Currently the new controversy concerning intellectual property revolves around Canada's planned implementation of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). When you think about it, how convenient was it to record your favourite radio pop songs onto your cassette tapes, or record your favourite television shows or share movies on VCR tapes back in the 80s? This new law will completely circumvent any method of backing up your legitimately bought music, movies or photocopying textbooks. Copyright lawyer and litigator Howard Knopf is predicting that the bill will “put digital locks on our computers, cellphones, iPods, other gadgets and tools and, ultimately, our culture.”
These locks will not only affect consumers, but professors who want to photocopy excerpts of books to distribute to their students, television producers, radio producers who pay for copyright fees to play songs, book publishers and virtually everyone else.
On a practical level, how annoying was it when Apple introduced the DRM (Digital Rights Management) to their songs purchased through iTunes Music Store? Think of this new bill in the same essence but extremely exaggerated to the fact that it limits personal freedom on all of your electronics and media files.
Governments backing up corporations while disregarding the individual freedom of rights -- how do you think this affects us? How do you think it affects you from day to day? Does it matter that corporations will possibly be the ones who hold the keys to culture?
For more information, go here: Why copyright laws must get even tougher.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Gene Ray, Tactical Media and The End of The End of History
Tactical media practitioners favour art that is created at the grassroots level, on the essence of community ownership, and they greatly frown upon permanent standing institutional practices of art. Anything that is owned privately is an act of taking what is not theirs, the usurpation of wealth.
In the modern age of democracy, people are becoming more aware of their political and social structures. In the past decades, activists first stemmed against corporate capitalism in a way to aggressively demote power from those who had it to the ones who didn't. Guy Debord and the Situationist International Society and the Spectacle, attempted this concept. Gene Ray, in his article mentions that as time passes, the strategies in which tactical media practitioners change as well. This type of introspective analysis is critical if the practice is to become more ambitious in targeting capitalism in a broader scale. In an extremely democratic society, the approach in producing media resistance is to be sensitive to social issues, but at the same time be even more effective in targeting the capitalistic institutions. What's discouraging is that although the popularity of tactical media resistance has increased, its effectiveness has decreased (in some cases, in the context of aggression), that the perspective holds true of preserving an alternate way of voicing opinionated attacks against conglomerates and political powers.
Realistically, resistance to capitalism will always be viewed as a means of balancing an equation, if democracy + capitalism are to exist, corporate greed and wealth are to be countered. But inherently, are we not selfish in nature is a question that looms over my mind. It is impossible to totally eradicate the corporate foe, or the political tyrant, but in essence, the very hint of giving a non-violent protest is the precious glint of hope, a way to collectively work towards a better society. What Ray is trying to say is that tactical resistance today isn't what it used to be. Who really cares? Where are the protests and where are the rallies? There are activists on many different levels, from individual "jammers" who practice on a grassroots level, to larger organizations like AdBuster, N5M, Yes Men Institute for Applied Autonomy described by Ray as becoming classified as one genre of activism. Each entity target different aspects of capitalism, and at each level, their message is as big as their clandestine corporate enemies. The need for resistance against the hegemonic powers of capitalism is an ever changing type of affair, and it is beginning to be more apparent that the two forces are in symbiotic relationship with each other. It will be interesting to see what "they" can come up with next. They being the practitioners of tactical media, their response to ever-changing society of global conglomerates, and the effectiveness in which these protests are carried out. They need to be inventive and intelligent in a manner that doesn't condemn their own image, but in a way that is diligent, respectful and informative.
In the modern age of democracy, people are becoming more aware of their political and social structures. In the past decades, activists first stemmed against corporate capitalism in a way to aggressively demote power from those who had it to the ones who didn't. Guy Debord and the Situationist International Society and the Spectacle, attempted this concept. Gene Ray, in his article mentions that as time passes, the strategies in which tactical media practitioners change as well. This type of introspective analysis is critical if the practice is to become more ambitious in targeting capitalism in a broader scale. In an extremely democratic society, the approach in producing media resistance is to be sensitive to social issues, but at the same time be even more effective in targeting the capitalistic institutions. What's discouraging is that although the popularity of tactical media resistance has increased, its effectiveness has decreased (in some cases, in the context of aggression), that the perspective holds true of preserving an alternate way of voicing opinionated attacks against conglomerates and political powers.
