some interesting situations...

Guy Debord, one of the 2 most influential people to shape the situationist movement

I've recently been reading a bit out the situationist movement and see a lot of alignment with activism through the media as well as the ideologies of the happenings and open source as we covered them in this course. Debord felt that that the Marxist ideas of capitalism developing a commodity culture were furthered by capitalism's development causing a spectacle society- a world where representations are as real as flesh and the spectacle of politics and public space is the driving economic force.



from the first pages of "The Society of the Spectacle" by Guy Debord:

"1
In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense
accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.
2
The images detached from every aspect of life merge into a common stream in which the unity
of that life can no longer be recovered. Fragmented views of reality regroup themselves into a
new unity as a separate pseudoworld that can only be looked at. The specialization of images of
the world evolves into a world of autonomized images where even the deceivers are deceived.
The spectacle is a concrete inversion of life, an autonomous movement of the nonliving.
3
The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as society itself, as a part of society, and as a means
of unification. As a part of society, it is the focal point of all vision and all consciousness. But
due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is in reality the domain of delusion and false
consciousness: the unification it achieves is nothing but an official language of universal
separation.
4
The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated
by images.
5
The spectacle cannot be understood as a mere visual excess produced by mass-media
technologies. It is a worldview that has actually been materialized, a view of a world that has
become objective. "

blog #4: a Rape in Cyberspace

A Rape in Cyberspace raised a whole mess of issues that definitely exceeded the realm of new media but were nonetheless defined by its boundaries. Dibbles underlying questions is where the line between the cyber world and the physical world lies. In a system where we can talk, learn, play games, act and make love all on a textual basis, how do we decipher what is “real” and what isn’t? Rape is the ultimate violation. When the MUD character Mr. Bungle forced another character to defile herself with a kitchen knife he was touching on all of the issues that arise with unwanted solicitation: choice, consent, harm, and so many more. He asserted his power and dominance over her not with his physical strength but with typed codes in an online chat room. There was no physical evidence that she was hurt by this knife but the emotional trauma was there.
In a world where a sexual encounter between two people can seem like consensual sex to one and rape to another, how can anyone say that this aggressive and hostile textual action in a nonphysical realm wasn’t rape? LamdaMOO player HerkieCosmo made the following hypothesis, “perhaps it’s better to release…violent tendencies in a virtual environment rather than real life.” The same argument has been made for pornography that could be made for these online communities; it is the best way/place for people to play out their fantasies or release aggression because in these arenas there is no physical harm done to anyone. There are two major flaws with this comparison and conclusion: one is the idea that sexual assault only hurts the victim physically and two is that pornography has been proven to not deter sexual offenders from acting on these tendencies.
According to Michael Flood, a researcher from the Australian Research Center on Sex, Health and Society viewing porn, “does increase the likelihood that [rape] will happen.” (from womensrights.choice.org) now obviously there is a vast difference between porn and online communities. Porn is a known misogynistic industry that offers still and moving images frequently showing sexual scenarios of male dominance while for a majority of the participants in cyber textual communities it is just another space for social interaction. The strong-linking argument is that it’s a positive space for acting out fantasies.
There are many cyber communities that are specifically geared toward this type of social interaction. Just in my quick internet search for this response I found that 3 of the first 10 listen items on my google search were for rape fantasy groups. In this way cyberspace does offer a safe community to handle these issues but it is not a solution by any means. Here you have people volunteering to communicate in cyberspace that is geared toward this type of dialogue. However, if someone has such violent sexual fantasies that they border on rape, so powerful that they need to act them out in a virtual reality those issues need to be dealt with in the physical reality as well. These people need counseling and support. It’s a fine line between supporting an outlet for unconventional fantasies and facilitating a space where potential rapists can dive deeper into the darkest parts of their psyche.
The defining difference between any of those online communities and what happened in LamdaMOO was that an innocent victim was in fact hurt. The wounds of a rape victim are not healed with the closing of the last cut or smoothing over of the final bruise. Emotional trauma is carried by these victims often times for life. While the LamdaMOO victim had no bruises or cuts and absolutely struggled with the shame, violation and powerlessness felt by victims of physical rape. Here the line between cyperspace and “real space,” faded away and were crossed.
Dibble’s coverage on the LamdaMOO’s communal reaction and democratic debate over the rape and the question of physical and cyber realms did offer great insight to the composition and character of these online textual communities. A day in the life of a LamdaMOOer may not have been the most effective way to show the intricate details of this community’s make up. However, her coverage on this assault allowed the reader to see the history, landscape and law of the daily life in an online community. It also showed that this truly was a community and not just an online house party. The entire network was affected and hurt by this assault and they all participated in the debate and support of the victim.

