Blog 8: Graffiti (RE:)visited

To no spectacular surprise, in a class of almost 100 students, different ideas pop up over a given assignment.  The assignment that I chose to assess other students’ blogs on was the graffiti blog.  The reasoning behind this is quite simple:  The parameters for the graffiti assignment were more constricted than others, so a broad range of analyses could be generated but still come back to a common source.  My goal here is to represent contributions by two separate students and show the theoretical debates presented in both of their studies while interlinking them to each other and to my initial analysis of graffiti under some broader themes.

Lauren Green’s blog had a strong focus on the dichotomy of graffiti as being both vandalism and art.  Both types of graffiti have certain social repercussions that need to be taken into consideration.  For graffiti art, Green mentions that it is vastly more socially acceptable.  Her examples are derived from Kerrisdale and she comments on how art is much more predominant in this area versus vandalism, which she speculates, gets removed quite quickly.  Tracey Bowen’s research touches upon this acceptance of graffiti art and goes on to looking for the reasoning as to why it is widely accepted.  Her conclusion is that cities have inherent aesthetics, and one of these is graffiti art.  It purely exists to be seen and interpreted.  Bowen goes on to state that most of the people doing art, like the pieces presented in Green’s blog, are most likely educated in the fine arts to some degree.

In regards to Green’s position on the issues presented, she notes that graffiti art is acceptable because it reflects the multiculturalist view of Canada, whereas vandalism promotes a counter-culture movement.  She also mentions that it is important not to stereotype vandalism with people considered socially ousted.

Jeff Hart's blog approaches more of the territorial aspect of graffiti.  His case study focuses on the Engineering Cairn which has a history of being vandalized by other faculties, AMS groups, and student residences.  His main argument shows that this vandalism operates in a single direction and that the engineers are simply resilient and show pride for their faculty.  Anonymous individuals tag the cairn, identifying which group they are associated with, and there are no repercussions.  It was pretty hard to find similar research to this kind of anomaly, but then I started to think about it in a different context.

Jeff Ferrell has an article dealing with how to control graffiti and resist it.  In this article he states that although graffiti can be confrontational in nature, people affected by the graffiti basically remove it and report it to authorities.  As Hart and Ferrell both discuss, repainting to remove graffiti offers another ‘clean slate’ waiting to be tagged.

Hart’s main position is that the lines between anonymity and authorship tend to get blurred in the reality that some acts of vandalism are not directly punished and have no sense of possible future retaliation.  The people vandalizing get open recognition and pride for doing something contentious, but people like the engineers just respond in silent resilience.

Under this broad umbrella of graffiti, both of these bloggers come up with very different approaches.  Green focuses more on the acceptability of graffiti art, and Hart upon vandalism.  However both cases begin to break apart many of the dualisms associated with graffiti. Anonymity and authorship both come out in the unique scenario that Hart used for a case study, and Green demonstrates the differences between art and vandalism while suggesting why art tends to avoid erasure where vandalism cannot.  Even from my research, it is fairly hard to analyze graffiti under some of these conceptions.  My Research supports Green’s statement that even educated groups tend to vandalize.  However, there was no consequence of erasure from these desks, contradicting what Green states about the removal of graffiti vandalism from other parts of the city.  It can be seen that there are many cases where graffiti can begin to break down many of the dualisms that are initially created.

References:

Ferrell, Jeff
   1995  Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control, and Resistance. Youth and Society 27:73-92.

Bowen, Tracey E.
   1999  Graffiti Art:  A Contemporary Study of Toronto Artists.  Studies in Art Education 41(1):22-39.

Blog 6: Communal Radio Waves

Radio.  It almost seems like something that is quickly fading out of existence in urban North American culture to say the least.  But even while it is being overshadowed by direct internet downloads, where people can get the music they want when they want it, radio still does reflect its community.  Vancouver is such a consumer-based economy in almost every aspect.  People are always looking for the hottest trends and the newest ideas, and obtaining them in the shortest amount of time possible.  So how does radio reflect the nature of this community?  The answer is quite simple.  The radio industry for Metro Vancouver is a marketable commodity that certain people are willing to invest into.  It follows the post-Fordist market strategies of a capitalistic society.  Just as there are many types of people in the city whether differing in ethnicity or culture, there are just as many radio stations to cater to those groups.  Radio in an urban environment seems very ambiguous.