Realistically, resistance to capitalism will always be viewed as a means of balancing an equation, if democracy + capitalism are to exist, corporate greed and wealth are to be countered. But inherently, are we not selfish in nature is a question that looms over my mind. It is impossible to totally eradicate the corporate foe, or the political tyrant, but in essence, the very hint of giving a non-violent protest is the precious glint of hope, a way to collectively work towards a better society. What Ray is trying to say is that tactical resistance today isn't what it used to be. Who really cares? Where are the protests and where are the rallies? There are activists on many different levels, from individual "jammers" who practice on a grassroots level, to larger organizations like AdBuster, N5M, Yes Men Institute for Applied Autonomy described by Ray as becoming classified as one genre of activism. Each entity target different aspects of capitalism, and at each level, their message is as big as their clandestine corporate enemies. The need for resistance against the hegemonic powers of capitalism is an ever changing type of affair, and it is beginning to be more apparent that the two forces are in symbiotic relationship with each other. It will be interesting to see what "they" can come up with next. They being the practitioners of tactical media, their response to ever-changing society of global conglomerates, and the effectiveness in which these protests are carried out. They need to be inventive and intelligent in a manner that doesn't condemn their own image, but in a way that is diligent, respectful and informative.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Darren O'Donnell, Criteria to Determine Beautiful Civic Engagement
1.
Gluing the Grease and Greasing the Glue: conflating the imperative to grease the wheels of commerce with the imperative to glue the social fabric; in other words, hauling the community into the commercial and the commercial into the community to spread, or equalize, power.
2.
Diversity: age, race, sexual orientation, religion, occupation, etc.
3.
Atypical Encounter: people doing things they wouldn't ordinarily do, or would ordinarily do but in an unordinary context with people they wouldn't ordinarily do it with.
4.
Inversion of Hierarchies: those who normally have the power give it up, or participate in service to other less powerful participants.
5.
Offering Agency: creating a context that provides agency to those who would not ordinarily have it.
6.
Questioning Social Assumptions, Imperatives: creating a context where taboos are challenged by actions that reveal the taboo to be based in social control.
7.
Atypical use of public and public/private space: playing where we're supposed to work and working where we're supposed to play.
8.
Fruitful Antagonisms: triggering friction, tension, and examining the ensuing dynamic in a performative arena where all is easily forgiven.
9.
Volunteer Ownership: providing opportunities for volunteers to participate to foster a wider sense of ownership.
10.Blurring of Roles: passersby become observers; observers become participants; participants become collaborators and volunteers become creators.
11. Generating Buzz: where the media is on par with other aspects of the project; the media as collaborators-slippery collaborators-but collaborators, nonetheless.
-- Some great insight to take into consideration when entertaining the thought of throwing a performative art piece, related to social activism. It's interesting to see each point here striving to spread the wealth and the power among communities, a way of equalizing people in such a way that everyone is on the same level. I think the role reversal's of power relations is interesting. And the main meat and potatoes here is that everyone is a creator of some sort, if you're participating in the message you are participating in the cause.
Gluing the Grease and Greasing the Glue: conflating the imperative to grease the wheels of commerce with the imperative to glue the social fabric; in other words, hauling the community into the commercial and the commercial into the community to spread, or equalize, power.
2.
Diversity: age, race, sexual orientation, religion, occupation, etc.
3.
Atypical Encounter: people doing things they wouldn't ordinarily do, or would ordinarily do but in an unordinary context with people they wouldn't ordinarily do it with.
4.
Inversion of Hierarchies: those who normally have the power give it up, or participate in service to other less powerful participants.
5.
Offering Agency: creating a context that provides agency to those who would not ordinarily have it.
6.
Questioning Social Assumptions, Imperatives: creating a context where taboos are challenged by actions that reveal the taboo to be based in social control.
