Thursday, February 3, 2011

Graffiti




Photo: Laurel street alley between 10th and Broadway, Vancouver BC

         Since the 1970s graffiti has been associated with ‘urban degeneration’, a spatial scale of economic means (Carrington 2009). In Vancouver graffiti is still very much a marker for the social class of neighborhoods. The difference in pervasiveness of graffiti in the less wealthy communities vs. the more economically endowed parts of the city is clear; even within these larger sections of the city graffiti vs. non graffiti spaces seem to be segregated, for example alleyways vs. busy streets. The more wealthy sections of the city can fund the maintenance and preventative measures (like cameras) in their public space more efficiently than those areas with less funding. Thus inequality is one of the main discourses in and around graffiti. The geography of graffiti in the city reflects imagined communities and their, “challenge [to contemporary] notions of consumption driven public space”(Carrington 2009 and Anderson 1983).
            The definition of ‘graffiti’ is tied into its reputation as the media of the masses and middle class (Riggle 2010 and Carrington 2009). It has been debated widely whether or not graffiti is a form of art or vandalism (Riggle 2010 and Carrington 2009). The article, “Street Art: The Transfiguration of the Commonplaces” by Nicholas Riggle differentiates between ‘graffiti’ and ‘street art’. Street art, “tak[es] art out of the museum gallery and private collection and put[s] it in the stream of everyday life” (Riggle 2010). Whereas, Victoria Carrington uses graffiti as a comprehensive term which includes stickering, stenciling, tagging, throwups, graffiti, street art, bombing, vandalism ect. Riggle on the other hand posits that some graffiti can be considered street art if it meets certain criterion but that street art is not necessarily graffiti (2010). Graffiti is the desecration of public space but does not utilize the space in the way that street art does, Riggle sort of elevates certain forms of graffiti in an attempt to legitimize it as a public art form and disconnect it from its label of ‘vandalism’.
         Art is largely perceived as ordained by the mainstream and popular media; authenticated by its presence in museums and galleries (Carrington 2009 and Riggle 2010). Museums house art that is expensive to make and to see, viewed most frequently by the upper and middle classes and the pieces themselves are chosen by the same (Riggle 2010). In galleries art enjoys the protection of social norms and the law, as well as displaying the authorship of the artist, street artists give up the right to their work as well as the recognition and possibility of monetary gain (Riggle 2010). According to Riggle, a graffiti artist who sells his/her art is no longer deemed a graffiti artist by the graffiti community, but a sellout to the commercial industry (2010). Personally, I still really like commissioned graffiti and don’t agree that this should be the case. I like the idea of art available to the public for free and the reclaiming of the public space by the public.
         As long as the work is done in a public space graffiti and street art remain blurred (Riggle 2010). I disagree with vandalism, however the criterion differentiation vandalism from graffiti and art is unclear. The difference between graffiti and vandalism is that graffiti is done on public space whereas vandalism is done on private space (Riggle 2010). The definition blurs when one takes into consideration space owned by large corporations like billboards as opposed to the city, the public. In this capitalist society urban space has become a valued commodity and a dynamic canvas for both sanctioned and non-sanctioned graffiti (being advertisements) to express ideas and communicate within imagined communities (Anderson 1983 and Carrington 2009).
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict 
                      1983. Imagined Communities, Pp. 9-46. London, New York: Verso.
Carrington, Victoria
2009. I Write, Therefore I Am: Texts in the City. Visual Communication. 8:409. Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies, University of South Australia.
Mazarella, William
              2004. Culture, Globalization, Mediation. Annual Review of Anthropology 33:345-367.
Riggle, Nicholas Alden
2010. Street Art: The Transfiguration of the Commonplaces. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 68:3. The American Society for Aesthetics.

