So, we are going to take two or three songs that have been popular in the past year and recreate them in a genre different from the one they are in originally. This will most likely be an acoustic folk redo and a spoken word/poem version of the lyrics of a song. Our audience will be college aged students, as we are planning to perform at an open mic night either on campus or in a coffee shop near campus. We are anticipating that the audience will react more negatively to the content of these songs when they are actually focusing on the lyrics instead of other things which normally distract from the lyrics. Before we perform we will not alert the audience to what we are doing but afterwards we will pass around a brief survey to record their reactions. We are also planning to record the performance to show in class.

Our timeline is to have the songs chosen and a changed version prepared for performance by February 25^th, we will also have the survey prepared by this date. By March 9^th we will have performed the songs and recorded it as well as compiled the reactions gathered by our survey.

Tara Kennedy, Michael Lackos, Bobby Kelm, Ashley Pearce, and Ashley Jostes

I was thinking to show this I could find old clips from tv, like the Cosby show and stuff and contrast it with current shows, or maybe just still shots. I could also look for songs by ” child” stars from different decades.

To spread the message I could post it on youtube and then also put a link to that on my facebook. I would also try to share it with my family, most of whom have young children.

Social censorship is probably the most prevalent kind. There are so many things which are socially taboo or unacceptable and because of that they are simply not included in media. Social norms determine the way everything is done, we just don’t actively think about. However, this is not officially censorship. There is no direct pressure from one source, it’s just that social norms are ingrained in all of us so certain things just aren’t said or done.

As far as the MPAA goes I think their style of censorship although arbitrary and ineffective is not really a danger to our rights or artistic freedom. The most negative thing is that if someone wants their film to receive a certain rating they may be pressured to remove some content which they may want to keep in their film. Even though no one is forcing them to remove the material it is part of playing the game, unfortunately. I do feel this makes for some difficulty in artistic choices and integrity at times. So, once again this isn’t official censorship past the point which they give ratings but it does have a large influence.

Corporate censorship is probably the biggest problem. Even though this also is not official censorship it is very powerful and prevalent. When an editor or owner of a paper or other news outlet has an agenda and someone may want to cover a story that would go against their stance or bias they would not be allowed to. By stopping a journalist from reporting on any news story they see as relevant and important corporations and news media are committing censorship of the worst kind.

I don’t know that I really have any “hot button” issues. I tend to be defensive of things geared toward children because I have two younger sisters. I feel like the way children are portrayed in media today puts a lot of pressure on kids to grow up too quickly. Even shows on the Disney channel have 11 to 12 year old kids acting like they’re 16 or 17, not only does this provide a bad example for younger kids it also puts pressure on them to conform to these ridiculous trends and expectations.

2.Between the default strategy described on page 128 and the media literacy strategy described on page 129 which do you honestly feel you subscribe to? Do you seek more than minimal satisfaction from media exposure? How would more people choosing the media literacy strategy change the economic game of media?

3.Considering the fact that a small number of corporations own almost all of our media outlets, would you say monopolies are still in existence? Does this new horizontal integration really keep the playing field level as opposed to vertical integration?

For the question, “Is the use of copyrighted work in a new work a fair use?” I have mixed feelings. This really depends on the specifications of the “new” work. It also depends on if and how much of a profit this new work is bringing whomever created it. I feel using an entire piece of something else and claiming it as an original part of your work, even if it is “fair” is kind of cheap. But even there, this depends on how much of the old copyrighted thing you are using. It just goes to show the whole area is very grey. Taking something already in existence and using it in a new art can be completely original or it can be like Vanilla Ice all over again. It really depends on the artistic integrity of the artist and whether they give appropriate credit or profits to the other person who created something they are using.

The question, “How effective is the Radio Head pay as you want method of electronic distribution? Has anyone else found success in this method?” is interesting to me. I feel this method is actually quite effective. As someone pointed out,  CD sales contribute a fairly small amount to the income of a band. So, offering it for free or at a lower price on a website is going to get more people to listen to it and share it with friends. The more people who like their new cd and actively listen to it the more people will be buying their other products. Also, it is nice to think that a band can simply care about their art getting to people who want it rather than profits. Another “band” that used this is Girl Talk. Now Girl Talk is extremely relevant to this discussion because all he does is take other people’s music and remix it together. Then he sells it. A lot of people think this is not art, he is not creating anything new. However, I think it takes skill to put such diverse song pieces together to create a cohesive whole using them all. A lot of people also think he is a lawsuit waiting to happen because he doesn’t bother to get any licenses or permission to use the songs. he uses such small clips I think he might be able to get around copyright laws. Also, using the pay as you go system indicates that he isn’t really making a profit, he enjoys doing it. However, judging by his rising popularity and ability to sell out a concert at the Congress Theatre and subsequently have the tickets sold for $100 on Craigslist I would say Yes, the pay as you go method is pretty effective and appealing to the audience. 

