It has a variety of content, in standard format of presentation, click, subscribe:
* Magazine of various submissions, articles, opinion pieces, art and poetry. Some emotive, some research-based. Some excerpts available for free, subscribe and pay for the rest.
* Articles on side: calls for sexual liberation, critiques on gender inequality, “consumerism is the new patriarchy. the beauty industry is the beast,” criticism of clicktivism (online activism) as being watered down in pursuit of list quantity, experiences of economics students and professors.
* Links to running campaigns, eg. buy nothing day.
* Products for sale - blackspot shoes, remotes for turning off public TVs
It proposes a variety of alternative options:
* buy more ethically (grassroots capitalism)
* curriculum change in universities (education)
* true-cost pricing (regulation)
* buy nothing for a day (anti-consumerist separatism)
* community engagement (word of mouth)
* graffiti/blocking of advertising (civil disobedience)
AB uncritically embeds itself in the narrative of other cultural revolutions such as feminism and civil rights, using the tools of mass media and marketing, in order to reach its audience. It claims to be changing the way information flows, but is arguably not actually providing content in an innovative way.
Questions for this weeks tute (co-developed with Jeremy Hill):
* What is the aim of culture jamming?
Does pranking work to achieve these aims?
* Nealon contends that pranking neglects the importance of reinscribing oppositions into a larger textual field, and perpetuates the rhetorical binary. Do you agree?
Can you imagine an effective form of anti-consumerism resistance?
* Which of the adbusters campaigns did you think was most effective?
Eg digital detox week, buy nothing day
* AB works on a pretty recognizable distribution and content production model. So what, if anything, are they changing?
* Do viewers and distributors of pranks, alternative media and parody actually want change, or is it just entertaining?
* Can we compare these pranksters to comedians like The Chaser's Craig Reucastle, Gruen Transfer's Wil Anderson and The Comedy Channel's Jon Stewart?
* Skaggs:
- hook: do the performance
- line: document the miscommunication
- sinker: talk about the serious issues underlying the performance
How are pranksters reliant on the main stream media?
Does this lessen the impact/value/project of their pranks?
* Skaggs: “You’re already being pranked everyday. If you think I’m the prankster, you are sadly mistaken ”
Do people feel that they are being pranked (taken advantage of, hoodwinked, folded) everyday?
Is the impact of mainstream media and advertising different to that of a hoax?
Just a few quick thoughts:
ReplyDeleteI would definitely class The Chaser as culture jammers, because they go out there at actually disrupt the society, whereas Wil Anderson simply sits behind his desk and critiques advertising. I feel like they are different because it is easy enough to avoid his beliefs if you want to; you just don't watch the show. But with something like The Chaser, there is that element that you could become involved in their acts just because you never really knew where they were or what they'd do. And the '10 Questions' segment was very similar to the pieing, because they would go to an organised public event and disrupt it. I remember when Julian Morrow went and asked Sofia Loren the 10 questions, and she had NO idea what was going on, and she did not handle it well. So they sort of give us an insight to what these people are like on the back foot.
And yes, I do always feel like someone is tricking me. I'm pretty sure this paranoia (or maybe appropriate state of viewing the world) started when I started uni. Having to think critically about things has made me not believe things anymore. But at the same time, when I am just bumming around, not trying to be intellectual, I am still as gullible as I ever was!! So for me, being hoodwinked can only be kept away by being very focused. Sadly, that doesn't happen very much... And my first thought for the question '
Is the impact of mainstream media and advertising different to that of a hoax?
Was Of course it's different! (This is my gullibility coming out again...) Then I thought about it, and the impact is the same! We are being manipulated for a certain, specific reason. Same, same, but different. The reasons may be different, but the impact is the same.
I always feel dismayed when I've been led to believe something that isn't true. Especially when I've repeated it to someone else.
ReplyDeleteI do have some respect for people who at least 'fess up later before they're proved liars, as opposed to lies used by politicians for re-election (children overboard) or war (WMD in Iraq), which I definitely consider much worse than pranksters.