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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
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
Suzanne Lacy and Leslie Labowitz, Feminist Media Strategies for Political Performance. Miwon Kon, One Place After Another: Site Specific Art
Suzanne and Leslie’s article about media strategies functions not only as a learning tool, but also as a coaching manual loaded with tips and advice for the aspiring media artist. Their advice draws on their experience from past events and performances. From the late 70’s to the early 80’s, they surrounded the subject of physical and sexual abuse against women. I think it’s a good forum to support this type of socialist activity and art, and it’s kind of a shame you don’t see it as much anymore today (or maybe I’ve been hiding under a rock). It wasn’t immediately apparent that violence towards women portrayed in the media was prevalent. In fact, it seems to me that more women are being portrayed as the beholder of power (Charlie’s Angels, Kill Bill, Desperate Housewives). Furthermore, more women are continuing to raise the standard in Olympic sports, and global exposure for them has smashed social acceptance a long time ago.
However, we will always be reminded of tragic killings such as the Montreal Massacre, an enraged gunman who killed 14 women in December 6th, 1989, due to a hatred of feminists. Almost immediately, the Montreal Massacre became a shocking moment in which mourning turned into outrage about all violence against women.
In One Place After Another, Miwon describes art as a vehicle for driving change, and giving power to the social community, that wouldn’t be found otherwise. Changing performative art, installations, demonstrations etc. from a site-specific and expected place such as a museum, art and its message have the ability to become closer to the community’s space and individual’s perception. Miwon further defines community as social groups and networks that are seen to be as a minority from a political and public standpoint. Acting as a voice for demanding equal rights, and counter cultural processes, art gives solidarity to the term community.
– Stephen
However, we will always be reminded of tragic killings such as the Montreal Massacre, an enraged gunman who killed 14 women in December 6th, 1989, due to a hatred of feminists. Almost immediately, the Montreal Massacre became a shocking moment in which mourning turned into outrage about all violence against women.
In One Place After Another, Miwon describes art as a vehicle for driving change, and giving power to the social community, that wouldn’t be found otherwise. Changing performative art, installations, demonstrations etc. from a site-specific and expected place such as a museum, art and its message have the ability to become closer to the community’s space and individual’s perception. Miwon further defines community as social groups and networks that are seen to be as a minority from a political and public standpoint. Acting as a voice for demanding equal rights, and counter cultural processes, art gives solidarity to the term community.
– Stephen
Felicity D. Scott, Acid Visions
Article access here: http://magazines.documenta.de/frontend/article.php?IdLanguage=1&NrArticle=1739
The spectacle of a geodesic dome created by visions of LSD is one of exploration, of the mind and of technological ideals. For architects to create this world constructed of flashing lights, and multiple projectors on TV.screens serves our basic sensory appetites. This counter culture is not new, but echo’s the attitude originally adopted in the 1960’s from Woodstock concertgoers. A hatred of war and violence, these people would look to new forms of happiness and expression of love to one another.
What other way of expression would there be if not for throwing a party, a collective crowd coming together under one ideal and perception. These domes are a construct of this ideology, creating a “one world–one love” thinking. One great example of this would be this recent film that I saw, a world tour concert of electronic guru and DJ Tiesto. Filmed in May of 2003 in the Netherlands, it was an amalgamation of the world’s best electronic music, housed under what might possibly be the largest dome – 25,000 spectators, the most amazing light show of strobes, lasers, spot lights, video panels and pyrotechnics.
These concerts were usually held for music’s sake, but otherwise there would be a good reason for one to hold a concert. Governing bodies promoting HIV/AIDS awareness, or liberties like the summer Olympics sanctioned them. These liberal forms of expression existed to celebrate the positive aspects of humankind.
– Stephen
The spectacle of a geodesic dome created by visions of LSD is one of exploration, of the mind and of technological ideals. For architects to create this world constructed of flashing lights, and multiple projectors on TV.screens serves our basic sensory appetites. This counter culture is not new, but echo’s the attitude originally adopted in the 1960’s from Woodstock concertgoers. A hatred of war and violence, these people would look to new forms of happiness and expression of love to one another.