7.
Atypical use of public and public/private space: playing where we're supposed to work and working where we're supposed to play.
8.
Fruitful Antagonisms: triggering friction, tension, and examining the ensuing dynamic in a performative arena where all is easily forgiven.
9.
Volunteer Ownership: providing opportunities for volunteers to participate to foster a wider sense of ownership.
10.Blurring of Roles: passersby become observers; observers become participants; participants become collaborators and volunteers become creators.
11. Generating Buzz: where the media is on par with other aspects of the project; the media as collaborators-slippery collaborators-but collaborators, nonetheless.
-- Some great insight to take into consideration when entertaining the thought of throwing a performative art piece, related to social activism. It's interesting to see each point here striving to spread the wealth and the power among communities, a way of equalizing people in such a way that everyone is on the same level. I think the role reversal's of power relations is interesting. And the main meat and potatoes here is that everyone is a creator of some sort, if you're participating in the message you are participating in the cause.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Reviewed: No Logo
No Logo addresses a number of social implications, both locally and globally. Naomi Klein, with her experience from leaders of social activist groups, forms this book in the hopes of lifting a veil to the public eye, that her readers are not complacent by the onslaught of corporation’s pathological pursuit of power. It challenges the need to brand commodities, a corporation’s nature of creating a brand, image and lifestyle experience, over simply making a product. No Logo exposes the nature of the North American society; its consumption habits and influences its readers to look at them introspectively. It is about being aware of the brands that we consume, how we have naturally bought into the idea that thinking, no more than just a single reflex that we attach and associate brand names with the purpose of life. Ultimately, brands assimilate our social and cultural values by becoming culture itself, and as such, we need to take that back from the corporations, and re-define it – culture is not something that can be bought and sold like a brand.
The book is divided into four sections, No Space, No Choice, No Jobs, No Logo. Of those four sections, Klein goes into detail about the consequences these corporate behaviors are having on society, and subsequent reactions of the public.
No Space
Our physical environment is filled with manufactured images and slick advertisement campaigns. Billboards litter the sides of streets, highways and buildings, sides of buses, bus shelters, tops of taxicabs, on the clothes we wear. Klein points out that the corporation’s need to produce brands is imperative to stay successful, as opposed to manufacturing products. This idea of entrenching a company’s name within people’s minds was important, and of primary concern. As a result, overall advertising expenditures shot up considerably to the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars, from the late seventies to late nineties – nothing was left unbranded, and no space was left unmarked.
Companies like Nike and Reebok, tried to outspend each other in the advertising sector, Nike being the one to edge out Reebok in ad spending by about $350 million in 1997. Companies like Nike wanted to be even more than just a brand. Expanding over physical space was not enough for CEO Phil Knight. They wanted to expand into every single freethinking mind that Nike was not just a brand, but about the transcendence of sports, their boutique stores as temples, and their slick advertisements as religions. Starbucks wanted to be a meeting place for community, a sense of homeliness while you purchase coffee, and the idea of being one with social activity. Scott Bedbury, CEO of Starbucks probably said it best by illustrating that Starbucks “Is the romance of the coffee experience, the feeling of warmth and community people get in Starbucks stores.”
No Choice
As if mentally programming people’s minds to naturally choose their brand was not enough, corporation’s wanted to make sure that we had no choice or little left to decide from. Literally being bombarded by the brand onslaught, we begin to see more replicas of store franchises. Companies like Walmart buy up everything in such large volumes are able to provide such low retail prices, that a lot of the smaller independent stores are forced to shut down, mainly because Walmart’s retail prices are cheaper than the other guy’s cost price. We literally have no choice but to choose from these brands, as they are everywhere.
The “if you aren’t everywhere, you are nowhere” strategy was a new way for corporations to extend their brand. Mergers began happening in order to stay “competitive”.
