly for the removal as well as paying a hefty fine, there were evasive answers pleading administrative technicalities. Well, the reality is that the billboards are not coming down. The mystery is in why every time the Comune says it's taking action to reduce billboards, the numbers actually seem to increase. Obviously something is breaking down at the management level. With disincentives generally inexistent, it is quite probable that the procedures that are required to be followed in doing it legally are too time-consuming and costly. Advertising campaigns rely on immediacy for its impact and unless the Comune understands this and deals with the issue based on commercial realities rather than goodwill, it will never solve this issue. Advertisers would rather risk having to pay a fine later than wait to have their messages seen. It is also more than likely that they still come out on top financially even in the unlikely event of being caught. In any case this current attempt to 'reduce' the amount of billboards by distinguishing those that have their approval and those that don't is not a progressive solution in keeping with enlightened urban design. In my opinion, the Comune desperately needs to review its overall policy on billboards. No, it needs to come up with a better generic solution than billboards in providing for large scale advertising and remove billboards altogether. Modern planning in Rome must even out its extremism that on one hand is overly anxious about how it treats its historical patrimony whilst its chronic neglect of contemporary middle and working class neighbourhoods verges on the criminal. It goes without saying that where billboards proliferate are in these lesser-cared-for neighbourhoods outside of the historical center. Via Cristoforo Colombo is the most prominent example where a once grand boulevard, a gateway from the airport, has gradually become corrupted and is now one of Rome's most ugly traffic corridors. It has also become Rome's unofficial red light district as foreign girls of various desperate nationalities wait in darkness inviting customers searching for cheap thrills. With overhead lights pushing the shrill billboard messages well into the night, the line of prostitutes form a fitting complement in their shadow. A civilised society cares about what it sees and what is admissible into the public realm and in what manner. Billboards are ugly not just for its clumsy, cheap construction but also at its essence for what it is trying to do. It is dictatorial. It expresses the power of commercial interests to have the means to dictate to a hapless public, its message promoting its own self interested motives. It is one thing to be informed of product choices, quite another to be subject to unwanted thought-manipulation. These billboards are always planted in the foreground of our vision, not only blocking the urban scenery but indiscriminately implanting the message in the minds of all passers-by. The actual principles of allowing companies to advertise their products are sound but it must be recognised and reaffirmed that to live inside a harmonious visual landscape of inhabited landscapes in cities and in the countryside is a natural right of every individual citizen. Unfortunately commercial interests are always trying to extend the limits of what is acceptable civil behaviour. Junk mail is one clear example of offensive, pushy behaviour, leaflets placed under your windscreen wiper, another. Billboards can be likened to gigantic junk mail. If leaflets are strewn on the ground, they can be easily swept away. Billboards being dimensioned to an exaggerated scale become long-term eyesores, difficult to remove. It is indeed my fervent wish that the current administration at the Comune di Roma under Walter Veltroni will take urgent action to have all billboards removed and institute a more formally acceptable method of street advertising. If not there is a real danger of turning Rome into a tale of two cities in extremis. One inside the walls where its beauty is a source of eternal joy for a lucky few and the other outside the walls where the ugliness spawned by corrupt business practices and neglect chokes all sense of civility and grace from the peripheral quartieri where the majority of Rome's citizens live. Rome, 2 12 2001 |