2 posts tagged “new media”
Just to show everyone that I am indeed engaged in something called academic work, here's some thoughts I've had on graffiti that are the result of my research so far.
Butler and Graffiti: Identification and Subjectivity
Graffiti in some form or another is as old as humanity. Examples can be found in the caves in Lascaux, France, later in Pompeii, Italy, and frequently in contemporary bathroom stalls. However, graffiti as it is popularly understood, spray painted images on urban surfaces, developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s in Philadelphia, then New York. It has been a text-based art form (which is why it has become institutionalized largely through graphic design departments within art schools), but is now transitioning to refer to a particular style of art, bleeding from the streets onto the internet. In some ways, the internet (often a fleeting space of presence and disappearance) is more permanent than the street, betraying a desire for stability in an art world under constant erasure.
Graffiti is clearly an embodied process. The body acts, the paint does not simply appear on the wall. From whence does this drive come, to engage in illegal activity in order to see a name in public? In popular discourses it appears that the graffiti artist is merely a vandal, an anti-social actor in opposition to the status quo. There is certainly some of that within the broad, worldwide movement of graffiti or street art. However, as an identity, graffiti cannot be so essentialized. Understood through Marx’s concept of alienation, graffiti as an identificatory practice becomes clearer. In an advanced capitalistic society, such as the United States, the extraction of surplus labor, mass production, and the profit motive combine and give rise to subjects alienated from their own labor, and in the conditions of hypercapitalism, labor is life itself. Closed out of viable economies due to racism, lack of education, and other structural barriers, such alienation perhaps quickly leads to abjection. Graffiti arose given these conditions as a means to literally state: I am here, I am alive, look at me! In this case, the subject “give[s] an account…because someone has asked me to, and that someone has power delegated from an established system of justice.” Shut out of the media, many inner-city youth answered the state on the only publicly accessible platforms they could: the walls and subway cars of the city.
Very quickly, though, the state responded with violence, as graffiti is outside of what is considered a productive citizenship. New York City’s Metro Transit Authority (MTA) noticed a decline in ridership. When the MTA conducted surveys to find out why, the most common response was due to the high levels of crime taking place on the subway; in fact, many city residents and other potential riders stated that they thought that most of the crime taking place in the city was happening on the subway. This was not accurate. The presence of graffiti gave the impression that no one was in charge of the city and combined with many other issues the city was forced to act. Graffiti was blamed as creating an atmosphere of anarchy – and graffiti was anthropomorphized, becoming the precursor to the disembodied, subjectless “war on terror” begun after September 11th. The state struck back, erasing graffiti and jailing artists. The battle had begun and offered a new method of subjectivation. The graffiti artist as guerilla fighter was born.
What began as a public petition for recognition is now a right of passage for anti-establishment youth, feeding into the perception of graffiti as vandalism. Regardless, something more was happening. The development of graffiti is often lumped into/with the development of hip hop. However, graffiti has equal origins in both punk and hip hop cultures, which share more than most give credit for. Early crossovers, such as the Beastie Boys (originally a punk band), and collaborations, such as Aerosmith with Run DMC, Onyx with Biohazard, Anthrax with both UTFO and Public Enemy illustrate how closely linked the two cultures were (are?). The “Do It Yourself” (DIY) aesthetic of both punk and hip hop influenced early graffiti. Racial politics, however, cloud the issue; our propensity to reduce graffiti to an African American folk art is troubled when we learn that many of the major artists of the early years were not Black. This common origin, though, is also unsatisfying because many artists claimed no allegiance to either culture, particularly once the art form began to spread around the world. This simply highlights the complexity of the movement and that in our attempts to write histories of it foreclose much of what actually happened. We are lucky that many of the early artists are still alive to give their accounts, but as Butler reminds us, they cannot give complete accounts of themselves or the art.