Walt Disney merges with Capital Cities / ABC, and Turner Broadcasting merges with Time Warner. This was a new level of a brand to represent multiple aspects of the industry. Corporate brands have grown so big that they now have the power to censor the material that we, as consumers receive. From the type of music we choose to listen, and it’s carefully edited lyrics, to the magazines we peruse, at stores like Walmart, who pick and choose which type of product is “appropriate”. You can begin to see the kind of control these corporations are starting to have on culture, and as people recognize the negative social implications this has on individuals, people demand that they take the power back from them (more on this in No Logo).
No Jobs
As the venture for increased profits prevailed, corporations realized that the real key to sky rocketing revenue was to move their factories offshore to third world nations. Massive amounts of jobs were cut in the United States in order that they identified that their sub contractors would fight nail and tooth for the cheapest bid and therefore it kept their costs to an extreme minimum. The shocking truth about sweatshops and poor working conditions is the driving force behind the social activism against multinational brands. People around the world are not just raising an eyebrow anymore but raising their protest signs at the retail stores they once thought was a good investment. Cavite, a city in the Philippines became the focal point of many brands, and as a result, the workers and the government became by-products of exploitation. Factories were declared areas similar to de-militarized zones, authority subverted and country taxes evaded. As such, workers were demanded in working 70hour weeks, sometimes 90-100 hours a week, and lucky to see $0.40 U.S for an hourly wage. Social activists and workers unions were very discouraged, and subtle messages of job loss and factory re-locations were threats to people wanting to stand up for their human rights.
What is also shameful is the loss of job security within North American soil. Brands recognized the fact that limiting the number of permanent full-time workers to temporary, part-time positions and contracting out to head hunters were a way of keeping revenue on the up, and personnel costs on the down. Klein says it best when the workers in the service sector consider themselves in a temporary position, always looking to better jobs – a mentality created by the brands and adopted by the people to think that “America doesn’t want these types of jobs”, says Phil Knight, CEO of Nike on the manufacturing of shoes.
No Logo
As a way of dealing with this socio-cultural strife, individuals formed organized activist groups, known as culture jammers to eliminate the brand’s ability to effectively advertise their campaign. Not dissimilar to Guy Debord’s essay on détournement, the new activist approach to uprooting the extremely wealthy and re-distributing to the working class – or even the mass population. Popular examples of détournement is AdBusters, a group of anti-advertisers that culture jam, or re-appropriate the billboards of the clogged downtowns and bus shelters of the suburbs to convey a completely opposite message than intended originally by the advertiser. This is especially prevalent with cigarette and beauty ads, where activists would re-mark and raise a level of social awareness that these corporations are trying to sell.
Rodriguez de Gerada is widely recognized as one of the most skilled and creative founders of culture jamming. Why do people do this? Let me ask you, what is beneficial for corporations such as Kool or Camel cigarettes to advertise in a society where kids start to believe that attaining these products will enhance their lives? His practices soon extended his critiques beyond tobacco and alchohol ads to include rampant ad bombardment and commercialism in general. As a result of this culture jamming and ad busting, companies like Diesel and Nike began adopting this type of anti-authoritarianism as a well for visual gimmicks. Advertisers were going to stop at nothing to sell products, even if it meant copying people like de Gerada.
To metaphorically objectify the brand corporations as a sponge is probably an accurate description of this phenomenon. To become everything and everyone is the main goal of these hedonistic companies is at the root of the problem. As stated earlier, the usurpation of socio-cultural aspects of the people should not be tolerated and the power should be given back to the people. In some cases, people are forced to take what is theirs, by street rallies and internationally organized protests on city streets (ch. 13 Reclaim the Streets). Klein further moves onto conclude that the most effective fight against these corporations is the courageous task of bringing them to the courts. As Klein describes, the basic principle of citizenship is this: people should govern themselves. Activism is no longer about just going against multinational corporations, as it was in the early days. It is about defining who holds the keys to culture – brands, or the people.
– Stephen
The book is divided into four sections, No Space, No Choice, No Jobs, No Logo. Of those four sections, Klein goes into detail about the consequences these corporate behaviors are having on society, and subsequent reactions of the public.