Now in the context of small towns and target populations, radio plays a much greater unified role.  For the case of CBQM in Fort McPherson, the radio program really reflected a tight-knit community.  The radio shows targeted two main groups in this town:  the First Nations and the Church.  There has always been a checkered past between Christian missionaries and First Nations groups, but this community shows no signs of it.  This town of different backgrounds is represented by different radio shows that are held throughout the day.  One portion has First Nations hosts and another has with a Pastoral host.

Another small town vibe for radio is demonstrated in a case study by Daniel Fisher.  The Top End Aboriginal Bush Broadcasting Association holds programs strictly based off of caller requests.  It is through this request program that this radio station reflects the community.  Many of the Indigenous towns are spread out, but on certain days of the week with correct satellite transfers, the radio show can reach some of the more remote towns. These towns are culturally diverse, and this diversity is portrayed through the radio call-ins.

But radio isn’t all just about representing a community.  Radio also establishes community.  This is clearly seen in both of the cases previously discussed.  Fort McPherson has a large First Nations and Caucasian Christian population, but both groups are brought together through communication via the radio.  Most events happening in this small town are announced over the radio and generally have mixed attendances, creating a kind of large family-oriented environment.  The case for Australia’s Indigenous Northern Territory communities is also fairly similar.  TEABBA helps to bridge the large distances between these culturally rich communities both geographically and socially.  The ability to call in song requests creates a time-space compression between groups of people.  It also breaks down institutionalized barriers like prisons.  It’s a means for family members to reach inmates if the distance is too far to go visit them.

So radio really does play this unique role of reflecting the community and also creating community.  I would say that this dichotomy is much more established within small rural populations because the interactions between the station and society are more transparent.  For a city like Vancouver, it is much more difficult to see how radio creates a sense of community since there are so many options in terms of radio programs to choose from, and not to mention the fact that it is slowly becoming an obsolete technology.  But for the communities that still rely heavily on radio broadcasts for entertainment, it definitely can be a tool for development and reflection.

Blog 7: Psychoanalysis of Princess Mononoke

Princess Mononoke (left) and Ashitaka (right)

I don’t know what consumed me to attempt a psychoanalysis of an anime film, but I thought it would be pretty entertaining anyways to try one.  But, then I just had to take it to the next step of difficulty in trying to analyze a film produced by Hayao Miyazaki.  The film I chose to watch was Princess Mononoke.  I have seen this film many times, and even in theatres when I was in elementary school.  I definitely did not take much away from the film, but watching it recently with the purpose of analysis, so much came to the surface.

The plot’s foundation rests on the character development of Ashitaka, the last Emishi prince.  Like many of Miyazaki’s films, there is no distinct ‘good’ or ‘evil’ force, and sympathetic viewpoints are consistently changing.  Ashitaka, however is the main protagonist for the film and much of the story is focused on his ability to understand himself as an individual while he relates to other important characters.  At the start of the film, he is tainted by a demon and must exile himself from his family in order to discover the root of his curse and see if it is curable.  From this point on, Ashitaka begins to rediscover his role.  Ashitaka’s journey from his family is like Lacan’s self-identification that a child experiences when detached from its mother.

In terms of developing his language, there is a lot that Ashitaka does not understand about the outside world.  Along his travels to the west, he meets a wandering monk called Jigo, who ends up playing a pivotal part in the climax of the story.  Jigo guesses Ashitaka’s background, but keeps his secrets and informs him of where to go and how to go about searching for answers.  So, as formulated by Lacan, there is this connection between language and development of a social network that is clearly visible within the film.

The main complexities of the story are developed within this social network.  There are many key players in this tale of industrialization against environmentalism.  There are the workers of Iron Town who, just as the name implies, exploit the landscape for its valuable raw materials.  The main opposition force consists of several forest guardians that are referred to as gods within the plot.  The guardians have a large following of forest creatures that seek to destroy Iron Town.  One specific guardian group has one human follower, Princess Mononoke, who views herself as a wolf rather than human.  Finally there are two mediator roles that are filled by Ashitaka and the Forest Spirit.  The Forest Spirit’s primary aim is to restore balance between the forest and humans.  Ashitaka’s role involves addressing the citizens of Iron Town through their leader, Lady Eboshi, and also the forest guardians by way of Princess Mononoke.

