Culture Jamming A Crime?

There are many that feel culture jamming is a crime. Many people feel culture jamming is a destruction of our modeled culture. People probably feel that way because it is not a clean, cut view that we are use to. Culture jamming is racy, edgy, and risky. I argue that culture jamming is not a crime. If people say culture jamming is a crime, so is the mainstream media. The mainstream media destroys our opinions and personal feelings. Shouldn't that be a crime. I mean we go to school everyday to learn and to have our own views on life. The mainstream media contradicts that. Don't they? Culture jamming expresses what we have been taught since we were little to have a mind of our own, to speak up for ourselves.
Many people also question if should culture jamming be illegal. I can understand how some culture jamming is destruction of a persons property and in that case it should be illegal (for example: on buildings, billboards). However, if you culture jam using your own medium and your own space there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with expressing your divergent opinion on a public domain, or property that is yours. Isn't that what the media is doing, expressing an idea or a view on their property?

Now that you know what I think, What do you think? Is culture jamming a crime? Should it be illegal?

Culture Jamming (Divergent or Mainstream?)

After spending a lot of time researching the topic culture jamming, I have discovered that culture jamming is a divergent voice but it can enter the mainstream. Can a culture jammer (someone who is revolting against the mainstream) enter the mainstream without becoming mainstream? I strongly believe that a culture jammer with a divergent message can enter the mainstream without becoming mainstream because most alternative voices are not ones that are often expressed by a lot of people. The mainstream does not want anything polluting their centralized messages. Yes, a divergent voice that is culture jamming can be covered through a mainstream news source but if anything it increases awareness and I would be very shocked if it became a mainstream view.

For example: The Nike Email Exchange (the NEE) The NEE was meant for Nike and Peretti, and it did make its way to the mainstream because of viewership. However, it provoke anti-sweatshop activism. It did not stay in the mainstream for long and it is not like the whole world revolted against Nike. Nike is one of the most popular corporate entities in the world.

I feel that culture jamming can reach the mainstream but it will not become a mainstream/centralized idea. A culture jamming movement can be a part of the mainstream once the alternative message reaches enough people. It becomes popular in the divergent world, popular enough to where corporations are receiving the message. Therefore it is a big enough issue to be covered by the mainstream. All and all culture jamming is still challenging the mainstream whether it is covered by a centralized source or reached a mass amount of people.
If culture jamming was able to be mainstream idea, it would serve no purpose.
We need to provoke thoughts and the best way to do it is to reach the masses. It does not change what the goal was in the first place.
Remember: "consumerism is running uncontested; it must be challenged by other perspectives expressed, in part, through visual languages and resource of design." - (572) Soar, Matthew. "The First Things First Manifesto and the Politics of Culture Jamming: Towards a Cultural Economy of Graphic Design And Advertising." Cultural Studies 16.4 (2002): 570-92. EBSCO. Web. 20 Apr. 2010.

Just Seeds Artists' Cooperative

Today, I came across this website titled: Justseeds.org
Just seeds is an online community formed by a group of activists/artists who present everyday occurences through different media tools online. They do sell their work but their work is radical. Their work informs people about the decentralized views. I believe they are run bottom up. They want to make a change. Culture jamming with an alternative voice is to express yourself with the hopes of making a change in the thing your jamming. Their message states "We believe in the power of personal expression in concert with collective action to transform society."- Justseeds.org Just seeds formed in 1998. Therefore you can infer their a fairly new culture jamming community. All of the community members are fairly young. Which brings me to say that I feel culture jamming is a fairly new form of anti-mainstream activism. After viewing some of the art work/jams that are on their websites, I feel their messages are hidden very well. When I looked at a alot of the images earlier, I realized that they are not average images represented in society, but I could not pinpoint exactly what they were jamming. Maybe I am not as informed as others? Or not as informed to the images represented in culure jamming? I would suggest you take a look and see for yourself and then let me know what you think. - Justseeds.org

Jamming the War on Terror

These media hoaxes were obviously done right around September 11, 2001. These photos are culture jamming art at its finest. The first two images obviously mock George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein...etc. There is probably a deaper meaning to these jams but I feel it is stating that former president George Bush messed our country up and now we are in a war in/with Iraq and Afganistan. It is obvious that Bush is not well liked by these culture jammers which means they also just wanted society to see how they feel. These photos I am sure have gone mainstream as well as many other forms of culture jamming that mock former President Bush. Therefore why not put him as a "terrorist." It is an image society is not use to seeing their former President of the U.S. in. It is a recreation and a mockery of his normal image. I mean isn't that the definition of culture jamming anyways?