What other way of expression would there be if not for throwing a party, a collective crowd coming together under one ideal and perception. These domes are a construct of this ideology, creating a “one world–one love” thinking. One great example of this would be this recent film that I saw, a world tour concert of electronic guru and DJ Tiesto. Filmed in May of 2003 in the Netherlands, it was an amalgamation of the world’s best electronic music, housed under what might possibly be the largest dome – 25,000 spectators, the most amazing light show of strobes, lasers, spot lights, video panels and pyrotechnics.
These concerts were usually held for music’s sake, but otherwise there would be a good reason for one to hold a concert. Governing bodies promoting HIV/AIDS awareness, or liberties like the summer Olympics sanctioned them. These liberal forms of expression existed to celebrate the positive aspects of humankind.
– Stephen
Simon Ford, Potlatch, Psychogeography, Derive, and Détournement
In the readings of Simon Ford and Guy Debord, the discussion of Situationist and the Lettriste International sums up the advantageous appeal of going against common ground. The urban architecture of cities is the alluring objectification of random journeys and of seeking out others to discuss social and political drivel. At the heart of this new ideology is the essence of uprooting the extremely wealthy and re-distributing to the proletariat, or of the blue collar working class – or even the mass population. Probably a popular example of détournement is AdBusters, a group of anti-advertisers that culturejam, or re-appropriate the billboards of the clogged downtowns and bus shelters of the suburbans 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. Better known for their annual Buy Nothing Day, Kalle Lasn probably says it best: "Driving hybrid cars and limiting industrial emissions is great‚ but they are band–aid solutions if we don't address the core problem: we have to consume less. This is the message of Buy Nothing Day."
As Naomi Klein described in her book, No Logo, 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?
While I believe that some forms of detournement is necessary to keep the wealth distributed among the society, I question whether it is further a legitimate reason to pirate software, or other activities that would be deemed otherwise illegal. The Situationist movement seems to have been an arbitrary form of artist evolution. However, with minimal guidance to practicality, Debord speaks of destroying hyperpolitcal means, and the bourgeois idea of happiness, but what if the very idea of bourgeois happiness is in itself experimenting with détournement or derive?
The closest thing I have experienced recently that I suppose would be a derive would be attending Scotiabank’s Nuit Blanche. It truly was a randomized experience in engaging with art, artists and viewers. The paradox lies with the debasement and rejection of corporations and government. There was obvious support from both of those at the Nuit Blanche, so I would regard that you can’t really eliminate those. People may argue that because corporations sponsored Nuit Blanche, that art may have been swayed to their perspective, but I really go out of my way to question the validity of that argument. If it were not for them thousands of people would not have been able to experience an art crawl in Toronto.
On the subject of architecture in Toronto, the continual urbanization of our city has lead to urban sprawl, and for some, a dead sense of environment. However with the revamped Royal Ontario Museum and the now renovating process of Art Gallery of Ontario, the central art centres in Toronto will be refreshed a new for derive to explore.
– Stephen
As Naomi Klein described in her book, No Logo, 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?
While I believe that some forms of detournement is necessary to keep the wealth distributed among the society, I question whether it is further a legitimate reason to pirate software, or other activities that would be deemed otherwise illegal. The Situationist movement seems to have been an arbitrary form of artist evolution. However, with minimal guidance to practicality, Debord speaks of destroying hyperpolitcal means, and the bourgeois idea of happiness, but what if the very idea of bourgeois happiness is in itself experimenting with détournement or derive?
The closest thing I have experienced recently that I suppose would be a derive would be attending Scotiabank’s Nuit Blanche. It truly was a randomized experience in engaging with art, artists and viewers. The paradox lies with the debasement and rejection of corporations and government. There was obvious support from both of those at the Nuit Blanche, so I would regard that you can’t really eliminate those. People may argue that because corporations sponsored Nuit Blanche, that art may have been swayed to their perspective, but I really go out of my way to question the validity of that argument. If it were not for them thousands of people would not have been able to experience an art crawl in Toronto.