links:
http://www.blublu.org/

Jai Ho

  
According to Walter Benjamin’s definition of an object’s “aura” as, “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art” the authenticity of the piece in relation to life history and context legitimizes the piece’s aura (Benjamin, 1936). Therefore, from Benjamin’s point of view films themselves lack “aura” due to the fragmentation and process of filming and editing as well as the disconnect between actor and viewer as compared to theater (Benjamin, 1936). Likewise, I don’t think that any of the Jai Ho videos have and “aura” in this sense; technology mediates the experience of the viewer and thus the experience is not authentic (Benjamin, 1936).
Benjamin maintains that a reproduction detaches the object from tradition and the authority of life history and tradition is what gives the “aura” authenticity (Benjamin, 1936). The dance sequence itself could be authenticated and thus have an “aura” through its own context and history (Benjamin, 1936). However, since it’s not a Bollywood movie it is a mere adaptation of a Bollywood musical genre and thus lacks authenticity and “aura”.
If “aura” could be allocated in various degrees than the Jai Ho from the film would have a higher “aura” in comparison to the youtube productions, but the fact of reproduction in “youtube” take the dance/song out of its context and thus none of the versions have “aura”. They are vapid reproductions, especially in relation to the “Pussycat Dolls Jai Ho” version in which the background story is completely different and the video is much more sexualized Americanized to capitalist ends.
         In spite of their lack of “aura” the other versions of “Jai Ho” reminded me of Geertz’s concept of “blurring of cultures”(Moore, 1999). The dances portray a hybrid of Western and Bollywood music videos incorporating both. In Arjun Appaduri’s article, “Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational Anthropology” he describes a de-territorialization of culture largely due to media and globalization (1996). Putting Jai Ho at the end of this movie that focused on some of the most impoverished people in India reminded me of Appaduri’s point that, “…even the meanest and most hopeless of lives, the most brutal and dehumanizing of circumstances, the harshest of lived inequalities are now open to the play of the imagination”(1996). The film portrays the link between imagination, media, globalization and de-territorialization which have become integral to everyone’s social lives connecting the viewer on perhaps a less visceral, but no less important level than “aura”.  



Links:

Official YouTube version of Jai Ho from the end of the movie “Slumdog Millionaire”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRC4QrUwo9o
Pussycat Dolls Jai Ho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc5OyXmHD0w
Slumdog Millionaire Dance Jai Ho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7AuQKFlhXI
Karan Khokar and Divya Ikara- Jai Ho Dance - Tamil Sneham - Tampa, Florida
Bibliography
Appadurai, Arjun
1996. Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational Anthropology. In Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Pp. 48-65. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. 


Benjamin, Walter
1936. The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility. In Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, Volume 3: 1935-1938. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Moore, Henrietta L.
1999. Anthropological theory at the turn of the century. In Anthropological Theory Today. Henrietta L. Moore, ed. Pp. 1-23. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

 

Globalization, Media and Culture






William Mazarella takes us through a short genealogy of anthropology after the introduction of the concept of globalization and he show how anthropology of media has been impacted and forced to reconstruct notions about culture and “authenticity”. He discusses mediation in relation to globalization and how the anthropology of media has changed with globalization. As well as, the process of mediation in regards to the construction of culture, the way we are now able to imagine it and then represent it to ourselves. Mazarella notes the way different form of media can limit or facilitate the spread of information, ideas and culture. He addresses in more detail the way in which media is flexible depending on the type duration (eg. Difference between and ad and a full length film) medium (tv, radio, census, press ect…).
Mazarella also notes the way that anthropological studies of media and globalization have been portrayed as stripping away the  “authenticity of culture”. Media is thus implicated in the creation of homogeneity via. globalization. When in fact globalization has increased emphasis on the “local” and thus the conservation of heterogeneity. Mazarella and Appaduri both address the reason for anthropologist’s fear of “Mc. World-style homogenization” stems from colonialism and “cultural imperialism”. I really like Mazarella’s image of a“Mc.World” and that this hasn’t come to pass in the wake of globalization. I wish Mazarella had focused a bit more on the adaptive strategies and appropriations of characteristics and aspects of mediation and globalization among cultures. His argument reminds me of the book, “Materializing the nation : commodities, consumption, and media in Papua New Guinea” by Robert Foster. Foster analyzes the way the media has been a large part of the contemporary notions of the “nation” in Papua New Guinea, in which there are so many separate cultures. It is also reminiscent of Benedict Anderson's concept of "Imagined communities" which are largely created and reinforced through media. An  example of an "imagined community" created by the media, is the "nation" and is the most directly related to media in relation to the Olympics' emphasis on unity apparent in most forms of media in 2010.
I agree with Mazarella that media and globalization go hand in hand and together are responsible for the high rate of cultural hybridity and change that has become the norm. I also agree with his deduction that cultural change and globalization has not yet led to homogenization and has on the contrary been utilized as a self-reflection. I think that his points would have been stronger had he given more examples in his article of the way in which cultures have  appropriated aspects of each other and adapted/changed without losing their “authenticity”.