As for the last photo, George Bush during his presidency was always seen on his ranch. Non-supporters say that he was on vacation or at his ranch more than he was at the white house. He is often known as a president who did not do much except worsen our state of being. The culture jammer who created this photo was obviously not a supporter of Bush at a time during his presidency. I am going to assume the person who created this was a democrat or a liberal, speaking their mind on how they do not support the president. Now, I could be completely wrong but I feel most mainstream media entities (whether they support Bush or not)did not touch upon Bush in this sort of negative way like he is seen in these images. This is what makes a divergent voice throughout culture jamming. It means to speak your mind, to create awareness, to let others know their opinions matter. This is done in these images whether it is obvious or not.
Then again what do I know?

Ron English

Ron English is an artist and a culture jammer. He has contributed to illegal culture jamming art. He is known for his mocking of popular culture in the mainstream media. He utilizes painting to make true yet racy statements about iconic figures and events in popular culture. Ron English uses a concept called "Agit-Pop." He is known for utilizing the quote "I DAMN SURE DIDN"T MAKE THE RULES, I DAMN SURE WON'T LIVE BY THEM. "

"Agit-Pop"

"To understand Ron English is to understand his times, for English's work is loaded with the visual iconography of his generation. He is interested in exploring the range and power of a deeply American symbology using Pop imagery as metaphor.

In juxtaposing loaded images, he forces the viewer to synthesize shared cultural reaction to a certain image with personal and unpredictable interpretations triggered by memory association.

The images are carefully selected and combined to create, by their relationship to each other, a complete visual idea that balances the obvious with the ambiguous, subtle with banal, instant recognition with compelling mystery. This integration of art and popular culture underscores all aspects of his work."


Almost everything he does is subverted. Here is some of the work he has done:




I personally feel that these images are horrifying. Therefore I can only imagine what someone who focuses primarily on mainstream ways to view society would feel. This culture jamming is shocking and it provokes though. When I view the Mcdonald's one I see America feeding into this corporation and becoming overweight due to consumption, and Ronald oversized because he is filled with money. I view the cows in the artwork as looking vulumptous because we constantly crave Mcdonalds. Therefore the cows you would think would be healthy and happy. These images that are representations of our current society are breathtaking and it definitely makes me understand how American's are (including myself).


He proves culture jamming is a range of messages and there are many ways of expressing your divergent voice through culture jamming.

USA Surpasses All the Genocide Records!

This photo was created by George Maciunas, an artist, a culture jammer, who was apart of a movement called Fluxus.

This artwork was done in 1965. This photo is a form of political culture jamming art. It expresses in a divergent way, how the U.S. was horrified by the Holocaust (for example) and the amount of deaths that resulted in it. Yet, we are doing the same thing to citizens in other countries during wars. It may not be to that extent or in that method of death but we still are killing people. This photo can still be applicable in society today and it would still get the same reactions and response. This voice would certainly not even be approached by the mainstream today. It is a subject that the mainstream news or any type of media would even touch on.

I feel this photo was a very alternative way of getting to the point. What makes it so moving is that it is on an American flag. What normally would be stars is death skulls, what normally would be stripes is the death rates other countries death rates we surpassed.

To read more about the reasoning for this culture jam go here

Interacting Public Spaces Model

As I was doing the research for my paper on Culture Jamming for Convergent Media and Divergent Voices with Professor Proctor, I cam across a model that was very representative of the media today. The model is called Interacting public spaces. This model basically expressed culture jammers and small corporations (the individual) vs. the mainstream media and corporations( the state and the economy).



The extreme left of the model portrays the anti-corporations, the anti-centralized view, and the anti-common forms (Ant-Sphericules: going against the corporate identities). Next to that we have the people who are not controlled by anyone or entities (the government, the media, corporations). They are the Autonomous Sphericules (which means not controlled by outside forces). They think for themselves.As we move towards the right of the model we see the Counter Sphericules. The Counter Sphericules are the ones who are opposite of the corporations. They try desperately to not conform towards the mainstream view but yet they cannot help it. Lastly, to the far right, is the Democratic Public Sphere (which is the location of the mainstream media). In this area we also have the state and the economy.