On the subject of architecture in Toronto, the continual urbanization of our city has lead to urban sprawl, and for some, a dead sense of environment. However with the revamped Royal Ontario Museum and the now renovating process of Art Gallery of Ontario, the central art centres in Toronto will be refreshed a new for derive to explore.
– Stephen
Peter Burger, On the Problem of the Autonomy of Art in Bourgeois Society (1984)
Art for art’s sake discussed by Burger can be separated from society, and can be self-regulating, as characterized in bourgeois society. An artist can create discourse through the labour of creating art, and other art may interpellate on other artist’s ideals. Autonomist art integrates the idea of art being part of daily life, social values, and a way of de-politicizing function. The theory and function thus becomes independent from the aesthetic of the work, and the work becomes the praxis, a Marxist way of thinking by a disregard of theory.
The author of art does not only concern themselves of the intellectual property of their work but also brings into question the importance of the way the art was created. Autonomist then, is described as the artist creating art on his or her own terms, not demanded for by the art patron, or requested for by the monarchy.
Schiller’s interpretation of the autonomy of art is that avant-gardist art is not really disconnected from the praxis of life – that no matter what aesthetic value the art takes on, it is merely another ideological de facto. Historical courtly art may at times appear autonomous, while at other times bourgeois art may have that similarity as well. Autonomous art is sometimes confusing to identify. Burger conveniently describes the differences of sacral art to courtly art and finally to bourgeois art (autonomous art). There is a shift of production and reception in sacral art from the collective to the individual in bourgeois art.
There is a natural progression of the collective reception of art to an individualist ideal of looking at art. As times change, society becomes increasingly democratic and aware of public opinion, and the spectacle of the “self”. When I personally look at art in today’s perspective, a person would invoke what they get out of art by looking at it in a gallery. There is no collective attitude one would depict, but rather an introspective one. The personal implications derived from looking at a sacral piece of art or courtly art isn’t obviously apparent for the first time. The only real solution of art now is for art to evolve into an individualistic sense
Marcel Duchamp’s ready-mades laugh in the face of individual creativity. He questions the validity of putting your name on a piece of art, and believes that art is freely exchangeable; his manifestations are examples of this idea. Barbara Kruger’s images are a perfect example of this individualistic ideal, of mass consumption and of art as a spectacle. She questions the social implications of materialism and of objectification of art.
– Stephen
The author of art does not only concern themselves of the intellectual property of their work but also brings into question the importance of the way the art was created. Autonomist then, is described as the artist creating art on his or her own terms, not demanded for by the art patron, or requested for by the monarchy.
Schiller’s interpretation of the autonomy of art is that avant-gardist art is not really disconnected from the praxis of life – that no matter what aesthetic value the art takes on, it is merely another ideological de facto. Historical courtly art may at times appear autonomous, while at other times bourgeois art may have that similarity as well. Autonomous art is sometimes confusing to identify. Burger conveniently describes the differences of sacral art to courtly art and finally to bourgeois art (autonomous art). There is a shift of production and reception in sacral art from the collective to the individual in bourgeois art.
There is a natural progression of the collective reception of art to an individualist ideal of looking at art. As times change, society becomes increasingly democratic and aware of public opinion, and the spectacle of the “self”. When I personally look at art in today’s perspective, a person would invoke what they get out of art by looking at it in a gallery. There is no collective attitude one would depict, but rather an introspective one. The personal implications derived from looking at a sacral piece of art or courtly art isn’t obviously apparent for the first time. The only real solution of art now is for art to evolve into an individualistic sense
Marcel Duchamp’s ready-mades laugh in the face of individual creativity. He questions the validity of putting your name on a piece of art, and believes that art is freely exchangeable; his manifestations are examples of this idea. Barbara Kruger’s images are a perfect example of this individualistic ideal, of mass consumption and of art as a spectacle. She questions the social implications of materialism and of objectification of art.
