Activist Project: Graffiti Project

Although for the most part graffiti is seen as a nuisance rather than an art form, there are some people who have taken it upon themselves to change this perception. Graffiti is no longer just tagging on walls and writing profanities in back alleys, it has become an art form and a medium for change. There are two main ways that I have seen graffiti being used to create a change in the environment; stating political or social beliefs in order to instigate change, or contributing to the issue of graffiti in a neighbourhood in order to improve the over-all image. In my opinion, both of these styles show a good deal of activism.

When using graffiti as medium to instigate change, it has a very strong impact. Mostly because it is seen widely by people in the area, and it is in a more urban format which relates to a lot of people. It has always been seen as something that was illicit and criminal, where kids would just tag everything and anything they saw. Now graffiti is seen as an art form and people are using that to their advantage. Most of the graffiti that is produced in order to provoke people's thoughts are very direct, to the point statements or questions. One example is an unknown artist who has written "If you die today will you go to heaven?", "I don't feel like an ant but I sure look like one" (which comments on the population as a whole and our perception of individuality versus the whole) and "STOP Buying" - it was a stop sign with the word 'buying' spray-painted underneath the word STOP. The last one seems to me to be the most relevant since it deals with consumerism and our societies priorities.

The second way in which graffiti has changed into an activist movement is the way in which people are dealing with it in residential areas.  A friend of mine who is in Police Foundations at Humber's Lakeshore campus was involved in 'The Croft Street Graffiti Project", where they went to a residential neighbourhood to paint over the graffiti that was bothering the residents. They hired artists to design murals and more 'family friendly' graffiti designs to go over the walls they were repainting. This was an initiative that they took in order to improve the environment around them, and to contribute to the neighbourhood that some of their classmates came from. I was really proud of him for taking the initiative to make something a little bit better, even if he didn't have to do much.

It just goes to show you that a little bit of paint can do so much; it can be harmful, it can be insightful, or it can be inspirational. It's all in how you use it.

Culture Jamming

I have been stumped on what to write for this entry for the longest time, mostly because I couldn't wrap my head around what culture jamming was. But, since last class when Ian showed us a few examples, I think I've finally got a hold on it. 

I'm not going to try to write out a definition of what culture jamming is, because I might not do it justice. Instead, I'm going to use two examples that Ian gave us in class that stood out in my mind, and that helped me to understand the concept and why it is so useful in our society.

The first example is the alteration, modification, and rearrangement of billboards. The most popular example of these are the billboards that are created and displayed by Ron English. They are highly satirical, and reflective of the society that we live in today. Of late, the billboards have reflected the recent American Presidential election, but they range from commenting on oil prices, to the "deceiving" qualities of Fox News. English is taking something that is mundane and trivial, and turning it into a pop culture phenomenon. It is particularly effective since billboards are seen by thousands of people every day, and on a huge scale. He is changing what we perceive to be advertising and the media, which is something that occasionally we all need; we need to be reminded of what is really out there in the media world, and what we can do with it.

Another example, although not as poignant as Ron English's billboards, is a photograph Ian showed us from France. Graffitied onto the sidewalk the words  "Obeis, Travaille, Consomme, et Tes Toi" (Obey, work, consume, and shut up) caught my attention, and not just because I understood what it meant in French. It seemed oddly out of place, and like a very accurate commentary on society. I say accurate because that is what we're meant to do in our society now: we work, we consume like no one's business, we obey (the trends, the media, everything) and we shut up and don't argue.

So as much as I personally can't give you my defintion of culture jamming, I hope that these examples will make it a bit clearer for you, as they did for me.

Participatory Cultures

When most people hear the term 'participatory culture', the first social network that they think about is Facebook. To be perfectly honest, it is the first thing that I think about since most of us are all so involved with Facebook in our daily lives. But, since this is what is probably expected of this discussion post, I won't be talking about Facebook. Instead, I am going to talk about, well, this; a blog. 

