Add-Art: replace web ads with art
February 13, 2009 2:01 PM   Subscribe

Add-Art is a free FireFox add-on which replaces advertising on websites with curated art images. The art shows are updated every two weeks and feature contemporary artists and curators.
posted by Foci for Analysis (29 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

 
First thought: awesome!
Second thought, after browsing a bit: Please, no. (NSFW, to boot!)

I'll stick with the cocktail of AdBlock, FlashBlock, and NoScript.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:13 PM on February 13, 2009


So this plugin replaces garish, ugly banners designed to sell you shit with garish, ugly banners designed to do nothing? MOAR, PLZ.
posted by nasreddin at 2:19 PM on February 13, 2009 [4 favorites]


Wow, some of that art is awful.
posted by vernondalhart at 2:19 PM on February 13, 2009


I made better "art" in my community college photoshop class.
posted by dead cousin ted at 2:21 PM on February 13, 2009


So, we demand a totally free web, stop our subscriptions to newspapers and the like and also refuse to pay for classifieds (thus devastating print media), and instead sell our online privacy for financial support of the web through ad revenue. Finally we block the advertisements on said Internets leading to little or no reason for companies to bother to pay for advertising on the web.

HOW CAN WE LOSE!
posted by Muddler at 2:36 PM on February 13, 2009 [9 favorites]


Actually, as I become increasingly senile I find I prefer the ads to most content. Why not block content and just give us ads? It is the capitalist thing to do and we won't have to get upset by dumb articles or news that makes you throw up.
posted by Postroad at 2:53 PM on February 13, 2009


Great idea, terrible execution.

Finally we block the advertisements on said Internets leading to little or no reason for companies to bother to pay for advertising on the web.

Oh, come on. What percentage of internet users do you suppose are savvy enough to be fiddling with FireFox addons? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's not enough to materially affect ad revenues.
posted by EarBucket at 2:54 PM on February 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


Perhaps Ad Blocking isn't about getting free stuff, but more about a broken business model? Perhaps companies should find ways to make money that don't involve advertising? I know, I know, it's crazy talk. Everything should stay the same as it always has.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:16 PM on February 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm listening; what's your crazy idea? (and don't say micropayments)
posted by found missing at 3:23 PM on February 13, 2009


Installed. Tried. Meh.

I uninstalled after it kept replacing ads with pictures of a different height and width, leading to jumbled layouts on some pages. It also really didn't block too many ads. After browsing a few sites that I thought would put the program's abilities to the test, all the 'punch-the-monkey' and 'get-a-credit-check-to-buy-your-viagra' type banners were still up even on fairly popular, mainstream (USAToday, for example) sites.

The art is kind of crap too, no? I wouldn't mind being able to pick an 'art pack' or just replace ads with blank boxes. (If the sizes didn't screw up page layouts) Oh, and everything Earbucket just said.
posted by Avelwood at 3:23 PM on February 13, 2009


Macropayments.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:24 PM on February 13, 2009 [4 favorites]


That art isn't an improvement over whitespace.
posted by diogenes at 3:58 PM on February 13, 2009


Yeah, I thought it was going to show me Art, not "art".
posted by Aquaman at 4:10 PM on February 13, 2009


The example they show is the website for the New York Times, but after installing the New York Times website wouldn't load. Sheesh.
posted by JT at 4:11 PM on February 13, 2009


I think the primary problem is that you get graphics out of context causing confusion. You see these graphics alongside NY Times articles and your brain tries to contextualize them to the articles. It can't and that's confusing. I don't think this happens with ads because those graphics are self-contextualizing (our brains have been trained how to process graphics ads).
posted by chipr at 4:14 PM on February 13, 2009


a great idea but with some of the art it displayed I preferred the adverts they were replacing..
posted by zog at 5:22 PM on February 13, 2009


If it was an addition to Adblock Plus, that would be one thing.