– Stephen
Jürgen Habermas, The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964)
Public sphere is an area in our social life in which people’s opinion can be formed. It may be an outlet for people to express concern, ideate, and analyze social situations. Of these outlets, newspapers, magazines, radio and television are today’s examples. The concept of the public sphere came into being in the late eras of the bourgeois society, and is not a direct relation to a democratic society.
Image Courtesy of Rice University
The individuals of the public sphere did not go against the authorities of the public sphere for power, but rather expressing their opinions on how the authority would use their power. This division of power was seen as a negotiation in the historical context – between the nobility, monarchy and people.
Recently, the public sphere has been given too much power, as private affairs are unnecessarily voiced in the public sphere. Media is giving the individuals an easy way of expressing their views to the public, and therefore giving the power to the people over the state. Private issues encroaching into public realm is not always a benefit to society, and thus brings a power struggle to heads of state.
I believe that the power of the people’s voice is in today’s society is one that is the most powerful, and should have a large influence on the government, especially in a democratic society. People who want to raise their concern for certain social issues. Are we too powerful for our own good? I believe that to be walking a fine line between voicing private issues that the general public doesn’t want to hear, and voicing public opinions so that the governing body can take notice.
That video we watched of the German artist (his name escapes me), creating the video projections of people’s faces and hands onto buildings was a little unnecessary, in my opinion. I highly doubt that people would want to hear about someone’s physical abuse or their private issues in a public setting, it is a bit too shocking for any stranger to accept, or to deal with. There are social support groups for that, and even community churches and prayer groups. Bringing an exceedingly personal situation / issue / problem into the public sphere is rather disturbing and is counter-intuitive to the original intention.
I suppose on a lighter note, You Tube is a perfect example of the public sphere. It allows any individual to create their own videos, and express their views for other’s to see and to comment.
– Stephen
Image Courtesy of Rice University
The individuals of the public sphere did not go against the authorities of the public sphere for power, but rather expressing their opinions on how the authority would use their power. This division of power was seen as a negotiation in the historical context – between the nobility, monarchy and people.
Recently, the public sphere has been given too much power, as private affairs are unnecessarily voiced in the public sphere. Media is giving the individuals an easy way of expressing their views to the public, and therefore giving the power to the people over the state. Private issues encroaching into public realm is not always a benefit to society, and thus brings a power struggle to heads of state.
I believe that the power of the people’s voice is in today’s society is one that is the most powerful, and should have a large influence on the government, especially in a democratic society. People who want to raise their concern for certain social issues. Are we too powerful for our own good? I believe that to be walking a fine line between voicing private issues that the general public doesn’t want to hear, and voicing public opinions so that the governing body can take notice.
That video we watched of the German artist (his name escapes me), creating the video projections of people’s faces and hands onto buildings was a little unnecessary, in my opinion. I highly doubt that people would want to hear about someone’s physical abuse or their private issues in a public setting, it is a bit too shocking for any stranger to accept, or to deal with. There are social support groups for that, and even community churches and prayer groups. Bringing an exceedingly personal situation / issue / problem into the public sphere is rather disturbing and is counter-intuitive to the original intention.
I suppose on a lighter note, You Tube is a perfect example of the public sphere. It allows any individual to create their own videos, and express their views for other’s to see and to comment.
– Stephen
Walter Benjamin, Author as Producer
How do we relate to an author’s writings? How can we prove or refute if what they write is true? As a reader, it is in our power to determine whether a literary work is tangible or not on the basis of it’s research and findings. It is important to question the attitude of a work, its relation to political and social concern, and the author’s position on their work.