Bibliography
Mazarella, William
         2004. Culture, Globalization, Mediation. Annual Review of Anthropology 33:345-367.
        Anderson, Benedict 
         1983. Imagined Communities, Pp. 9-46. London, New York: Verso.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Haiti


photo

By Shelterboxuk Tommy Tonkins This photo was taken on January 11, 2011. This photo belongs to shelterboxuk's photostream


To the extent that media has promoted humanitarian aid in Haiti, it has played a role in the “creation of the conditions” that have led to the cholera epidemic. In the most literal sense, since cholera has not been present in Haiti for a substantial amount of time, it has been posited that humanitarian aid re-introduced cholera to Haiti. The media coverage of the earthquake and aftermath inspired the international humanitarian action, however it is a hypocritical situation in the sense that the cholera epidemic was ameliorated due to sympathy inspired by the media coverage and resulting aid. One must always bear in mind that the media is not objective and it will always be influenced by the, “agents, aesthetics, politics, and economics” (Askew). If there were no media coverage in the first place Haiti would probably be in an extreme situation even without the introduction of cholera, due to their extenuating circumstances (extreme poverty and political corruption). So although media played a complicit role in the creation of conditions under which the cholera epidemic occurred the benefits of the humanitarian aid could be said to outweigh the disaster that is the cholera epidemic. 
According to the article, "Alms Dealers" by Philip Gourevich, media brings attention to human suffering instigating the implementation of humanitarian aid projects. This aid contributes to the perpetuation of war and conflict via. humanitarian relief and financial relief for the government. Florence Nightingale points out that, “by easing the burden on war ministries…volunteer efforts could simply make waging war more attractive, and more probable”( Gourevitch). Gourevich argues that governments as well as rebel factions in the past have escalated violence against civilians in order to draw the attention of the international community and receive aid. However, he differentiates between aid to victims of wars and aid to victims of natural disasters. In the case of natural disasters there are fewer possibilities of escalating violence parallel to aiding victims (Gourevitch). Therefore, even if you can’t provide aid without facilitating conflicts during a wartime it may still be possible to provide aid during the aftermath of a natural disaster since the worst it will get is generally right after and it can theoretically only get better. The cholera epidemic may have been ignited by the U.N., but it was exacerbated largely because Haiti is one of the poorest nations and was unprepared to deal with the first let alone the second natural disaster, the hurricane and subsequent flooding. The cholera epidemic shows how aid may have been detrimental in this situation and in a round-about way also then the media coverage that promoted humanitarian conditions that led to cholera. One could say that if humanitarian aid was not there in the beginning then the cholera epidemic would not have happened, but the lives lost to cholera have not yet outnumbered the lives saved in the aftermath of the earthquake. 
I agree with Florence Nightingale that humanitarian aid in regards to wars may not be in the best interest of the receiving persons, but I do think that in the instance of natural disasters in which the government or politics are not the cause, humanitarian aid is beneficial. All of the examples in the article were in instances of war and rebel fighting in which the funding and aid perpetuated the war for a longer amount of time and caused more damage. In times of natural disaster the peak of the damage is the immediate aftermath after which conditions can only be made better. It has not been resolved whether or not the aid purveyors actually brought cholera or not. 



Bibliography 


Askew, Kelly
2002 Introduction, In The Anthropology of Media: A Reader, Kelly Askew and Richard Wilk eds. Pp. 1-13. Malden Mass, Oxford: Blackwell.
Gourevitch, Philip
2010 Alms Dealers. The New Yorker. Oct 11, 2010, 102-109.


Related links:
              http://www.haitiregeneration.org/home
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9123000/9123062.stm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelterboxuk/5348371833/in/photostream/