This complex network in a sense spirals around Ashitaka and the Forest Spirit.  They bridge the gap of understanding between the two warring sides.  There is the constant dualism of trust and treachery that is brought up in the story.  Ashitaka tries to create trust with all groups involved in order to bring peace, but once one side finds out he is communicating with the other, a sense of treachery becomes inherent.

Through all of the efforts of both sides, along with Ashitaka’s seemingly futile attempts of bringing peace, nothing is actually resolved in the end.  Iron Town ends of getting destroyed, and the Forest Spirit also ends up dying.  The film however leaves the audience with a sense of balanced peace with an uncertain future.  It is a very unique plot that demonstrates the fact that there is always two sides to any argument, and that a careful balance should be sought in order to progress.

Blog 5: Why we all just can't get along

Realism and Expressionism VS. Comedy and Satire

There are many dynamics of reusing media that I have neglected to notice.  I think a lot of this has to do with the background of my upbringing. On a foundational level, the fact that I’m half Asian probably helped hide racism from my life for a certain period of time in my childhood naivety. Finally this little dream world of mine began to crumble throughout high school and university.  Racism definitely does still exist; it can just be more easily hidden under cultural fundamentalism.

In regards to certain characteristics of whether reuse of media is considered acceptable or not, I think that all the characteristics brought up in the assignment could apply.  More importantly, these characteristics overlap with each other to make reuse acceptable or not.  The foundation for racism has traditionally been due to relative power relations, but through globalization and different uses of media there have been more distinctions between what may or may not be considered racist.  In terms of the uses of media, I think certain forms can definitely dampen down the effects of racism.  In film or on TV, the edge seems to be taken off of anything that could appear to be racist as it gets mixed up into entertainment.  This also touches upon differences between an actual impersonation and a separate form of portraying the reuse.  I think that actually impersonating another ethnicity is a much heavier burden in specific contexts, and should be addressed carefully in order to successfully represent a group without being considered ignorant.

And let us not forget the reuse of sacred symbols.  This can definitely be a touchy subject for people of different beliefs.  It is also a fairly unique case which as mentioned before, comes back down to relative power relations.  Just analyzing Christianity as an example, it can be seen that there was a definitely swap of power relations as the Church separated from the State.  With this separation came more secular world view throughout the age of enlightenment and science.  Christianity today consists of a minority group with a relatively lower level of power compared to the state.

Another thing that makes reuse of media tricky, especially within a Christian context, is the fact that there are so many divisions within Christianity.  What might seem acceptable to one group may not be for another.  An obviously important sacred symbol for Christianity is Christ.  The way that Jesus is represented in various uses of media is definitely contentious for different situations.  One example of a representation that was fairly widely accepted was in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. It tried to encompass the horrific nature of crucifixion.  Regardless of the brutality of this film, it was generally acceptable for many Christians.

Now looking at Monty Python’s Life of Brian the end crucifixion scene, and the movie as a whole, is largely unaccepted by the Church.  It is in direct contestation with the Church by portraying Brian as the Messiah, and ending with a satirical crucifixion.  A blog tries to unfold whether Life of Brian is comedy or blasphemy, but you can decide that for yourself.

I think there is a loose guideline that can be applied to analyze reuse and determine its acceptability, but it is a complex concept and must be addressed within context.  Starting on a foundational level, it is generally not acceptable for a majority power to reuse media of a minority power.  Live performances are generally critiqued more than uses within media, as seen in the article by David Novak.  Between actual impersonation and a separate form, I think that this is fairly context specific and cannot really be characterized as a specific principle.  Finally, reuse of sacred symbols generally complicates all of the aforementioned characteristics and must be addressed cautiously.  But as I described, it is pretty hard to determine what acceptable reuse is before producing it.  Even with results of how people view some uses of media, it is difficult to imply specific reactions.