No Space
Our physical environment is filled with manufactured images and slick advertisement campaigns. Billboards litter the sides of streets, highways and buildings, sides of buses, bus shelters, tops of taxicabs, on the clothes we wear. Klein points out that the corporation’s need to produce brands is imperative to stay successful, as opposed to manufacturing products. This idea of entrenching a company’s name within people’s minds was important, and of primary concern. As a result, overall advertising expenditures shot up considerably to the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars, from the late seventies to late nineties – nothing was left unbranded, and no space was left unmarked.
Companies like Nike and Reebok, tried to outspend each other in the advertising sector, Nike being the one to edge out Reebok in ad spending by about $350 million in 1997. Companies like Nike wanted to be even more than just a brand. Expanding over physical space was not enough for CEO Phil Knight. They wanted to expand into every single freethinking mind that Nike was not just a brand, but about the transcendence of sports, their boutique stores as temples, and their slick advertisements as religions. Starbucks wanted to be a meeting place for community, a sense of homeliness while you purchase coffee, and the idea of being one with social activity. Scott Bedbury, CEO of Starbucks probably said it best by illustrating that Starbucks “Is the romance of the coffee experience, the feeling of warmth and community people get in Starbucks stores.”
No Choice
As if mentally programming people’s minds to naturally choose their brand was not enough, corporation’s wanted to make sure that we had no choice or little left to decide from. Literally being bombarded by the brand onslaught, we begin to see more replicas of store franchises. Companies like Walmart buy up everything in such large volumes are able to provide such low retail prices, that a lot of the smaller independent stores are forced to shut down, mainly because Walmart’s retail prices are cheaper than the other guy’s cost price. We literally have no choice but to choose from these brands, as they are everywhere.
The “if you aren’t everywhere, you are nowhere” strategy was a new way for corporations to extend their brand. Mergers began happening in order to stay “competitive”.
Walt Disney merges with Capital Cities / ABC, and Turner Broadcasting merges with Time Warner. This was a new level of a brand to represent multiple aspects of the industry. Corporate brands have grown so big that they now have the power to censor the material that we, as consumers receive. From the type of music we choose to listen, and it’s carefully edited lyrics, to the magazines we peruse, at stores like Walmart, who pick and choose which type of product is “appropriate”. You can begin to see the kind of control these corporations are starting to have on culture, and as people recognize the negative social implications this has on individuals, people demand that they take the power back from them (more on this in No Logo).
No Jobs
As the venture for increased profits prevailed, corporations realized that the real key to sky rocketing revenue was to move their factories offshore to third world nations. Massive amounts of jobs were cut in the United States in order that they identified that their sub contractors would fight nail and tooth for the cheapest bid and therefore it kept their costs to an extreme minimum. The shocking truth about sweatshops and poor working conditions is the driving force behind the social activism against multinational brands. People around the world are not just raising an eyebrow anymore but raising their protest signs at the retail stores they once thought was a good investment. Cavite, a city in the Philippines became the focal point of many brands, and as a result, the workers and the government became by-products of exploitation. Factories were declared areas similar to de-militarized zones, authority subverted and country taxes evaded. As such, workers were demanded in working 70hour weeks, sometimes 90-100 hours a week, and lucky to see $0.40 U.S for an hourly wage. Social activists and workers unions were very discouraged, and subtle messages of job loss and factory re-locations were threats to people wanting to stand up for their human rights.
What is also shameful is the loss of job security within North American soil. Brands recognized the fact that limiting the number of permanent full-time workers to temporary, part-time positions and contracting out to head hunters were a way of keeping revenue on the up, and personnel costs on the down. Klein says it best when the workers in the service sector consider themselves in a temporary position, always looking to better jobs – a mentality created by the brands and adopted by the people to think that “America doesn’t want these types of jobs”, says Phil Knight, CEO of Nike on the manufacturing of shoes.