The division of the proletariat and bourgeois class discussed by Benjamin thrives to produce literary work, or the newspaper, views from its dominant class, mainly the bourgeois. He states that an author should be writing for the people, the proletariat working class, and that a decisive voice should be recognized, whether it is proletariat or bourgeois. Author as producer is then defined as author as reader. The newspaper is then considered public property – a forum for expressive writing intending to promote a particular cause or perspective. The author should recognize themselves as the class in which they are writing about, they should have the same emotion, and desire to bring about social change, as their subject does, else it would not be a tangible work.
Benjamin describes the distinct differences between the operating writer and an informing writer, distinguished by not only what one writes, but actively participating in changing and bringing forth activist meaning, playing a dominant role in endorsing a defined argument, contrary to popular belief. It is of a person who strongly believes in their own ideals and feels the right to express them. Benjamin further describes that the author’s voice may not necessarily supersede the work’s voice, as one may be more effective in conveying its message more so than the other.
The discussion of reality vs. entertainment, or spectacle is interesting as Benjamin questions the motives behind photographs, does it portray an object of poverty, or does it transform the image of poverty into one of beauty? No matter what medium of art we are talking about here: be that as it may a painting, photography, literary writing, music, or dance – they all contain a message and an opinion, the subject matter with which it engages it’s audience – should be put to use by influencing others to take up their activist role. Persuade others to reflect and change and also to respond by expressing their views in any art medium.
“It is true that opinions matter greatly, but the best are of no use if they make nothing useful out of those who have them. The best political tendency is wrong if it does not demonstrate the attitude with which it is to be followed.” – Walter Benjamin
Dorothea Lange, known for her photojournalist approach to documenting the tragic consequences of the Great Depression in America was considered an honest report. Her infamous portrait Migrant Mother in Nipomo, California, 1936 raised concern as to how genuine the didactic meaning the photograph was to portray. Consequently, the photograph was published in the newspaper but the mother in the photograph did not receive any recognition or financial aid. Then, there is a marked difference between art as spectacle or policy of truth.
– Stephen
The division of the proletariat and bourgeois class discussed by Benjamin thrives to produce literary work, or the newspaper, views from its dominant class, mainly the bourgeois. He states that an author should be writing for the people, the proletariat working class, and that a decisive voice should be recognized, whether it is proletariat or bourgeois. Author as producer is then defined as author as reader. The newspaper is then considered public property – a forum for expressive writing intending to promote a particular cause or perspective. The author should recognize themselves as the class in which they are writing about, they should have the same emotion, and desire to bring about social change, as their subject does, else it would not be a tangible work.
Benjamin describes the distinct differences between the operating writer and an informing writer, distinguished by not only what one writes, but actively participating in changing and bringing forth activist meaning, playing a dominant role in endorsing a defined argument, contrary to popular belief. It is of a person who strongly believes in their own ideals and feels the right to express them. Benjamin further describes that the author’s voice may not necessarily supersede the work’s voice, as one may be more effective in conveying its message more so than the other.
The discussion of reality vs. entertainment, or spectacle is interesting as Benjamin questions the motives behind photographs, does it portray an object of poverty, or does it transform the image of poverty into one of beauty? No matter what medium of art we are talking about here: be that as it may a painting, photography, literary writing, music, or dance – they all contain a message and an opinion, the subject matter with which it engages it’s audience – should be put to use by influencing others to take up their activist role. Persuade others to reflect and change and also to respond by expressing their views in any art medium.
“It is true that opinions matter greatly, but the best are of no use if they make nothing useful out of those who have them. The best political tendency is wrong if it does not demonstrate the attitude with which it is to be followed.” – Walter Benjamin
Dorothea Lange, known for her photojournalist approach to documenting the tragic consequences of the Great Depression in America was considered an honest report. Her infamous portrait Migrant Mother in Nipomo, California, 1936 raised concern as to how genuine the didactic meaning the photograph was to portray. Consequently, the photograph was published in the newspaper but the mother in the photograph did not receive any recognition or financial aid. Then, there is a marked difference between art as spectacle or policy of truth.
– Stephen
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)