A group of musicians/visual artists called Negativland are said to have coined the term "culture jamming" in the 1980's.
Culture Jamming is a practice in which activists subvert mainstream cultural icons as a form of social commentary. A lot of these efforts seek to reclaim public spaces.
Over the years Negativland's "illegal" collage and appropriation based audio and visual works have touched on many things - pranks, media hoaxes, advertising, media literacy, the evolving art of collage, the bizarre banality of suburban existence, creative anti-corporate activism in a media saturated multi-national world, file sharing, intellectual property issues, wacky surrealism, evolving notions of art and ownership and law in a digital age, and artistic and humorous observations of mass media and mass culture (from negativland.com).
Here is a famous piece from Negativland entitled Gimme the Mermaid. In this piece,music and images from Disney's The Little Mermaid are juxtaposed with dialogue from a phone conversation and the song Gimme gimme gimme by the punk band Black Flag.
Ron English
Self described "popaganda" artist Ron English likes to make waves. His work provides a constant flow of social commentary. English makes controversial art in the studio and as graffiti. Frequently English (illegally) commandeers a pre-existing billboard as his canvas. Here is an example in which English "borrows" not only a billboard, but also the materials and style of Pablo Picasso's Guernica.
English's work frequently uses humor
to dampen (or sometimes exacerbate)
the controversial aspects of his work.
What is English trying to say in this piece entitled "cloud?"
Tell us what you think about these pieces.
Are they offensive? Stupid? Profound?
Take the polls!
That first video made me laugh but was about 4 minutes too long. As far as Ron English is concerned, I feel that it is important that he shares his "art" because it challenges us to think about mainstream culture and some things that maybe society should not be so quick to accept. At the same time I have no appreciation for the kids that scribble their graffiti on the ditch.
ReplyDeleteI guess I understand that the video might be long for some. Hang in there though. Its worth it.
ReplyDeleteAppropriation is a sticky, and often ire inspiring, subject for anyone whose mainstay is intellectual property; where remaining in control of your work, and its subsequent uses, equates directly into real world value and monetary compensation. There is nothing more infuriating than having someone else profit off your hard work, unless perhaps they are using your hard work in complete and utter opposition to your original design. That fact stated, there is something to be said for the concept of imitation being the highest form of flattery, and not only flattery but marketing. Take for example the recent hubbub involving The North Face’s lawsuit of The South Butt. Yes, it is hilarious that anyone would take the logo of a snooty line of outdoor clothing, flip it upside down, and add the word “butt” to it. But it is also hilarious that The North Face company didn’t see The South Butt as an opportunity for a subtle form of subversive advertisement. It is nearly impossible to see either logo without relating it to the principle and largely more popular The North Face brand, so any apparel put out by the alleged usurper would be as good as a piece of clothing from the original, as far as brand recognition goes.
ReplyDeleteIn this age of information overload, and iconic images, music, and words already ingrained into the collective psyche it is hard to consider any use of a less known intellectual property as troublesome. As any misbehaving youth understands, any attention is good attention and that is especially true if the additional attention broadens the audience that your were able to attract on your works own merit. Sure, intellectual property should continue to be protected by law since artists of all types need to know they continue to create in relative safety. Plus, if everything was free use, there would be no additional free marketing provided by press coverage of intellectual property lawsuits.
I am not a fan of the appropriation of the billboards for the same reason I am not a fan of graffiti. I think I would feel differently if he paid for use of the billboard space, but in my mind it is just wrong to take it.
ReplyDeleteI think the "Clouds" piece is funny in a "This is not a Pipe" sort of way.
I see what you are saying, but in this case, it IS a cloud.
ReplyDeleteYes it is in a sense, but it is not a natural cloud. Magritte's "This is not a Pipe" was a pipe too, just not a three dimensional one. I think the philosophical challenge of this and other works is to ask yourself what defines the object.
ReplyDeleteAnother great example of a work like this is "One and Three Chairs" by Joseph Kosuth.
Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteI dont support Ron English taking over someones billboards. I mean one man doing it is just kind of quirky and we call it art or propaganda. But what if it was more like 50 people in one town doing the same thing. Take Tyler Texas for example. what if 50 people started taking over billboards in Tyler. Each doing one every few months. They would soon run out and might move to other spaces. What about plastering over a stores sign with "Propaganda." Would we allow that? It sounds great for individuals but has not place in society as a whole and therefor should have no place in society.
ReplyDeleteThe cloud piece was rather intriguing. I thought of all those times I have looked up into the sky and said that cloud looks like a bunny or a bird or whatever. But to look up and see a "cloud" spell out cloud is awesome. What do you say. That cloud is a cloud. I mean is it a cloud? really. It says it, its in the sky, its some vaporized molecule. But is it a cloud? It seems to think it is. Its telling you it is. awesome:)
Thanks for the thought provoking post