No Logo
As a way of dealing with this socio-cultural strife, individuals formed organized activist groups, known as culture jammers to eliminate the brand’s ability to effectively advertise their campaign. Not dissimilar to Guy Debord’s essay on détournement, the new activist approach to uprooting the extremely wealthy and re-distributing to the working class – or even the mass population. Popular examples of détournement is AdBusters, a group of anti-advertisers that culture jam, or re-appropriate the billboards of the clogged downtowns and bus shelters of the suburbs to convey a completely opposite message than intended originally by the advertiser. This is especially prevalent with cigarette and beauty ads, where activists would re-mark and raise a level of social awareness that these corporations are trying to sell.
Rodriguez de Gerada is widely recognized as one of the most skilled and creative founders of culture jamming. Why do people do this? Let me ask you, what is beneficial for corporations such as Kool or Camel cigarettes to advertise in a society where kids start to believe that attaining these products will enhance their lives? His practices soon extended his critiques beyond tobacco and alchohol ads to include rampant ad bombardment and commercialism in general. As a result of this culture jamming and ad busting, companies like Diesel and Nike began adopting this type of anti-authoritarianism as a well for visual gimmicks. Advertisers were going to stop at nothing to sell products, even if it meant copying people like de Gerada.
To metaphorically objectify the brand corporations as a sponge is probably an accurate description of this phenomenon. To become everything and everyone is the main goal of these hedonistic companies is at the root of the problem. As stated earlier, the usurpation of socio-cultural aspects of the people should not be tolerated and the power should be given back to the people. In some cases, people are forced to take what is theirs, by street rallies and internationally organized protests on city streets (ch. 13 Reclaim the Streets). Klein further moves onto conclude that the most effective fight against these corporations is the courageous task of bringing them to the courts. As Klein describes, the basic principle of citizenship is this: people should govern themselves. Activism is no longer about just going against multinational corporations, as it was in the early days. It is about defining who holds the keys to culture – brands, or the people.
– Stephen
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Capitalism's finest hour
If not for the multinationals and their unethical forms of attaining ridiculous amounts of profit, driven through corporate greed, the executives and their children showcase their exuberant behaviour. This is the most appalling example of a Facebook group that I have ever seen. "Rich Ass Toronto Brats."
You would think that within Canada that holds a close-to egalitarian democracy that these types of oppressive behaviour wouldn't exist. I guess that is too liberal of me to give society the benefit of the doubt.
As excerpted from the following URL:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2315217543
"This group is only meant to house an elitist and snobby bunch of spoiled friends from Toronto. We were all schooled and lived in the same neighbourhoods together but most importanlty we share the same conceited values and take pride in it. You must know at least TEN brats in this group to join in addition to the following requirements.
Family:
* All members of your family have comfortable roles in companies they work in. If not working for someone, then fortune must be inherited from a wealthy relative. Note: Lotto winnings do not count.
* You have associations with the Thomsons, Westons, Eatons to name a few.
Living:
* Rosedale, Forest Hill, and Lawrence Park are the only acceptable neighbourhoods. Bridal Path is not included - the wealth in this neighbourhood hasn't been flowing long enough nor does it have the same sense of old-fashioned tradition.
Schooling:
* You attended a school abroad at least once in your life.
* Secondary Schools: Upper Canada College, St. Mikes, De La Salle College and Crescent
* University: Trinity College at U of T or McGill (Montreal)
* You were a member of a fraternity
Lifestyle:
* You're not afraid to get your Abercrombie polo shirt dirty - you can always buy more
* A&F and Hollister are not status symbols but merely clothes you've been wearing before they opened their own stores in Toronto
* Preppiness is something that's in you... you don't force it by popping your collar shirts.
* You drink Starbucks not because you can... but it's all you can stomach. Lattes ordered at 146º celsius are often necessary to start your day right.
* You see "clubbing on Richmond Street" as a mating ritual for desperate suburbian crawlers therefore you don't do it. You snub the idea.
* You don't just rely on the gym to stay in shape. You have recreational activities often reserved for the rich such as playing golf or water polo
* You consider Paris Hilton as trash and a tainted slut.
* Shopping on Bloor Street is for flamming gay men and "wannabes" - you're better off buying things online with your parent's credit card.