I think electronic distribution is defintiely beneficial for artists. It is so much easier to get art and music to an uncountable number of people. Without electronic distribution it would a lot harder to reach such large and diverse fan bases. I think any money they might lose on cd sales is compensated for by how many people can be reached. 

The news project was definitely interesting in some ways. Like we mentioned in class we saw that a company can own a different companies TV stations, which still doesn’t make sense to me but is good to know. I knew that everything would be interconnected because I’ve learned about media conglomerates in several of my classes. One unexpected thing was that I didn’t really realize the Tribune company had a conservative slant, I really had no idea. Also, I’ve never thought about the fact that media corporations approach Chicago readers in a different way than other areas. It makes sense and seems kind of obvious, I just had never thought about it particularly.

The texts have all been pretty different but I think they all point out that we shouldn’t take the media barrage of modern culture passively. Culture Jammers gave examples of how to react against media in an active way while the textbook reading pointed out how much media is truly around us and some of its possible effects. The article “News Blues” showed that media tends to dramatize and be negative, although sometimes it should. I think all of our readings have been useful because of that common trait. You never really notice what is all around you but you’re still subconsciously consuming it.  I feel like actively taking notice is a bit better because then you can at least make the choice to reject it instead of absorbing it mindlessly.

I decided to look into the story of Obama’s executive order to close Guantanamo Bay within a year. I used three different sources NPR, BBC News, and the Chicago Tribune (actual print copy).

The Tribune article addressed not only Guantanamo but also Obama’s executive order to shut down the CIA’s network of secret overseas prisons and end the agency’s use of interrogation techniques that critics describe as torture. This article took a somewhat negative view in saying that Obama is avoiding the most difficult decisions such as, “what to do with detainees and whether the CIA should still have permission to use coercive methods when questioning captives.”  The article also discussed Republican’s opinions on the executive order saying that some feel he is placing hope ahead of reality. The article then went on to give more details on what tactics the CIA is allowed to use and that fact that a special team will be examining the handbook for interrogation. This article focused on the problems associated with closing Guantanamo and CIA interrogation tactics.

 

NPR chose to be more optimistic. They say that it certainly won’t be easy figuring out what to do with the detainees but they then proceed to give different ways of dealing with them that might make it easier. This article was distinct from the Tribune for that reason, they provided potential solutions to the problems they discuss. They also found some positives, for example, the executive order will bring all evidence to one place which up until now has not been the case. Then they end by saying that either way in a year it will definitely happen. They also focused on the American image abroad and how Obama is likely to improve it.

 

The BBC had an almost sarcastic tone about this story. They seem to find the idea of America finding a just and approved way of trying the detainees and releasing the innocent a bit preposterous. Like the Tribune they point out the obvious difficulties but go further in stating that some Americans don’t even want Guantanamo to close in the first place. They also point out that many are not willing to take the detainees on our own soil, which makes other countries even more reluctant to accept them. It’s interesting that the BBC gives more details about how American people feel and react to the options for the detainees than either American based news source did.

 

So, all three sources addressed some of the same issues but each one took a very unique stance, at least in respects to which area of the closing they wanted to discuss. The Tribune focused on the CIA and how they will be affected by changing interrogation tactics, NPR focused on possible solutions on what to do with detainees, and the BBC focused on the US’s unwillingness to take detainees from their own detention center. However, all three discussed the inevitable difficulties and the possible threats to American security.

   As far as Culture Jamming goes, I am also a bit of a skeptic. I definitely understand where the culture jammers are coming from, the amount of media and its influence on our society is not something we should blindly tolerate. However, I don’t know that the tactics listed in the article would be effective today. It’s possible that in the early nineties it was effective, because media overload was fairly new and there were fewer outlets for personal expression and opposition. I just feel that currently the sort of things considered to be culture jamming in the article are now simply seen as modern art in a way. Of course art can have a powerful message but it has still become part of a system in order to be viewed. The whole idea of ‘happenings’ doesn’t really hold much relevancy today. I feel like if Media Burn were to stage the same thing with the burning tvs and car driving through them most people would just roll their eyes and sort of ignore it. I think now , those who are privileged understand that their lives are saturated with media, its nothing new or shocking and we all sort of know how to block it out or not, depending on our preferences.

  Like I stated earlier there are also more outlets for personal opinions now. In the Culture Jamming article they talk about Post walls online, currently those are sort of a thing of the past. There are so many technologies that make personal expression so easy that staging a whole happening is no longer necessary to get a counter cultural idea out in the public. For example, youtube makes it possible for anyone to post a video about whatever they want, they don’t have to find a way to get media exposure. So I guess I feel that culture jamming was effective to a degree at some point but in today’s media culture it has become obsolete, more the type of thing you would see at the Museum of Contemporary Art.