In my opinion, the corporations have the upper hand and they want to keep as much power in their hands as much as they can. People cannot help but to gravitate towards, we are led to believe that consumerism is the right way to go. How pitiful is that? But we all do it. The culture jammers job is to detract attention away from the mainstream and the state and the economy. They have very different extremist views.
I feel that more and more every day there is more and more of an attention away from the mainstream with the internet and more and more culture jammers.

Buy Nothing Day

Every year Adbuster's (whom I discussed in an earlier blog post) has a day called Buy Nothing Day. Buy Nothing Day is a day of anti-consumerism. It is celebrated in America normally on "Black Friday" (the one day of the year that is a day specifically targeted to shoppers) urging people to not go out and buy consumer goods. Adbusters hope that every year this day will urge more and more people not to waste and to not go shopping mot just on "Black Friday," but every day.

So Adbuster's is suppose to be an alternative voice who diverts away from the mainstream right? Then please explain to me why they sell merchandise on their website. Isn't selling something for money making something a consumer good or a commodity? Doesn't that just make them what their fighting against or making fun of?
What do you think?

Another case is one year for Buy Nothing Day, Adbuster's were trying to sell MTV (a mainstream media conglomerate) a Buy Nothing Day commercial. (The commercial can be viewed here). The commercial dealt with sex, nudity, rap, and consumption. Now why would they want their non-mainstream message on MTV? Fortunately, MTV did not want their commercial, it was too provacative.

I personally feel that MTV is a good place to spread your message however it is a huge media conglomerate. If that commercial were to be on MTV it would get a negative response (meaning it will no longer be a divergent message/and it would not increase awareness) and it would get a positive response for MTV because it will increase their viewership and popularity. This is only my opinion. What do you think?

This is what Adbuster's thinks:

"AdBuster’s response:

MTV, the channel that markets itself to hip youth, has decreed that our Buy Nothing Day public service spot “goes further than we are willing to accept on our channels”. Gangsta rap and sexualized, semi-naked school girls are okay, but apparently not a burping pig talking about consumption. If you object to this sort of corporate censorship, why not send them a message now? - Cinncinnatti Beacon


If Adbuster's Buy Nothing Day commercial was accepted to be on MTV? Would it have the same impact?
Is Adbuster's Buy Nothing Day a contradiction because they sell goods online and have a huge following?

Cathouse For Dogs

Joe Skaggs is a culture jammer/writer/prankster/media hoaxer, born in 1945. He has been well known for is bold culture jams such as "Cathouse for Dogs"(which I will discuss further), "the Fish Condos" (where Skaggs made an aquarium with rooms and furniture), "WALK RIGHT!" (where Skaggs made a group to enforce walking properly on the street and make it a law), and "The Solomon Project"(where Skaggs said he had made a a computer program that would work as both judge and jury and announce sentences. It said O.J. Simpson was guilty.)

Out of these examples of bold culture jamming and the many more Joe Skaggs has done. I am going to focus on the first one I mentioned: "Cathouse for Dogs."



In 1976, Joe Skaggs created a fake "Cathouse for Dogs" Advertisement in the Village Voice. He lead people to believe a brothel for dogs exists. " The ASPCA was outraged, the Soho News was incensed, and ABC devoted a segment to it which later received an Emmy nomination for best news broadcast of the year.

"When contacted by the news media, Skaggs got together 25 actors and 15 dogs and staged an elaborate performance in a SoHo loft -- a night in a bordello for dogs. The performance featured models posing with female dogs in look-a-like outfits, and actors posing with the male dogs waiting to view the bitches." Joe Skaggs

Joe Skaggs was bold enough to make people disgusted by his movements. The more intense you are and the more unusual the culture jam is the more awareness and responsiveness you are going to receive. The "Cathouse For Dogs" advertisement went a little too far but maybe that is what you need to do to get your message across. To make people believe the unthinkable. I think it is remarkable how once the mainstream news got a hold of it he went further, making is culture jam seem more and more like reality. That is dedication to your feelings. I think many of the culture jammers I have seen who turn mainstream or whose jams get in possession of the mainstream do not take any more risks other than the ones they have. I think it is admirable that Skaggs wants his stuff to seem as real as can be.

