Both Baudrillard and Debord discuss the idea of spectacle or simulacrum, in which some thing that is being viewed is not reality, but rather an interpretation of reality. In these situations, there is no way to know, with certainty, if you are being presented with reality or conceived reality. The spectacle, is something we are constantly engaging in. We ourselves are presented as spectacle when we interact with others; we present ourselves in certain ways to achieve different purposes.
In our capitalist society, everything that involves the selling of any product or services relies on spectacle. Advertising, as a principle, is an extremely biased source of information and is designed to highlight only the good points of the product/service. We participate in the spectacle every time we engage with an ad, whether we believe it or not. Our reactions and interactions fuel the spectacle.
Click link if video doesn't work.
The recent “Real Beauty” campaign by Dove speaks to the falseness of current standards of women’s beauty. One example is their video showing the makeup and digital effects in a typical ad.Though this is an excellent message, Dove is still using it to sell their own products. By aligning themselves with “real” beauty, they are creating a spectacle by exposing another spectacle.
Like the movie “The Matrix”, it is very difficult to separate ourselves from the spectacle, or to even concretely define its boundaries. Perhaps the most important thing for visual artists is to understand the existence of the Spectacle and find ways to use it to our advantage.
Follow the crowd: Tom Vanderbilt on new-model flash mobs
ArtForum, Summer, 2004 by Tom Vanderbilt
Our discussion in class about the Situationist International artists raised the issue of the current trend of the ‘flash mob’. Tom Vanderbilt in his article describes a flash mob as a group of people who communicate via email, agree to meet at a specific location, and perform a set of instructions. These people essentially become spectators for an unsuspecting public. A trend that began in
New York and spread across the globe, flash mobs seem to relate directly to our discussion about the Situationists. In this article about the flash mob, ‘Bill’ (the originator of the first flash mob) says, "It's a spectacle for spectacle's sake--which is silly, but is also, as I've discovered somewhat to my surprise, genuinely transgressive, which is part of its appeal…People feel like there's nothing but order everywhere, and so they love to be a part of just one thing that nobody was expecting." Bill’s comment is in line with our class discussion of finding ways to place a cog in wheel of our social norms. The article discusses the social/legal effects of a crowd mysteriously appearing, acting out an absurd performance, and dispersing within a few minuets. Vanderbilt discusses the potential of the flash mob as a political movement. Can flash mobs be serious activism for the future? This may be unlikely, due to the anonymity of the members of the email network. If anybody can be a part of the network, it becomes possible for ‘authorities’ to infiltrate a potential happening. Still, the flash mob is a product of our contemporary environment and relates to our readings and class discussions.
What are your ideas on the flash mob as 'spectacle'?
Are flash mobs more in common with Situationists ideals of detournement?
By:
Leroy O
Janet M
Adrian V
Michael F
Justin T
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In "HEY LOOK AT ME!" there are a few different examples of 'spectacle' discussed, from how we present ourselves to others in order to create a specific perception or who we are, to advertisements, where the created spectacle is designed to better sell a product or service. These examples seem to suggest that the spectacle as a presented interpretation of reality is used to achieve a predetermined goal.
I'm inclined to think that flash mobs, as spectacle, fall into the same kind of idea. That is to say, I have a hard time believing that flash mobs are spectacle for spectacle sake. I always thought they were more about shock and commenting on societal routine. As "Bill" is quoted as saying in the post '...People feel like there's nothing but order everywhere, and so they love to be a part of just one thing that nobody was expecting.'
I think it will be interesting to see the different ways in which flash mobs are used in the future, what sort of unique ways can this spectacle be put to use?
Posted by T Williams
I agree with T. Williams. Those who take part in flash mobs may say it is a spectacle for spectacle's sake, but then why do they do it? it takes effort and time to be involved, so it can't be for absolutely no reason. The fact that these groups are formed in the first place, I think speaks for itself - they are formed out of boredom with the present routine of society. Whether they admit to congregating for this cause or not, their formation is a strong enough statement. It says that our daily lives have become redundant to the point that senseless acts now make sense to us.
This makes me think of not only the Situationist International artists, but also those belonging to the Fluxus movement. Weren't the "happenings"of Allan Kaprow and the experimental music of John Cage based on similar terms of organized chance? Kaprow's performances in particular, blended the line between audience and performer and subsequently between performance and life. Even though these were supposed to be expressions of frustration with the banality of artistic forms, the concept easily applies to the flash mob's apparent frustration with social structure.
Kaprow would set up a simple (sometimes complicated) set of parameters by which the interactive performance would then take place. The audience's participation/ interaction with the situation presented to them by the artist would be the performance. In the flash mob's case, the parameters are the emails sent out by the orchestrator of the activity and the participating mob members are self-selected from the entire audience of email recipients. When the mob gathers to perform their action, it appears that they errupt out of the general public - the line between flash mob and general public (performer and audience) is blurred in the same way as with the Fluxus performances.
Using these performances to intervene in the banality of our lives is just as much a cause as intervening in the banality of art practice. It's funny how when these subversions take place in "real life" they are dismissed - even by their initiators - as being senseless when they are just as valid. I think there is real potential in groups like these to send real messages, but they have to take themselves seriously before anyone else will.
On "The Fifth Estate" an investigative journalism show on CBC, i saw a segment that relates to Dove's ad campaign.
it was about coffee retailers (like Starbucks) that advertise their use of fair trade coffee (coffee bought at a fair price as opposed to the coffee bought for dirt cheap from farmers living in poverty). The sad thing about it though, is that only 6% of what they use is fair trade. that means 94% of the coffee is not - yet people feel good about buying it because they are led to believe that what they are drinking has been purchased as fair trade.
This is just a marketing ploy, which even worse than dove, not only makes money off of uninformed consumers, but does so while exploiting their coffee farmers.
Have you seen the president's choice commercials advertising the smaller amount of plastic used in their laundry detergent bottles? or the Enterprise car rental commercials that boasts of planting trees? Why are they advertising their "environmental friendliness"? Is it because they really care about the environment? Of course not. It's because they will make money off of consumers who think they do. If we as consumers REALLY wanted to be environmentally conscious we simply wouldn't buy detergent that comes in a plastic container at all! And we simply would take the bus instead of rent the car!
By advertising this way, companies make us feel good about making bad choices. How can we ever make positive changes to our lifestyle if we think we're already doing as much as we can?
Getting educated is nearly impossible if we aren't investigative journalists for a living - they get paid to sift through all the fine print and tell us what's really going on, but most of us simply don't have the time or inclination.
I find it interesting what Jen Konanz brought about companies advertising how they are environmentally aware. Environmentalism is an attractive thing to consumers right now because they want to feel like they’re making a difference to help the planet, but really places like Superstore can’t really be making a dent in the environmental impact we have by encouraging people to buy a few products with a little less packaging, when they could potentially do a considerable amount more to decrease environmental impact.
Companies have to feed off of trends in order to make the consumers feel good when they’re purchasing the product. Right now through media such as Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvienient Truth, and BBC’s Planet Earth, becoming environmentally aware is popular. The image of the company transfers to the consumer when purchasing their produces causing them to become part of that image, no matter how little truth there is to it.
You can at the very least hand it to the consumer that they’re trying to do their part and trying to be smart about their decisions.
Post a Comment