-          Searching for ads on YouTube in class

-          Newspaper headlines from probably about 4 or 5 papers

-          The huge H&M billboard  plus about 5 others I noticed on my walk from the el to my apartment

-          Yahoo homepage headlines and advertisements at several points throughout the day

-          I read 3 different books for classes

-          Read the Red Eye

-          All of the advertisements on the el and el platforms (I rode 4 times throughout the day)

• There are 8 ads along the ceiling of the el per side, so 16 total in each car
• I counted 10 ads on the Diversey el platform

-          I checked my mail and had an advertisement insert and a postcard ad from taxslayer.com

-          Saw a few minutes of Crash

Now this is a fairly general list and I have no idea exactly how many ads I really saw on the el and on my walk to and from the el and around both DePaul campuses. If I had to make a guess I would say considering I saw at least about 25 I was exposed to at least 50 different ads and forms of media today, and that’s being conservative. One advertisement that I actually realized was there was the one for heated clothing on the el platform and on the el itself.

I am aware that media and advertisements in particular are an inescapable factor in modern life. Personally I feel because of the extreme number of things being thrown at me I just don’t notice anything. Obviously I do consume media, I love owning seasons of TV shows and movies and am totally addicted to books. That’s pretty much where I draw the line though. Sometimes I feel like I love in a bubble, I don’t listen to the radio, I generally don’t watch TV and I don’t read the news very frequently. This means I am somewhat lacking in current knowledge. Although I do wish I knew more about what was going on in the world I can’t seem to make myself actively look into it.

I was surprised to find that despite what I considered a relative lack of media exposure on a daily basis I was surrounded by media every time I left my house and every time I used the internet. I guess the implication here is that I consume more mass media than I thought and some of it has to stick. Although I didn’t read any articles except the one on the golden globes in the redeye I could probably list several of the day’s headlines. I think particularly for my generation the internet is where it gets us because I don’t really know anyone who goes an entire day without checking their email or something else online. I have had few days where I didn’t and I have to say it’s liberating in a way. If I could go a whole day without being force fed advertisements and other media I certainly wouldn’t mind. When I really think about it I feel overwhelmed at the likelihood that some of my thought s and ideas are directly influenced by something I didn’t even notice around me. I like to think they aren’t but that seems a little blindly hopeful. We akk subconsciously consume ads and media whether we like it or not.

I feel that having seen the documentary before the photography makes it difficult for me to separate the two. I feel that I would have accepted the photos without stereotyping the subjects or assuming negative things but that is easy to say knowing what I do about the Adams’ process and purpose. However, I feel that one thing I always strive for is to not categorize people or make assumptions on stereotypes. Obviously no one can live without ever stereotyping, but I try to make an effort not to. Throughout my life I have been in contact with several cultures that differ greatly from my own. I am from the suburbs of Chicago, a fairly homogenous and culturally bland area. However my Step Dad is Chilean, my Dad is from a tiny farming town in Iowa and I studied abroad in Spain for 3 months. I feel that this contact with diverse cultures throughout my life allows me to at least try to not judge immediately. I was definitely shocked during the beginning of the documentary. I was not familiar with the culture of the Appalachian Hollers and I feel that this is a portion of the US that is definitely ignored in our society. Once my initial shock subsided I was able to sort of take the Appalachian way of life for what it was, another way of life. All of this furthers my agreement with Dwight Billings that the stories of the people really are essential to a complete understanding of the photos and their subjects. Without viewing this documentary I may not have felt Shelby Adams was exploiting the people, or felt that all the stereotypes I’ve heard were true but I most certainly would not have understood the photos as well or appreciated their goals and content.

Although maybe not quite incendiary, this photo may be considered controversial. One perspective would be that this could be considered animal cruelty. Obviously animals are not meant to wear clothing and it can thus be implied that they don’t enjoy it. If an animal is forced to endure an activity that they find uncomfortable it is cruel. The cat did not choose to wear the t-shirt and could not stop it being put on her. Nor did she have the capability of removing it. If a human were put in the same situation it would certainly be objectionable. If not physical abuse it could be said that the cat was subject to mental or emotional abuse.

Another perspective would be that the cat is clearly not in any real danger and not suffering any harm so the shirt is justifiable for artistic purposes. She looks cute and isn’t suffering in any way so it’s not cruel or unfair. She didn’t struggle while the shirt was being put on and made no attempt to remove it so making her wear it isn’t cruelty. Making an animal wear clothes or accessories for a photo is artistically justifiable.

This one is just for fun.