* You travel to Cali at least once a year or any coastal region that speak English.
* ...and lastly you have to be extremely attractive.
Disclaimer: These requirements may change without notice and members may be kicked off also without notice - though I doubt it since I know everyone in this group."
You would think that within Canada that holds a close-to egalitarian democracy that these types of oppressive behaviour wouldn't exist. I guess that is too liberal of me to give society the benefit of the doubt.
As excerpted from the following URL:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2315217543
"This group is only meant to house an elitist and snobby bunch of spoiled friends from Toronto. We were all schooled and lived in the same neighbourhoods together but most importanlty we share the same conceited values and take pride in it. You must know at least TEN brats in this group to join in addition to the following requirements.
Family:
* All members of your family have comfortable roles in companies they work in. If not working for someone, then fortune must be inherited from a wealthy relative. Note: Lotto winnings do not count.
* You have associations with the Thomsons, Westons, Eatons to name a few.
Living:
* Rosedale, Forest Hill, and Lawrence Park are the only acceptable neighbourhoods. Bridal Path is not included - the wealth in this neighbourhood hasn't been flowing long enough nor does it have the same sense of old-fashioned tradition.
Schooling:
* You attended a school abroad at least once in your life.
* Secondary Schools: Upper Canada College, St. Mikes, De La Salle College and Crescent
* University: Trinity College at U of T or McGill (Montreal)
* You were a member of a fraternity
Lifestyle:
* You're not afraid to get your Abercrombie polo shirt dirty - you can always buy more
* A&F and Hollister are not status symbols but merely clothes you've been wearing before they opened their own stores in Toronto
* Preppiness is something that's in you... you don't force it by popping your collar shirts.
* You drink Starbucks not because you can... but it's all you can stomach. Lattes ordered at 146º celsius are often necessary to start your day right.
* You see "clubbing on Richmond Street" as a mating ritual for desperate suburbian crawlers therefore you don't do it. You snub the idea.
* You don't just rely on the gym to stay in shape. You have recreational activities often reserved for the rich such as playing golf or water polo
* You consider Paris Hilton as trash and a tainted slut.
* Shopping on Bloor Street is for flamming gay men and "wannabes" - you're better off buying things online with your parent's credit card.
* You travel to Cali at least once a year or any coastal region that speak English.
* ...and lastly you have to be extremely attractive.
Disclaimer: These requirements may change without notice and members may be kicked off also without notice - though I doubt it since I know everyone in this group."
Friday, November 16, 2007
Carole S. Vance, The War on Culture
As a response to Vance's article, written on behalf of the fundamentalist attack on the National Endowment for the Arts in 1989, several controversial, sexual explicit and religiously "perverse" images put forward by individual artists stirred up moral panic within the conservative party. At the heart of the matter was a photograph, created by Andres Serrano titled Piss Christ depicting a wood-and-plastic crucifix submerged in the artist's urine. Created to undermine the religious exploitation of televangelists and syndicated preachers. Another example, an artwork by Eric Fischl painted a fully clothed boy looking at a naked man swinging at a baseball was attacked on the grounds of promoting "child molestation" and therefore unrealistic and bad art.
Vance states her conclusion that these outcries by the political right-wing against sexual images to be their method of lowering social diversity, and to restore the political program to their favour. Whether the funding for the NEA be public or private, and as art be censored or uncensored, each sphere, public and private is increasingly becoming more blurred, as in the article of the Public Sphere by Jürgen Habermas.
"In struggles for social change, both reformers and traditionalists know that changes in personal life are intimately linked to changes in public domains–not only through legal regulation, but also through information, images, and even access to physical space available in public arenas."
Preserving the fundamental source that art to be a liberal and democratic sphere prevents the culture from losing its intrinsic value – a vehicle for social change and breaking through the archaic molds of ignorance. The ways people look at an image or artwork impact their intepretant. Artwork should always be viewed in a way as to analyze it's subtext, and not denote what can be taken from it, but rather look for connotative meaning.