ART EXPLOSION

This Monday morning from 4-9am the Free Art Society and roughly 50 members of the New York artistic community ambushed second street between aveneues A and B in a gorilla arts movement titled “ART EXPLOSION”. Our goal was to show the powerful efects art and color have o the human experience and to reclaim and inhance public space. There was zero wheat paste or tagging involved and no buildings or businesses were perminantly changed. The goal was to show the community how art in public space could enhance their daily lives. Following installation of all of the pieces were 2 hours of performance art in the streets for the community members going off to work.

This movement was in effect, a physical representation of both the open source ideology as well as William Burrough’s cut up method. open source is a scientific and artistic approach to the public accessibility to the code and methodology of a project. Originally it was software specific however the ideologies have expanded to focus on the aspect of community creation.

This ART EXPLOSION spent three months in development and organization among the 80 artists that attended meetings. The only guidance given to these artists by the Free Art Society was “make a piece- pick a location- put it up- no destruction or permanent damage to existing structures.” The final product of the street was ultimately developed and changed by every individual participating. In essence it was one massive, collaborative collage. While none of the work presented on the street itself was software based the ideologies and practice were very similar. The event did step into the technological realm through one mans work. Doezens of photographers documented the installation and performance art putting it online and one artist, Vlad, took video footage of the event and had it streaming online available for whatever purposes they may desire.

The event also sympathized with William Burrough’s cut up method. the beauty of the cut up method is that it is available and accessible to everybody; artist or not. The idea is a chance creation of a new art through the practice of collage. The EXPLOSION was in essence a reshuffling of the public space and enjoyed and created by both artists and non-artists. I myself am not a trained artist but I collaborated in a large collage that is still hanging in the street.

Lastly, just as the opne source ideology and the cutu p method preach- the creation is for everyone to have and change. This was the final characteristic of the ART EXPLOSION and one of the primary messages of the Free Art Society. The Free Art Society’s goal is to free art from its traditional spaces and make it accessable to the community. To support this effort all of the art posted on 2^nd street will stay up until taken home by a member of the community.

The following video’s and photos were taken during instillation and during performances.

footage of ART EXPLOSION
footage of installation
photos of installation and the aftermath

A response to Open Source, Copyright and the Utopian Plagiarism

The task of defining originality in the 21^st century is a difficult one. At this point such a massive volume of already created art is constantly thrust in our faces and unconsciously absorbed through various media outlets all the time. It’s hard to say whether the simple song based on the circle progression I write on a Thursday night is original or a subtle replica of nearly every pop song known to man. I’ve come up with figures of speech that I then heard used independently from a distant friend days later. So who came up with it? Who cares!? Issues of copyright and open sources ideologies are interesting and while I understand and respect the ideals behind both sides I have to say that I further align myself with the new ideology of open source.

Open sources while originally a concept specific to software and program development, is now a social and artistic approach incorporating the idea of public accessibility to code and methodology of a project. It allows for collaboration and collage of work. It is the ultimate karmic hippy ideal. Create something and it has inherent value- unless you are searching for fame and finance take value in the fact that you created something to share with your community and value that your community is creating something for you to build off of and be inspired by.