There are hundreds of sites that host blogs, and blogspot just happens to be the one that I chose to use to host mine. And before this class, as I have previously mentioned, I did not have a blog, so this was completely new territory for me. However, I have come to notice just how powerful and useful a blog can be. It is a place to vocalize opinions, discuss current events, and generally just let it all out. However, since there are no rules or regulations on what can be posted on the internet, much less a personal blog, there are some people who take advantage of that opportunity. An example of the use, or to some people the abuse, of this privilege happened a few months ago concerning the blog of a political figure in Ontario. He openly published on his blog that he advocated women carrying concealed weapons, because ' if they [women and gays] don't want to be the object of hate crimes, then they should do something to protect themselves.' Needless to say, this candidate removed himself from the runnings during the election and was put under very tight criticism afterwards.

In his book 'Free Culture',  Lawrence Lessig illustrates blog culture, and how it is a kind of  "public diary...it records private facts in a public way." He also goes further into the development and uses of a blog by saying : 

"...blogs have taken on a very different character. There are some who us the space simply to talk about their private life. But there are many others who use the space to engage in public discourse. Discussing matters of public import, criticizing others who are mistaken in their views...offering solutions to the problems we all see: blogs create the sense of a virtual public meeting, but one in which we don't all hope to be there at the same time..."

After reading Lessig's book, I specifically remembered this excerpt,  because of the way it related to the exact kind of social networking that we were doing in this class.

Works Cited

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. London: Penguin Books, 2004.

Buy Nothing Day (If Only I Could!)

I have to say I admire anyone who can actually go through with this day. Buy nothing? Seriously? It would be like the world imploding on my head. Which, in and of itself, is a sad fact. I wish that I could do this, and maybe I'll give it a try (my bank account will probably appreciate it), and see how it goes. But if you break it down, how realistic is it that you won't buy anything in a single day? So we can all abstain from hitting the mall and buying shoes (sometimes), but what about food? And I don't mean that tiger brownie from Williams', I mean real groceries. If you drive a car, what happens if you run out of gas, or pop a tire? If you take transit, do you just not pay your fare? As ideal as this day is, I'm sensing some flaws.

But maybe I'm just being overly skeptical, because the thought behind this day is really admirable and intriguing. Saying no to consumerism, something we have been raised on? It's almost unthinkable. We're so prone to buying things. Just, accumulating 'stuff', without any regard for what we're spending our money on. When are we going to be satisfied with our 'stuff'?

This reminds me of a point Ian made when he was discussing 'The Real World of Technology' by Ursula Franklin. He was talking about prescriptive versus holistic technologies. In a prescriptive technology, the working resembles an assembly line. Each person makes a piece, and someone else puts it together to make the whole. Whereas in holistic technologies one person makes the whole using their skills. To me, this relates directly to the idea of consumerism.

We constantly buy, buy, buy, and we're never done - never satisfied. And just as you can't be satisfied by just building a part, and not having anything to do with the whole, in the same way you can't be satisfied with buying parts that are supposed to contribute to making your life "whole". The idea of consumerism is a prescriptive technology unto itself, because it is constantly giving us pieces, but never the whole.

So I encourage everyone to participate in Buy Nothing Day, at least as much as you can. I know I'm going to try, as hard as it might be.

(My bank account will be thanking me later though.)

Net Neutrality

I found that being asked to discuss the most important features of the conflict of net neutrality was a little bit ironic, considering the fact that I'm discussing these points on a blog. 

Net neutrality refers to what kind of restrictions should be placed on this infinite space known as the internet and what gets published here. The ideas that users should be in control of the content they view, and what they have access to use, are some of the fundamental points in the net neutrality conflict. The question becomes; which side of the conflict are you on?

One side of the argument says that net neutrality is a necessity, and something that will shape the future of the internet. There are some major corporations who want to decide what information you get, how fast you get it, and what they can gain from this. If this were the case, the openness and freedom that most users find in the internet would be gone.