Public Space, Public Face: Neoliberalism, Globalism, Localism
Given the profusion of graffiti art and artists around the world and the rise to dominance of neoliberal policies governing public space, the penalties for being prosecuted under the law are increasing. What used to be a minor crime now carries with it fines in the thousands of dollars and possible jail time for “repeat offenders” in many cities around the globe. With the stakes so high, graffiti is finding other ways to live. It, and by it I mean to summarize the art world of graffiti into the word graffiti, is finding new avenues, new ways to
…call forth a public which has yet to exist. Here calling forth this public would be part of a process called democracy: since we would reject the reduction of democracy to a mode of governance based upon counting votes, tallying numbers, etcetera… This process of constructing or calling forth or creating a public would also require some struggle, some disagreement… It would require fighting for ground lost and ground which has yet to be imagined. (16Beaver, Down by Numbers, in Art as a Public Issue)
This struggle and disagreement is part of a radical democratic project articulated by Chantal Mouffe. While traditional politics leaves little room for graffiti, agonistic politics offers a site/time for graffiti to participate as citizenship, and the internet is where much of this is now happening.
Much has been said about the internet and its ability to replace traditional public forums. However, replacing public physical space with public virtual space is not very satisfying. We do not yet live our entire lives on-line, regardless of the clarion calls from doom and gloom media pundits yearning for an earlier, simpler time. Every time we go outside, even if it is to make the drive to work, we pass through public space. Reliance on the internet as the sole site to voice dissent and opposition actually plays into neoliberal politics as an easy, violence-free way to diffuse the masses. Having a million people send an email to the White House is still less powerful a statement than having 20,000 people gather on the Mall in the United States capital. Permits are required, and as experience in Seattle (1999), New York (2000 Democratic Convention), and Minneapolis/St. Paul (2008, Rage Against the Machine prevented from playing on stage outside the Republican National Convention, police citing “safety concerns) shows, the permits act to confine popular protest and to justify violent state responses once the terms are exceeded. Commerce is interrupted, which sets off the first domino in a long line that culminates in tear gas and rubber bullets. More and more, graffiti is being understood, at least by its practitioners and admirers, through these conditions.
The 2007 documentary Bomb It highlighted recent trends, while also providing a strong historical backdrop to the movement. Jon Reiss, the producer and director, also focused on the global implications of graffiti as an artistic movement, showcasing global commonalities while simultaneously demonstrating the particular local styles and politics. While graffiti seems to have common elements around the globe, it is clear that graffiti in New York is not the same as graffiti in Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, or Capetown.
In Paris, stenciler Blek le Rat discussed how New York style writing would not fit the Paris architecture, so he helped create a unique Parisian style. This is contradicted from within, though, when Reiss interviews minority/immigrant youth from Paris’ urban exurbs, who take a less artistic view and reiterate the value of graffiti in asserting an identity in an alienating environment. Blek le Rat wants art to serve a social purpose (speaking for) and the anonymous Arab-French youth want to say “fuck you” to the system that others them (speaking from).
Conclusion
As an art form, graffiti is well established and has been since at least the 1980s when Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat ruled the New York City art scene. However, the civic value of graffiti remains contested…sort of. Within the movement it is clear that the motivations of artists are to perform a type of “urban intervention,” while similar thoughts outside the movement are almost nonexistent. We are so wrapped up in neoliberal thought that “common sense” views of property, space (public and private), and the centrality of commerce relegate graffiti to the vandalism dustbin. My project, as I am beginning to conceptualize it, is to conduct field research in order to figure out what exactly it is that graffiti artists are doing, then work on incorporating that into political and educational theory.
An Evil Male.
Sweetheart, I respectfully disagree.
http://thecommodoreis.blogspot.com/2008/11/in-defense-of-walk-mile-in-he...
"Sweetheart"...really?
Did you really call her "sweetheart"? I mean, really? Wow. I also think it's awesome how you totally missed the point of this article. Nice work.
Why So Serious.
It's a polite way of addressing a woman, darling.