In the highly technological universe we occupy everyone has the means of production and manipulation of preexisting work. I found Girltalk to be a wonderful example. Yes, he is taking sounds created by preexisting artists but what he does with them creates something so altogether new that while it reflects its component parts it exceeds them becoming something entirely different. Furthermore, this is not the subtle sample of the James Brown horn Michael Franti complained about. An artist can sample the work of another artists and collage it in so subtly with their own work that the ego of the copyright community is damaged. Girltalk uses such blunt clips of other musicians’ work, and such well known songs that if anything he is paying them tribute and advertising for them. As long as the sampled work promises advertisement or further income issues of copyright seem to be ignored.

The comparison between artistic collage and plagiarism is a perfect one. “readymades, collage, found art or found text, intertexts, combines, detrounment, and appropriation—all these terms represent explorations in plagiarism.” (page 3). This is all Girltalk is doing- collaging other artists music. “Plagiarism often carries a weight of negative connotations,” (page 3) however these are within very strict definitions of the word and the culture that surrounds it. When most people think of plagiarism it is in the academic context. The student has a research paper and rather than prove a hypothesis on their own they choose to steal the words and ideas of another and pass them off as their own. The issue at hand here is ego and lie. This student expects a good grade and praise for their lies told.

It is a very delicate line between what this student does and say the cut up method of William Burroughs. I believe a defining distinction is the praise. Burroughs cut up method is not egotistical- it is for everyone and merely a reorganization of another mans words. The Utopian Plagiarism draws another perfect comparison with Marcel Duchamp saying that he “took objects to which he was ‘visually indifferent,’ and recontextualized them in a manner that shifted their meaning.” (page 4). His effort was not to take credit for the advent of the urinal nor to be praised for it. He wanted to challenge his audience to think about the object in a new light. It was not an effort demanding praise of his brilliance, in fact, it upset most if its viewers.

The copyright community is rooted in praise. It is a system for the rich to protect what made them rich and to keep them rich. I think there is a time and place where the ideals behind copyright are legitimate, it is important to recognize an artists work. However, the example given in class of Nina Paley having to pay $50,000 to include the Annette Hanshaw song in her work proves that copyright is more about protecting corporations than art or the individuals that create it. A situation where Annette Hanshaw was being paid for the use of her music is one I can respect. This was not the case.

Those blind supporters of copyright strike me much as the power elite pacifying the masses that Adorno and Horkheimer discussed in the Culture Industry. Their goal was to profit on the exploitation of the minds of the masses. It was a goal strictly founded in financial success with little to no importance placed on the artistic value of the programming. What is the point in holding on to these old prototypes when there aren’t anymore to be made? All the artistic community can do at this point is recapitulate the ideas of their ancestors. “What is the point of saving language when there is no longer anything to say? “ (page 19).

The Critical Art Ensemble said it elegantly, “information is most useful when it interacts with other information, rather than when it is defied and presented in a vacuum.” (page 9). No piece of art is created in total isolation of the artistic community. All art has its roots in its predecessors regardless of how innovative it may be. If the artistic community really wants to make new strides they will have to leave their ego behind and collaborate.

blog #2

Once upon a time we believed that our eyes and brains processed moving images the same way they are shown to us by a camera. This was proven false, just as the argument that the algorithms new digital technology and databases utilize reflect our brain functions. The question this debate raised for me was which is more sophisticated, my brain or the digital machine?
Naturally these algorithms are far more efficient and can process/access more information at a given time than I can. However, if my brain has the capacity to internalize the differing structures in my vicinity and it was the human brain that created these systems, I would argue that it is the human brain, and not the digital database that is more sophisticated.
Humans make decisions in a much more complex way incorporating emotions and third dimensions that the discrete on-off switches of binary code cannot begin to process. While the end result may be the same, there is no direct path obviously discernable by my consciousness when I make a given decision, as there would be in an algorithmic equation. Real thought can be analyzed and confined into an algorithmic summary however real thought is a much more layered and complex process influenced by new data and variables outside of the realm of the discrete.
We have learned to understand these computerized algorithms because they are logical and we can utilize them efficiently however that is not the way we perceive the universe. No we cannot distinguish between the given pixels in a digital picture like a computer can. However, my mother, a 63-year-old woman who witnessed the birth of the digital age, is able to manipulate the tools around her to multi-task, doing multiple searches, playing many games and emailing simultaneously. As this system developed around her, her brain adapted to it and learned to manipulate it making her the more sophisticated creature.
Our brains are malleable and learn new ways to process information based on the systems that surround us. Because of the nature of the internet I believe that we have learned to focus on more things at a time. Yes my mother is an impressive specimen when plugged into the developing digital culture, however, when compared to myself, a 22-year-old who has always known the presence of this digital dialogue, she is still far behind. While we may not be wholly entrenched in any given task, we are able watch TV while having four browser tabs open ranging from facebook to email to a google search to gmail chat. Because this is the digital layered system we use every day, I absolutely agree that we create a non-linear narrative out of the media surrounding us.
The perfect example of this is the way in which the student of the digital age writes their research paper. As they gather their information they carefully construct paragraphs, even whole sections of their work based on the information they are accessing. After reading many articles and writing many sections we cut, paste and rearrange these tidbits into a linear narrative when the process increating them was anything but linear.