This, hmmm, no.
posted by starscream at 6:19 PM on February 13, 2009


Perhaps Ad Blocking isn't about getting free stuff, but more about a broken business model? Perhaps companies should find ways to make money that don't involve advertising? I know, I know, it's crazy talk. Everything should stay the same as it always has.

Thousands of community sites around all kinds of topics support themselves (or at least cover their hosting fees) based on ad revenue. I suppose they could all switch over to asking for money directly, maybe it would work, it doesn't sound terribly appealing to me. I'd be willing to bet their would be a lot less out there too with any such model.

Either way, it doesn't change that fact that it's a pretty shitty thing to do (consuming their bandwidth for free). If you hate it so much why don't you stick to sites that have no advertising or let you pay to turn it off?
posted by malphigian at 6:26 PM on February 13, 2009


IN AN ABSOLUT WORLD

yeah i know it's an ad... but what a tantalizing vision it is.

bring back public space
posted by jcruelty at 7:17 PM on February 13, 2009


I don't actually block most ads, only the really annoying and intrusive ones. I loathe shoskeles, pop-unders, and punch-the-monkey dancing-low-insurance-rate eye-catchers, so block them mercilessly. But your average static banner and almost all text ads I leave alone.
posted by dhartung at 8:57 PM on February 13, 2009


I don't mind text ads at all; I even click on them sometimes. Flashing things, Flash things, and the idiotic type that modifies my window layout? Squashed.
posted by sonic meat machine at 10:22 PM on February 13, 2009


I favorited this for the concept alone, without even trying the add-on. If they (or someone with a similar tool) would allow you to replace ads with certain sets of art (select the art types and the acceptable NSFWosity level) or even with a mix of art and ads but let us configure the ad types (for example, yes to ads for charities, no to ads for alcohol, tobacco, and cars), this would be great. If ads are unavoidable, at least let people choose the sorts of ads they are will to put up with for the privilege of viewing your site.

Also, let some advertisers sponsor some content -- if you want to see a certain weekly column, you have to enable Lucky Strike ads for a certain number of viewings (Lucky Strike ad displays X times or for X days or whatever), because they paid for the column and you didn't -- but you're left a choice and you can see the causal link between Garrison Keillor and lung cancer.
posted by pracowity at 1:42 AM on February 14, 2009


This would be a better plugin if you could choose your art source. Programmer art is better than that stuff :/. Programmer art is pretty damn bad.

I'd hook it up to the media page of my favourite hl2 mod <3
posted by Submiqent at 3:59 AM on February 14, 2009


How do sites know your blocking their ads ?

I always thought that Adblock downloads the ads but does not show them...
posted by Pendragon at 4:51 AM on February 14, 2009


That art isn't an improvement over whitespace.

This one sure is.
posted by radiobishop at 5:39 AM on February 14, 2009


That is seriously some of the worst art I've ever seen.
posted by sveskemus at 7:04 AM on February 14, 2009


Thousands of community sites around all kinds of topics support themselves (or at least cover their hosting fees) based on ad revenue. I suppose they could all switch over to asking for money directly, maybe it would work, it doesn't sound terribly appealing to me. I'd be willing to bet their would be a lot less out there too with any such model.

All this means is both models are imperfect and/or outright broken, and probably unsustainable in the long run. Enjoy it while it lasts.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:21 AM on February 14, 2009


This looks like war on the New York Times, which is hanging on by a thread. Maybe the newspaper ads insure that we have reportage of events, and ads pay the way.

Besides, go out, and see local art, go to http://www.metmuseum.org if you want to see a whole lotta art. The Heilbrunn timeline of Art has a lot to see.

Art is something to enjoy, rather than ignore.
posted by Oyéah at 11:21 AM on February 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


All this means is both models are imperfect and/or outright broken, and probably unsustainable in the long run. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Given how long how much media has been ad-supported, why do you think the ENTIRE model will collapse?
posted by flaterik at 10:16 PM on February 14, 2009


« Older Microsoft...  |  Huzzah!, a new round robin... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments