From a tort standpoint, I think you’d have to show breach of duty, and from a contract standpoint (even a theoretical one) a failure to comply. In either theory, what caused the duty to give you a pleasant view or experience to exist for the advertiser or owner of a space? From a more utilitarian standpoint, how do you measure the costs (and benefits, where they exist) to viewers in order to compare to the benefits to the advertisers and space-owners?
Is there a significant difference between advertising, and ugly/offensive public art? Seems like the objections apply to both, but the advertising at least brings revenue to the space owner (possibly offsetting cost to consumer/taxpayer), where the “art” is pure expense.
From a tort standpoint, I think you’d have to show breach of duty, and from a contract standpoint (even a theoretical one) a failure to comply. In either theory, what caused the duty to give you a pleasant view or experience to exist for the advertiser or owner of a space? From a more utilitarian standpoint, how do you measure the costs (and benefits, where they exist) to viewers in order to compare to the benefits to the advertisers and space-owners?
Is there a significant difference between advertising, and ugly/offensive public art? Seems like the objections apply to both, but the advertising at least brings revenue to the space owner (possibly offsetting cost to consumer/taxpayer), where the “art” is pure expense.