Joe Skaggs states about is culture jamming and media hoaxing:

"When I package a satire into a funny, sexually suggestive, controversial or highly technical wrapping, the media tend to fall for it hook, line and sinker. That's because I'm basically giving them what they want. A provocative story with great visuals that's outrageous yet plausible: A cathouse for dogs where you can get your dog sexually gratified for $50; a portable confessional booth offering religion on the move for people on the go; an auction for celebrity sperm.

Why are my pranks--or any pranks, really--successful? I believe we are all predisposed to be conned. As children, we are conned into behaving. Then we are conned into believing. The Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the bogeyman occupy a great amount of our consciousness. Then there is religious training, lessons of morality that require great leaps of faith.

The bottom line is, we're taught to suspend critical thinking and analysis and to believe what we're told. So we grow up conning ourselves as we look for answers to unanswerable questions and miracle cures for all of our ills. And, with the help of a less-than-responsible press whose corporate bottom line frequently overrides sound journalistic judgment, we believe just about anything we see in the news." - JoeySkaggs.com

He feels society has been brought up to believe whatever we see and to not critically think about it. We just see it as it is what it is. Culture Jammers take that centralized, un-opinionized view, and smash it. They prove to people what reality is and that they are brainwashed. Therefore when they see an advertisement like "Cathouse For Dogs" they will believe that it is real until someone questions it.

Joe Chemo Ad

In 1996, an issue of Adbuster's started a series of "Joe Chemo" advertisements mocking Camel cigarettes "Joe Camel" advertisements. The advertisements were showing that smoking kills. The issue received a lot of coverage from places like Time magazine and NBC television news (which are mainstream).(Is it still a divergent voice?)
I think the message for "Joe Chemo" advertisements series was strong. I know personally if I was a smoker and I saw that I would laugh. However, for non-smokers who have relatives or friends (or both) who smoke it may have an impact on them. I think those advertisements or subvertisements if you will have a great underlying message. Yeah it is funny, but there are plenty of people out there who have an addiction to smoking. It is good to see people show them what would happen. I feel that this is a perfect example of culture jamming because it is a humorous recreation of a popular image in society that has a underlying message. It is a recreation of the "Joe Camel" advertisements with an obvious message saying "Joe Camel" smoke too much and now he is "Joe Chemo" but, the hidden message is smoking kills and this is what will happen to all of you people who do smoke.

A fun fact I found when researching is "On July 10, 1997, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company announced that its 23-year-old Joe Camel advertising campaign would be discontinued." - Elliott, S. (July 11, 1997). Joe Camel, a giant in tobacco marketing, is dead at 23. New York Times, pp. D1, D4.
I guess the subvertisement of Joe Chemo made an impact?
What do you think?

Nike iD

As I was researching for my paper in Professor Proctor's class, I came across in Chapter 10 (The culture jamming chapter in the alternative media handbook) an email exchange. This email exchange discusses how a graduate student went to customize a Nike shoe with Nike iD with the word sweatshop in it. Here is the article:


Once I read this dispute, I was shocked. I understand that this student wanted to do it for a reaction but I cannot(can) believe that Nike discussed it as a regular automated response that they always do. This proves that the media conglomerates have rights to interfere with "culture jamming" because they own the channel in which we are trying t be divergent. I cannot believe that someone was gutsy enough to attempt to make a shoe. I feel like the person made a point, and made people aware who werent before that the shoes are made in sweatshops, but unfortunately it didnt change their sales or make them stop utilizing workers for cheap in a different country. If anything, it did make people more aware. It also makes me feel bad that for christmas two years ago my boyfriend and I customized shoes with Nike iD as our presents for eachother. It truly makes me feel bad and from now on when I look at that shoe I will think that someone had to get paid a few cent a day to make my boyfriend and my shoes. It also makes me realize that probably most of my shoes are made in sweatshops which makes me question: how much do i need those shoes?

Back to my point though Jonah Peretti chose a unique approach to increase awareness of the sweatshop issue and it worked. It hit the mainstream but in a positive way that created understanding and criticial thinking. It also added to the anti-sweatshop activists. In my opinion what he did was a form of culture jamming indeed.

The Yes Men

The Yes Men are lead by Mike Bonanno and Andy Bichlbaum. "The Yes Men have created their own Theatre of the Oppressed. They call what they do “Identity Correction”. By posing as spokesmen for these large and flawed organizations, they plant their tongues firmly in their cheeks and highlight what they believe to be the hypocrisies and true motivations behind these companies—the routine placement of profits over people." - Lucidforce.com
The Yes Men make websites that are similar to the original they are makin fun of. Once they create these websites, other corporations exist to believe that they are the real one and therefore attend important events held by other corporations. They portraty that corporations and government organizations have themselves in their best interest.