Response to the Culture Industry

Adorno and Horkheimer were able to anticipate the birth of the culture industry years before it became the machine it is today. According to them the culture industry sprung by the industrial revolutions mechanical mass production and distribution of art products would lead to a series of clichés and archetypes to formulaically create art. This art would serve no purpose for the art world, rather be a mechanism to pacify and distract the public while making the captains of industry richer and richer at the publics’ expense.

They saw the powerful end of convergence with the television. Now not only could the factory workers, exhausted from connecting cog 1 to cog 2 fourteen-thousand times that day, distract themselves at the cinema, they could watch television at home. They would sit in their living rooms and allow themselves to be distracted by the prototypical sitcoms and unrealistic romantic comedies broken up by a series of advertisements. At the end of any given day they would be left thinking the universe of the television was a realistic one and for some reason they should go out and buy Levis Jeans and a Toyota car if they wanted success or happiness.

From the businessmen’s point of view this is brilliant. They were able to appeal to the least educated and most susceptible of the masses and manipulate them to make money. First Old School came out and made those businessmen millions. So they decided to make 40-year-old Virgin, Anchorman, Superbad, Knocked up and The Hangover. They had found something the public liked and recycled it over and over squeezing billions out of the viewers.

These prototypes have prevailed because they appeal to our senses and make sense in the language of media communication. When we watched the selective attention test in class we discussed how each of us focused in on the basketball and how we would translate that to the language of film: by zooming in. our eyes do not actually zoom in on the objects we focus on but this translation to the language of the camera makes sense to us. Similarly, these archetypes the culture industry recycles at us have prevailed because they are logical and make sense to us. They have similar jokes and narrative structures that appeal to the viewer who simply wants to watch a movie and laugh. They are not making us uncomfortable or forcing us to ask larger more daunting questions as is the effort with most art. They are engineered to simply entertain and they do so very well.

Not all viewers of these films or purchasers of Levis are the un-intellectual factory workers Adorno and Horkheimer were talking about. The educated consumers are aware of the lack of authenticity of the goods they consume. They know that they are playing a role and are aware of the presence of those who gain from their consumption. However with the standardization of education, and life long conditioning and socialization even those aware of this dynamic still exist and understand the world within the rigid confines of this cultural machine.

Adorno and Horkheimer had no concept of how the Internet would change the world. With the advent of the Internet now any consumer has easy access to finding and obtaining niche art in the long-tail. The short head is still successful; blockbuster movies still make more money on the whole in the theaters and when they’re sold in mass at every Walmart across the country, but, this market grows more and more marginalized without diversity. The fact that any consumer interested in seeing an indie film can easily find it is a vast improvement from the world Adorno and Horkheimer anticipated in 1944. Adorno and Horkheimer's hypothesis on the pasification of the masses depended on the fact that television programming was produced by a powerful elite. they had no idea that with the advent of the internet the means of production would be democratized allowing any old factory worker the liberty and materials to produce from home and widely distribute to any interested parties. the internet is the one technological hole in their argument.