Ms. Wallace is unfairly criticizing a non-profit organizations efforts to benefit victims of domestic violence. As she concedes herself in her post, the activists don't claim that, “men will understand all women’s experiences by simply walking in a pair of high heel shoes.” Out of genuine curiosity, short of the men beating themselves, what would be an acceptable form of showing solidarity with victims of domestic violence?
Step back and objectively consider what you (feminists) want the end result to be: An end to domestic violence or another reason to arbitrarily blame men for your own problems?
fool's gold
First of all, cheers on hilariously using what you surely know to be condescending ways of addressing a female. Not even remotely charming. Also, way to use foolish cliche subject lines. I offer you a hearty pat on the back, bud.
Secondly, Kelsey qualifies her criticism several times in recognizing that "the hearts of the people behind this campaign are in the right place," and I think that they definitely are.
But I'll also agree that this campaign is overly lighthearted, inadvertently likening the suffering of domestic violence victims to that of a dude wearing a pair of high heels for a walk down the block. Not the same, says I.
A little fight in you...I like that.
I'll simply ask in very earnest terms:
What is the Feminist Approved way of conducting the Walks? In what way would you prefer these gentlemen execute their campaign?
Seriously, I'm not being rhetorical or facetious.
WTF?
Simply because the walks are organized as a fund raiser doesn't mean they are immune from criticism. While this may be better than a bikini car wash or a wet t-shirt contest at the frat house, it doesn't mean that it's the most non-sexist philanthropic event ever.
I've been asked to coordinate these walks at two different college campuses and at both my answer was the same, why do we have to employ stereotypical femininity (high heels) in order to combat what is essentially a problem with masculinity. And wearing high heels isn't going to make hypermasculinity - rape culture - disappear.
Besides, it doesn't take an idiot to see that many of these men who participate actually do think they are gaining some sort of concrete knowledge about women's experiences by walking a mile in high heel shoes. How utterly stupid. Not only that, but the calendar actually resorts to misrepresentation because in order to ensure that they come off as properly macho, even in high heels, the "models" strike ridiculous poses in ridiculous outfits.
The point of the criticism, it seems, is that there are lines to be drawn around the issue of domestic violence and men can't claim much authority to make fun of it. Particularly not the frat house bunch, who tend to be over-represented in on-campus sexual assault perpetrator cases. Whereas the Vagina Monologues has some very funny moments, it is different because it is a play based on women's words, written by a woman, and performed by women. Men walking around in high heels brings everything down a notch because it plays on stereotypical images of masculinity/femininity, which has everything to do with perpetuating domestic violence, and nothing to do with eradicating it.
And contrary to your own blog posting, the fact that a high heel was (supposedly) invented by a Medici duchess matters little. The use of a shoe to increase stature says a lot about the value we place on height, as well as elongating the leg and so on. The shoe itself is the product of a masculine culture that expects its women to look and act a certain way. And THAT's what's problematic about them, regardless of their popularity within the Sex and the City crowd.
Rock on Kels.
Here's an alternative
How 'bout they just walk a mile in their own shoes? Or do you believe it's necessary to have an absurd gimmick?
Yes...it does need an absurd gimmick. Welcome to Marketing 101.
Thank you. Follow my logic carefully and let us agree to the following:
Our overall goal is to stop sexualized violence against women.
One way to stop sexualized violence against women is to raise awareness and money.
In order to raise awareness and money, people must know about the issue and the fundraising efforts of the campaign.
Unless there is a newsworthy angle on the story, it will not get coverage.
As someone with a background in media, I assure you that men simply walking for a good cause, unfortunately, is not what blood thirsty news outlets are looking for. If you want results in our perverted media environment, you've got to be willing to get your hands dirty and play the game. Otherwise, feminist issues will continue to be the butt of chauvinist comedians jokes and the reason I didn't vote for Hillary.
So choose:
A) Make the men wear something "Feminist Approved" that a large audience won't want to look at, and therefore, won't care.
B) Let these men tactfully do something out of the ordinary that will get attention and will help victims of sexualized violence.
Don't let your animosity towards an imaginary male dominated world hurt the victims of domestic violence. Because that's all you are doing.