“What we’d love to see is people using whatever they’re good at for a good cause…The Yes Men Lab is really about spreading our techniques and getting more people doing them—just thinking about different ways of fighting back and getting issues advanced. And figuring out ways to create change, and we lend our experience to that.” Bichlbaum adds, “It’s not necessarily about bigger pranks, but we want to really think about real change. Does what we do create real change? I don’t know, but wherever we go it will be towards that.” - Lucidforce.com

Similar to most culture jammers, they want people to get involved, make awareness, and make a change. The Yes Men want people to know that there is not one way of looking at things. And if you feel differently than the centralized view of issues in society than fight back.

A culture jam that the Yes Men are well known for is the hoax of Dow chemical's refusal to take responsibility for the Bhopal disaster. For those of you who may not know the Bhopal disaster occured on December 2, and 3, 1984 in Bhopal, India. "In the factory of Union Carbide (India) Limited, a chemical reaction had started. At around midnight, this chemical reaction culminated in the leakage of deadly Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) gas from one of the tanks of the factory." Mp.gov This leak killed around 3,000 civilians. Well now that you know what the Bhopal distaster is, one of the Yes Men, impersonated a Dow chemicals spokesperson. While impersonating, one of the Yes Men, on the incidents 20 year anniversary, said that Dow takes full responsibility for the tragedy and stated that there will be a multibillion dollar compensation bundle for the company. You can read an article about it here

As I was reading more and more about the Yes Men, I am wondering what they are doing is legal. Is impersonating illegal? I thought so. It definitely is a form of culture jamming but do they cross the line? I think so. Although, they certainly raise awareness.

Subvertising

Today I came across a form of culture jamming/hacktivism. It is a reaction against conformity. Subvertising refers to the practice of making spoofs or parodies of corporate and political advertisements. Subvertisements may take the form of a new image or an alteration to an existing image, often in a satirical manner. Subvertising is the same concept of a mainstream image or message, but expresses the underlying message. It is any form resistance of advertisinga mainstream message, whether it is a billboard, a magazine advertisement, a t-shirt, it is grafitti. Most examples shown on this blog are an example of subvertising, but I will show you an example so you will know how to tell.

Example: Billionaires for Bush.
Billionaires for Bush is a website/group of activists that mock President Bush. Every jam that on the website states in some way that Bush is for profit. They state things like "its a class war, and were winning." and "war profiteering is NOT a crime." The culture jams on the website are humorous and really sarcastic. Which makes them enjoyable to look at and easy to understand.

Adbusters

Today I came across a website called Adbusters.com. Adbusters is a non for profit website based in Canada that revolts against the normal views and images in society. Adbuster's also is a news, magazine, campaign and video source. As they state "We are a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators, and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age. Out aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we live in the 21st century." Adbusters

The websites mission is to make an impact on our culture, and show society how corrupt the corporate, politics, and the economy are.

Although their work has been mention in hundreds of alternative mediums, , I believe they still are a divergent voice. They are a popular alternative medium. Especially cause I feel there is very few revolts against the media that aren't divergent voices. What do you think?

Introduction to Culture Jamming

According to the Alternative Media Handbook, “Culture Jamming is reworking media images and forms to make a political or cultural statement."
"Culture jamming is an intriguing form of political communication that has emerged in response to the commercial isolation of public life. Practitioners of culture jamming argue that culture, politics, and social values have been bent by saturated commercial environments, from corporate logos on sports facilities, to television content designed solely to deliver targeted audiences to producers and sponsors. Many public issues and social voices are pushed to the margins of society by market values and commercial communication, making it difficult to get the attention of those living in the "walled gardens" of consumerism. Culture jamming presents a variety of interesting communication strategies that play with the branded images and icons of consumer culture to make consumers aware of surrounding problems and diverse cultural experiences that warrant their attention." -Center for Communication and Civic Engagement

In my opinion culture jamming is a revolt against the mainstream media to make an impact. It deals with people who want to revolt against the norm to make people more aware of an important issue that they are misinformed by the mainstream. It can be a poltical, cultural, social, satirical, etc... opposition to an issue.