On the other side of the argument, there are those that believe that net neutrality should stay exactly where it is. With the ability to see what you want, when you want, most users find the internet to be the most open space available. They are fundamentally against the control that some people want to enforce on the world wide web.

What I found most interesting in doing this research was this; when doing a quick Google search for some opposing definitions of Net Neutrality, I came across this - www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html. This is a site posted by Google to "help" users understand the ideas of net neutrality. Although the site is against net neutrality and promoting stricter controls on the internet, it seems to be promoting it's source (Google) quite a bit. Encouraging the user to do further readings sponsored by Google, with quotes from Google associates. Seem like control to you? Same here. It seems as though it is a minimal way to promote oneself while promoting the greater good at the same time.

However, the site did provide me with two quotations that seem to be very apt on the subject of net neutrality:

"Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see or do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny." - Vint Cerf, Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol

"The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net." - Tim Berners-Lee, Inventor of the World Wide Web

Media Hegemonies: Mapping Who Owns What

When asked to discuss a Major Media Company, I automatically searched for which companies those were. And, both surprisingly and not, the Disney Corporation is one of the best, alongside Time Warner and General Electric. As someone who is part of the Disney generation (by this I mean I was raised on the animated classics, and still watch them from time to time), I thought it would be appropriate for me to discuss one of my childhood staples as a business rather than a pleasure.

Disney has grown over the decades, increasing sales and output. But, what most people don't know (including myself until I did the research) was just how much Disney owns. The "Walt Disney Company" website offers this information in neatly organized sections, so I will do the same.

1)The Walt Disney Studios: Disney films that are released are affiliated with a number of production studios, including; Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar Animation Studios, Touchstone Pictures, Miramax Films. 

(The Walt Disney Music Group also has a number of affiliates including Hollywood Records and Lyric Street Records.)

2)Parks and Resorts: The Walt Disney Company own numerous theme parks and family resorts, to be specific:

-eight Disney Vacation Club resorts

-the Disney Cruise Line

-five other resort location, including eleven theme parks, spanning three continents

3)Consumer Products: Fairly straightforward, and encompassing everything from footwear, to books, to "health and beauty" products, and even Disney stationary.

4)Media Networks: Possibly the section most important to this blog post. Here are just a few of the networks owned by and affiliated with Disney:

- Disney-ABC Television Group

- ESPN Inc.

- ABC Family

- SOAPnet

So, with all of this information, how has your outlook on Disney changed? Personally, this is not the Disney I thought I knew as a child. Which goes to show how much a corporation can change with the evolution of media. Disney is now a multi-media conglomerate, dominating most of today's markets, and doing it well.

This makes me wonder what Walt Disney would have to say about all of this, in comparison to what he started out with.

Fake News

In today's media driven culture, it seems like we take everything at face-value. Nothing that we are told, sold, or shown is questioned anymore - especially by our generation. That is a discussion all on it's own, but what should be focused on when discussing news or, more appropriately "fake news" is who is behind it, and why it is that we as a whole never see that side.

I had never really thought of this until I started reading "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You; Lies, Damn Lies, And the Public Relations Industry". From the very beginning of the book, they describe cases in which PR companies, hired by larger corporations, alter and manipulate what the public sees and hears regarding certain things - things which could be harmful to the corporations that have hired them. 

The first chapter "Burning Books Before Their Printed" gives the best image of just how larger companies control what it is that we do or do not see. The example that they give is very clear and to the point; a book was about to be released that could financially threaten a company. This company then hired one of the best PR agencies in the country to do 'damage-control' and make sure that as little was heard about this book as possible. And, since the PR agency did their job, that was the outcome.

The fact that this was all carried out without any public knowledge is astounding, but then again, that's what the PR agencies are for right?

This first chapter, among others, really highlighted how much control larger companies have on what we as a society see and hear. Headlines are altered, stories are completely turned around to benefit one over the other, and the list goes on. But we never question it. We never stop to think about where this information is coming from, who it's going to benefit, or more importantly, who's paying for it to be there.

Fake news is something we deal with every day, but we never register it. Maybe it's time we did?