culture jamming.
"culture jamming" is kind of silly. and i kind of hate adbusters. the two are closely associated in my mind. i can't really explain why, i just have this aversion to its pretentious, all-commodities-are-evil, hipster-socialist attitude. and the fact that it's a ridiculously expensive, glossy, prettied-up magazine that thinks it's so much better than all the other magazines just because it doesn't have any ads.
sorry, adbusters, but harper's is a hell of a lot better publication in terms of content, and they've got ads, and they're about the same price. lewis lapham totally outdoes naomi klein in almost every way. and vice is cooler, funnier, and free, albeit with some rather more superficial content. but the whole idea of rejection of ads in and of themselves is just knee-jerk and silly. it's like the hippie kid who refuses blindly to wear anything branded or listen to anything popular - it's just a subculture of blind obedience like any other one. even as adbusters decries the sheeplike consumerism of the masses, it pretends that there's something significantly different about sheeplike anticonsumerism. action without critical thought is ridiculous, no matter what side of the political spectrum it falls on.
that's why i thought it was kind of funny in class today hearing a quote from naomi klein about how it undermines the ability of culture jammers to 'jam culture' when the corporate media co-opt their media. sure, it's annoying when GM pays graff artists to do a giant tag of a Hummer on a wall... but it's equally annoying when pretentious left-wing types try to label, quantify, and exploit the influence of underground or alternative media for their own political goals.
the most annoying thing, i think, about adbusters and naomi klein, is that they're so very similar to corporate 'cool hunters.' graffiti, tattooing, and any alternative, radical, underground modes of communication are 'cool' when they're products of individual inspiration and ingenuity, and expressions of individual thoughts, ideologies, and beliefs. when these modes of communication are hijacked for institutional goals, whether it's a corporation or an 'anti-corporation' like adbusters, they immediately take on an aura of implausibility. my generation is the most media-literate generation ever. and while many of us are pretty ignorant of how our consent is manufactured on a daily basis, the vast majority of us can immediately tell the difference between inspiration and exploitation. so, i've got no problem with 'culture jamming' when it takes the form of an individual's political statements and artistic ingenuity (like banksy ... oh i love banksy!). but when it's an institutionalized campaign, homogenized, committee-ized, and mass-produced... it just rings hollow for me.
maybe things have to be mass-produced for a mass audience to take notice. it's hard to make an impact in a media-saturated society. but if it means that underground media have to be xeroxed and bureaucratized to infinity... i'd rather have something interesting that i can enjoy, than something bland that the whole world can notice and throw away fifteen minutes later.
sorry, adbusters, but harper's is a hell of a lot better publication in terms of content, and they've got ads, and they're about the same price. lewis lapham totally outdoes naomi klein in almost every way. and vice is cooler, funnier, and free, albeit with some rather more superficial content. but the whole idea of rejection of ads in and of themselves is just knee-jerk and silly. it's like the hippie kid who refuses blindly to wear anything branded or listen to anything popular - it's just a subculture of blind obedience like any other one. even as adbusters decries the sheeplike consumerism of the masses, it pretends that there's something significantly different about sheeplike anticonsumerism. action without critical thought is ridiculous, no matter what side of the political spectrum it falls on.
that's why i thought it was kind of funny in class today hearing a quote from naomi klein about how it undermines the ability of culture jammers to 'jam culture' when the corporate media co-opt their media. sure, it's annoying when GM pays graff artists to do a giant tag of a Hummer on a wall... but it's equally annoying when pretentious left-wing types try to label, quantify, and exploit the influence of underground or alternative media for their own political goals.
the most annoying thing, i think, about adbusters and naomi klein, is that they're so very similar to corporate 'cool hunters.' graffiti, tattooing, and any alternative, radical, underground modes of communication are 'cool' when they're products of individual inspiration and ingenuity, and expressions of individual thoughts, ideologies, and beliefs. when these modes of communication are hijacked for institutional goals, whether it's a corporation or an 'anti-corporation' like adbusters, they immediately take on an aura of implausibility. my generation is the most media-literate generation ever. and while many of us are pretty ignorant of how our consent is manufactured on a daily basis, the vast majority of us can immediately tell the difference between inspiration and exploitation. so, i've got no problem with 'culture jamming' when it takes the form of an individual's political statements and artistic ingenuity (like banksy ... oh i love banksy!). but when it's an institutionalized campaign, homogenized, committee-ized, and mass-produced... it just rings hollow for me.
maybe things have to be mass-produced for a mass audience to take notice. it's hard to make an impact in a media-saturated society. but if it means that underground media have to be xeroxed and bureaucratized to infinity... i'd rather have something interesting that i can enjoy, than something bland that the whole world can notice and throw away fifteen minutes later.
posted by ali at 4:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home