Banjo Advertising, SongZu, Prodeuce, Eardrum, MMC Group promote Blues Point Blues Festival
Banjo Advertising, SongZu, Prodeuce, Eardrum and the MMC Group have collaborated with Blues Point Road businesses and local photographer Chris Ireland to create a campaign for the 2010 Blues Point Blues Festival.
Working closely with the festival organisers, Banjo came up with a campaign based around the idea of bringing the blues to Blues Point Road. It includes a series of posters, postcards, radio spots (featuring The Chaser’s Andrew Hansen), and ambient installations around the local area.
Says Georgia Arnott, creative partner of Banjo: “It’s great when ourindustry can collaborate on a project to really create somethingspecial for the local area”.
The festival is free and is insupport of beyondblue, the national depression initiative. Come alongon Sunday October 10 from midday to help brighten the blues. bluespointbluesfestival.com.au
POSTERS:
RADIO:
Agency: Banjo Advertising, Sydney
Creative Director: Georgia Arnott
Creatives: Sean Larkin, Les Sharpe
Account Service: Richard Frost, Amy Bennett
Photographer: Chris Ireland
24 Comments
Will Al Viola or Al Caiola be playing?
Love the mic execution.
I hate the new submissions system.
Can’t be fucked retyping my erudite critique.
I’m as lazy as the thinking here.
I hear the AlCaiolaPops and Al Viola Aloe Vera accounts are up for pitch.
It is unfortunate that this is the first piece of work attributed to Banjo’s new creative signings. That’s all I’m saying
6.64,
Why?
6:51
I’m not about to detail all I know about semiotics, but obviously if you had an eye for good visuals you wouldn’t at as loss as to why it’s good.
Arnott strikes again.
Opportunity missed
8.48
As it’s patently clear that I don’t, perhaps you could explain it to me?
11:07
The use of salience, vectors and weight all contribute to the overall composition of the picture, while the juxtaposition of colours – predominantly the incongruous use of blue in the natural environment – only further to draw you eye along a salient path that culminates in the type treatment.
11.47
I bet you own a beret.
12:09
Berets. Plural.
11.47 that’s a really long-winded way of saying ‘turd-polishing’.
Hey 12.09,
Leave berets out of this.
Berets: A salient path to wankerdom since Ferdinand Saussure.
@2.49
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-the-Black-Beret/149306918422343
11.47.
A brief semantic analysis of your post reveals you missed out the word “serves” in there somewhere. Sloppy Banjo
6:35
Semantics is the wrong word choice – I believe the correct analysis would be a grammatical one. Next time you want to appear intelligent, don’t.
10.20
Mate, I was studying semiotics, semantics and wearing a big beret while you were still in nappies, so let me assure you a semantic analysis of your post reveals you missed out the word “serves” in there somewhere. Because a semantic analysis examines every signifier in a specific discourse to ascertain overall meaning and distinction. If a signifier – in this case the word formed by the graphemes s, e, r, v, e and s – is missing, the overall meaning is altered. By contrast, a grammatical analysis of the same sentence in your original post would have simply revealed you used the subject pronoun “you” when you really meant to use the possessive “your”. Sloppy Banjo
12:35
Firstly, I don’t work at Banjo. I believe they have an anti-beret policy there (something Singo would have established).
Secondly, semantics refers to interpretive analysis of words and – by proxy – sentences, and their meaning. Seeing as the meaning of the sentence was still interpreted in the way the author originally intended, the argument for a semantic error would be incorrect.
Instead, I proffer that it was a grammatical error due to the omittance of the word ‘serves’ – whether by accident or intention. (It was accidental, so you know).
Therefore, semantically it was still correct because the interpretive meaning of the sentence was still interpreted correctly (by you) and not divergent to the original intended meaning (mine), which is were semantics would come into play and dispute.
But you’re correct about the you/your grammar – it was a typo.
Good chat. My latte is getting cold so I best finish it and be off to the beret discount outlet in Glebe.
Wow. This is the most high brow thread I’ve ever read on this blog – and this in relation to work by Singo. Who’d have thought?
I feel it would not be inappropriate to defer to one of the true greats of history, and employ this Homeric summation of the clear intentions of both posters currently engaged in a semantic argument (although in effect it is a more effective demonstration of a pedantic one).
In any case, herein, Homer (Ancient Greek: Ὅμηρος, Hómēros), tells us, in song no less, what these two are trying to tell us:
http://tiny.cc/qu0qb
Blimey,
Have I unwittingly stumbled into a bored writers convention?
‘Scuse…