New Project: Add-Art; replaces online ads with art

Add-Art is a free Firefox add-on which replaces advertising on websites with curated art images. Created with the support of Eyebeam, Rhizome, Add-Art releases new art shows every two weeks and strives to feature contemporary artists and curators.

Add-Art demo

The plugin works alongside AdBlock Plus, which blocks online ads, and simply replaces that blank space with art images. AdBlock Plus is the most popular of the thousands of available add-ons for Firefox with 18 million total downloads (as of May 2008) and over 250,000 downloads last week.

Would you like to see art instead of ads as you browse sites online? Go to add-art.org and download the plugin for your Firefox browser now.

To discuss it further post in the add-art forums.

This entry was posted in Add-Art, Agency Projects, News and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

9 Comments

  1. Posted May 23, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    I really like the idea but I doubt I would actually use it. Call me uncultured. Still one more reason to use firefox. One less reason for PPC.

  2. Posted May 24, 2008 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Look, I definitely am going to download and try this plug-in, but if it successful and many people use it, that just means one of several things will occur:

    1. Advertising will come in during the TEXT of what we are reading, or some other more conspicuous and unpleasant location.

    2. We will have to pay to subscribe to various sites whose advertisers no longer wish to pay to have no one look at their odds.

    3. [Insert other evils here.]

    Is this really what you want?

  3. Posted May 24, 2008 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    We are pioneering this!

  4. Posted May 27, 2008 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    @Admiral

    1. Advertising will come in during the TEXT of what we are reading, or some other more conspicuous and unpleasant location.

    This has already happened. Check out http://www.adfreeblog.org/ for more. If it gets worse in the future, we can fight that battle next.

    2.We will have to pay to subscribe to various sites whose advertisers no longer wish to pay to have no one look at their ads.

    This also, has already happened. It’s called porn.

    3. [Insert other evils here.]

    Alright, more seriously now:

    1. This add-on could bring about all kinds of things, positive and negative. And it might not. We’re speculating. We could talk about all kinds of things that might happen, but we don’t know. The add-on has been out for a week.

    1. You have rights. You can look at what you want. Marketers don’t own your brain and your eyes, even if they think they paid for it. You can tape tv shows and fast-forward through the commercials – and there’s court cases to back you up). You can flip past the ads in a magazine. You can choose not to see advertising (as long as you’re not in public space) and that’s good.

    2. History has shown that advertising will creep ever further into our lives. Blaming those who fight back is overlooking those truly responsible. When you get down to it, your argument is not with me.

  5. Amos
    Posted May 27, 2008 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    This is awesome! Go Eyebeam, Go!

    I think this pro-advertising man is going to have to take some more persuasive viewpoints on a site called anti-advertising agency.

  6. Posted September 20, 2008 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    I’m very impressed with your work. It’s a positive step towards fighting the ubiquitous advertising that assaults all of us.

    This week we heard about a huge economic crisis in the US and the world. It’s costing us in the US more than a TRILLION DOLLARS to bail out our financial system from the effects of 30 years of Reaganomics. This happened because everyone from the government on down is buying crap on credit. The Bush Administration fights TWO WARS on credit and my neighbor buys a 50″ television on credit. Houses, condos on credit, health care on credit, cars on credit. All because we don’t have enough money due to a war on the middle class and tax cuts for the rich.

    This is a Class War that we didn’t start, but with people like you, we will finish.

    Thank you.

  7. skwhirl
    Posted November 3, 2008 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think this is that cool of an idea. Mostly because sites like the NYT or others spend a lot of money in providing content for us. It’s not free to hire reporters and follow stories and host a site – why should we deny them the only way they have to cover their costs?

    I’d rather look at ads than pay a subscription fee any day – it means I can get more news and info from more places and keeps the flow of information flowing. If I had to pay $10/mo per site I use, I’d only be able to gain access to a few. Now, literally, we have the word at our fingertips for news, view points, information.

    Providing content isn’t free, looking at it is because of advertising.

  8. Posted November 3, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    @skwhirl – Wladimir Palant, the creator of AdBlockPlad had this to say – Ads Don’t Generate Money

  9. river belle
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 3:59 am | Permalink

    Even if they think they paid for it. You can tape tv shows and fast-forward through the commercials – and there’s court cases to back you up). You can flip past the ads in a magazine. You can choose not to see advertising (as long as you’re not in public space) and that’s good.Thanks for sharing posts.
    Regards,

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

 

Subscribe without commenting