Response to Harold

I think that the tactics used by Adbusters are effective in that they are spreading the message that ad campaigns are shallow and pointless, with their only agenda being to promote consumption of products. I agree that with increased popularity and sales, Adbusters has sold out to the corporate agenda and the processes of greed that plague humanity. Although they have 'sold out', it depends on what they do with the profits made by selling the shoes and stock. If Adbusters uses the increase in resources to continue their grassroots campaign, then they are being effective in spreading the message of anti- ad campaigning and could use the resources to further their message of anti-corporate greed. (Sorry for using a binary here) On the other hand, if Adbusters uses their increased revenue to further bad social realities such as the beauty industrial complex, they could be defined as part of the problem that advertising creates.

Presentation: "Pranking Rhetoric" by Christine Harold

I thought this article was really interesting – it made me snigger aloud in the library, which is never really the done thing, is it? If any of you didn't get round to reading it at all/properly, I urge that you go back and work your way through - it's worth it. Christine Harold provides us with a fairly comprehensive introduction to the ideas behind culture jamming and, more precisely, ‘pranking’. She details some of the major figureheads within this scene over the years, such as ®™ark, BBB and the INFKT Truth campaign, listing the notable achievements they have to their name. She also looks to the past for an overview of the movement, its origins and roots of influence that have led to its current inception. I thought this was a valuable inclusion on her part: it is important to acknowledge the influence of groups such as the Situationist International in the modern day work of these activists.

I felt this article could have focused a little more on the politics behind the action - she touches on why they are carrying out these campaigns, but I thought more time could be spent on what the greater issues are. It was interesting to understand why they adopted the various techniques they did, as well as the methods they employ to manipulate te media and therfore retain a sense of power withint he situation. Whilst the media represents a lot of the issues they have a problem with, they recognise the need to work with them in order to spread the message. Perhaps this can be considered a clever reclaiming of an insitution they so vocally disagree with.

I had some thoughts that cropped up as I read the piece, but was concerned about floating off-topic on one of my infamous tangents (I figure you can get away with that a whole lot more in a verbal discussion). I’ll try to stick to the main crux of the issues, but if anyone has ideas that I haven’t mentioned, please throw them in because I thought this article had things to say on a lot of levels.

a) How did you feel about the INFKT campaign? Do you think it’s unusual for a youth antismoking campaign to succeed (I do) and if it did to a certain degree, as Harold suggests, what factors do you think contributed to this?

b) This is possibly where I digress, but it didn’t sit very well with me that they were consciously pushing a product and the correlative reduction in anti-advertising rhetoric on their website. Don’t get me wrong: I actually really liked the shoes and wanted a pair – I get how they do fit with Adbuster’s work, but similarly, their adverts worked and that didn’t quite sit well with me. Have they become their own enemy here? Talk of relocating the site of manufacture (heavens forbid I use the term ‘factory’) to China. They are selling significant levels of stock: is there a degree of compromise and ‘selling out’ from your radical, grassroots ethics that becomes associated with success?

c) Pranking is portrayed as a more ‘playful’ form of subversive action - how do you think it measures up against the traditional culture jamming? More/less effective?

On a final note, here’s a link you all might enjoy, based on the tute's responses when asked what your favourite website was.

Presentation: Poster, M. (2004) ‘Consumption and Digital Commodities in the Everyday’.

Poster, M. (2004) ‘Consumption and Digital Commodities in the Everyday’. Cultural Studies 18, 2/3, 409-423.

Hello bloggers! Below is my presentation for this week, any problems/misunderstandings just let me know? If not, happy blogging and I look forward to reading your comments xx

Poster begins by detailing the inescapability from perpetual advertising and the pressures to consume, within contemporary society. He is evidently not in favour of the omnipotent presence of consumption. According to Poster advertising (as the vehicle of consumption) infiltrates into our homes, our work environment, in fact every aspect of our lives. It can be identified that consumption blurs the boundaries between public and private spheres which is an indication of its strength and importance within present society.

Continuing with the theme of binaries, Poster discusses how there has been a division between the consumption/production binary which highlights a ‘unique type of human action’ created by consumption. Different people consume in varying ways and all consumption patterns are subject to change over time thus Poster argues that if one was to identify common features within consumption then it would be possible to label such a practice as a cultural construct with set patterns. This would then possibly refute the notion of individualism which is closely linked in with consumption.

There is discussion upon postmodern consumption patterns and according to Poster the onus is on ‘multiplicity’. Modern consumption was laden with fixed ideas whereas postmodern consumption allows for diversity and change. Poster argues that consumer culture no longer trickles down from the upper echelons of society but in fact climbs up from the lower classes. However a contradiction to this argument is the notion of celebrities setting trends and encouraging consumption. Wealthy celebrities continue to influence the lower classes in society who in turn often strive to imitate them; thus I am not entirely convinced that there is now a climbing up as opposed to a trickling down within consumer culture. An additional disparity between modern and postmodern consumption is that within the former products represented status whereas in the latter period products express one’s identity. Consumption is thus part of self-construction. For more details upon consumerism within postmodernity and liquidity in terms of identity see Zygmunt Bauman.

The final subheading within the article is titled ‘Digital Media and Consumption’. According to Poster digital media transforms both the cultural object and the subject position of the consumer i.e. the cultural object is open for recreation and in turn makes the consumer the creator (e.g. several different audio sources can be merged and altered by the consumer to create a new audio). However Poster also details how there are numerous elements in place to restrict such creation of the consumer and there is a desire to create a ‘pay per use’ digital culture.

Poster concludes the article with suggesting how consumers are expressing resistance to consumer capitalism. With the cultural object as digitised it is possible for the consumer to ignore it via different means. E.g. adverts on TV can be avoided by changing channels or muting the sound. Additionally the development of digital TV recorders enables the user to select automatic elimination of commercials. Thus there are options available in contemporary society to avoid the bombardment of the consumer culture. However Poster suggests that capitalism always has alternative techniques to ‘sustain the market culture’. What do you think....?

Discussion points:

*In contemporary society, can an individual be economically/politically/socially successful without being an active consumer?

*Are consumers merely passive dupes or active agents?

*Consumption is closely linked to femininity as females are placed on the passive side of the passive/active binary. What are your views upon such a connection?

*Do you agree that the consumer becomes creator in the digitized world or are there too many prevention mechanisms in place?

*Is it possible to ever be completely free from the pressures of consumer society or is society too heavily laden with images/texts of consumption?