Apparently I'm offended by masculinity now...
I love how you've taken my comments and assumed you know enough about me to tell me that I'm offended by masculinity. It says a lot about you and why you might be kind of obsessed with defending this antiquated machismo.
I also love how you've trotted out the typical "Well what's the solution" crap in order to silence objections. I don't need to have a solution in order to voice the fact that I don't like something. It would be kind of like going to a restaurant and commenting on how you don't like their coffee, but not be able to say so because you don't know the name of another coffee distributor to tell the owner. Ridiculous. Sometimes the critique itself is what is needed in order to start the process of change.
I also also love that you've decided to trot out your supposed "background in media" as if that gives you any sort of authority here. Well I'm not going to bow down before the altar of the Commodore and assume you're actually telling the truth. Sheeeeeeet, I'm the f-ing Dalai Lama. Did you buy that? And that's only slightly less credible than your expertise. The double edge to the sword of anonymity. Hell, I have a "background in media" too: I used to write for my college newspaper. Does that qualify me as an expert? How about being a blogger? Or whatever. I'll start to bite on this one when I find out you're employed by CNN.
All that said, I'll play your solutions game. I already mentioned one, the Vagina Monologues. Same issue, much, much better. I know plenty of men involved with V-day, even one or two who have atypically performed at them. Also, there are plenty of other walks, sporting events, etc. etc. etc. that attract large audiences and media that don't rely on stereotyped images of femininity. That doesn't mean they aren't problematic as well, it's just that they're not parading around in heels. (By the way, I love how my choices are narrowed down to banalities as if there were only two options here: yours or the "evil feminist's.") There are countless ways that these men could be helping put an end to DV, and one of the most powerful ways is to 1) have healthy, respectful relationships with the women in their lives, 2) deconstruct their own masculinities and become pro-feminist, gay affirming men who don't have to resort to violence to solve conflict, 3) believe and tell other men that it's ok to judge your masculinity on something other than sexual conquests, quantity of beer chugged, or number of knockout punches thrown.
Speaking as a man, and one born and raised in a violent male culture, I'm pretty sure that I'm not imagining things when I say that men dominate this world. To say the least, I think it's pretty important to take women seriously enough to believe them when they say that this world hasn't been created in their image. To ignore feminism is simply to reify patriarchy. You don't have to buy into all of "their" solutions (as if there is only one feminism), but I think it's kind of impossible to not take feminist criticism seriously. I also think that my standpoint as a male speaking out against these caricatures of femininity that get trotted out to "help the women" actually does more to end DV than to stand by and just let the guys do their thing. So, I certainly won't lose any sleep over you trying to tell me that my voice here is hurting the victims of domestic violence. I'm betting that my years of feminist activism, two years of employment at a campus women's center, and academic work in gender studies has done an awful lot to influence many people around me. I think I'm ok on that front.
To conclude, the point isn't that I'm opposed to masculinity. I'm simply opposed to the kind of masculinity that gets shoved down my throat every day, the kind that makes my loved ones hate themselves because they're gay and constantly told they're not man enough, the kind that makes me worry about the women in my life when they are out late or at a bar. DV is a man's problem, therefore we have MORE responsibility to fight it, and we're not going to do that through vamped up philanthropic events like the Walk a Mile in Her Shoes campaign.
Which is worse?
I attended one of these walks a few years ago and I couldn't help feeling uncomfortable about it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt that way. After reading this, I realize that I felt something was being trivialized and this article did an excellent job articulating the reservations I had about it. I think the people that participate in this event have good intentions, but lack a critical perspective on the implications of the high-heel wearing men. This was in a somewhat small Midwestern city I used to live in and I felt happy that anything was being done to bring attention to women's issues in the public sphere. After my experiences directing The Vagina Monologues in this particular community, I became aware of how conservative the city really is. Are issues that affect women (or any issue really) better off being addressed in an incorrect way or not at all? Which is worse? I'm not entirely sure.