Vance states her conclusion that these outcries by the political right-wing against sexual images to be their method of lowering social diversity, and to restore the political program to their favour. Whether the funding for the NEA be public or private, and as art be censored or uncensored, each sphere, public and private is increasingly becoming more blurred, as in the article of the Public Sphere by Jürgen Habermas.
"In struggles for social change, both reformers and traditionalists know that changes in personal life are intimately linked to changes in public domains–not only through legal regulation, but also through information, images, and even access to physical space available in public arenas."
Preserving the fundamental source that art to be a liberal and democratic sphere prevents the culture from losing its intrinsic value – a vehicle for social change and breaking through the archaic molds of ignorance. The ways people look at an image or artwork impact their intepretant. Artwork should always be viewed in a way as to analyze it's subtext, and not denote what can be taken from it, but rather look for connotative meaning.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Jesse Drew, The Collective Camcorder in Art and Activism
Jesse’s essay on video art is a wonderful insight on the history of the art. As camcorders are a tool as much as a brush for the painter, video art has an intrinsic value for being active, a leading role in creating an equal society. The description of cultures and community working towards an egalitarian society is indeed an ambitious one, but it certainly does not mean we are not making progress. The move toward social awareness, labour conditions, gay rights, political hegemony and ideology is ever increasing, and as we have seen from modern day examples from Michael Moore’s documentary films, it gives rise to the subversive and perverse traits of the evils of the world. We live in a society today where individual, group and counter-culture messages are becoming stronger. Films like The Corporation, Shock Doctrine, and Fahrenheit 911 give viewers an alternate perspective, and enlightening on political and consumer context.
The Internet is probably an even greater medium next to homegrown grassroots video art. It not only spreads texts and comments of individual intellects, it gives birth to services like You Tube, spreading the video art even further in a flurry of activity. The proliferation of freedom of speech is then exponentially aroused. I agree with Jesse, that these video messages are much more effective when they are presented outside of an art gallery context, because the vehicle of the message is not glorified as art, but the message itself is accepted with a kind of urgency and importance. However as merely focusing on art for art’s sake, I would like to call upon an experience I had when I visited the Power Plant gallery last year. It was during the exhibition We Can Do This Now, with Aleksandra Mir’s video diary of her visit to Mexico.
“Depicting my attempts to connect with local people and Mexican customs through the body language of dance. As the story unfolds, the monologue touches on everything from globalization, alienation, class struggle, revolution and food to classical ballet, sex, crime and rock ’n’ roll.”
– http://www.aleksandramir.info/projects/organized/organized.html
It shows Aleksandra as a person estranged from the culture of Mexico, having to learn new things from a ground-up perspective, through dance and movement. Her eventual portrayal of the above subjects becomes a profound way of presenting these contextual subjects to other viewers in the gallery, and I found myself become enlightened in a way I haven’t been before since documentary films.
– Stephen
The Internet is probably an even greater medium next to homegrown grassroots video art. It not only spreads texts and comments of individual intellects, it gives birth to services like You Tube, spreading the video art even further in a flurry of activity. The proliferation of freedom of speech is then exponentially aroused. I agree with Jesse, that these video messages are much more effective when they are presented outside of an art gallery context, because the vehicle of the message is not glorified as art, but the message itself is accepted with a kind of urgency and importance. However as merely focusing on art for art’s sake, I would like to call upon an experience I had when I visited the Power Plant gallery last year. It was during the exhibition We Can Do This Now, with Aleksandra Mir’s video diary of her visit to Mexico.
“Depicting my attempts to connect with local people and Mexican customs through the body language of dance. As the story unfolds, the monologue touches on everything from globalization, alienation, class struggle, revolution and food to classical ballet, sex, crime and rock ’n’ roll.”
– http://www.aleksandramir.info/projects/organized/organized.html
It shows Aleksandra as a person estranged from the culture of Mexico, having to learn new things from a ground-up perspective, through dance and movement. Her eventual portrayal of the above subjects becomes a profound way of presenting these contextual subjects to other viewers in the gallery, and I found myself become enlightened in a way I haven’t been before since documentary films.
– Stephen
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)