Constructing an Identity

Case Study on Carles of Hipster Runoff and Identity Construction Experiment
EMAC 4326
At the same time this project was assigned, I was also becoming increasingly suspect of the identity of a very popular music and indie lifestyle blogger, Carles (of Hipster Runoff). Carles shares as an anonymous male figure that focuses his energy on staying furiously up to date with music blog “buzz” and alternative trends. His overly critical, ironic view of “hipster” lifestyle critiques these trends and appeals to their audiences simultaneously. The blog balances a fine line of awareness with 3rd party criticism– the topics discussed are largely only relevant to a small niche community, while the critiques lie more in a public, outsider realm. Interestingly enough, Carles often breaks news and helps foster audiences for many of the artists he is judging. Carles even created an identity questioning meme t-shirt which reads: “I Am Carles”.
This careful constructed anonymous figure does not force any incredible questions about identity in our generation alone, but upon further digging there are quite a few fascinating characteristics about Carles.
Although Hipster Runoff has been actively blogging since 2006, the indie community has yet to confirm this secret identity. While many heavily suspect artist Tao Lin, he has continually denied this connection in interviews. I am among the group that strongly believes Tao Lin and Carles are the same person. Tao Lin’s personal work is satirical, ironic, often monotone and focuses on similar niche culture that Carles obsesses over.
The connection between the two identities becomes increasingly clear when examining a third constructed personality– Bebe Zeva. At only 18 years old, Bebe stands a prime example for the new generation utilizing emerging communication avenues for their personal benefit. When she was only 14, she contacted Hipster Runoff directly from a fan perspective. Inspired by her potential, he proceded to send her t-shirts and advice to mold her persona–then rewarding her with mentions on his blog.

Her relationship with Carles became more personal and in 2009, he even officially introduced her to his audiences as the new alternative “it” girl. She has now solidified herself as an Internet personality–with an active fashion blog, and even posting extremely monotonous videos of herself on the Internet (which of course, have thousands of views despite the subject matter). Carles hand molded Bebe Zeva and then Tao Lin also chose to make an experimental documentary about her life.

 Filmed entirely using a Macbook in a fairly short period, this documentary is very similar to the rest of Tao Lin’s work. There are many moments that are extremely monotonous, but because of the fact that Lin has chosen them to exist in the film, he is automatically making a commentary on the simple, repetitive, rather boring nature of Bebe Zeva’s existence. Tao Lin also appears in the film and even he lacks a certain heart or interest. Both are constantly concerned with maintaining a consistent identity–which lacks a human quality in a very fascinating way. Because Tao Lin chose to make a documentary about a person that “Carles” has heavily invested in only hints more towards the fact that they are indeed the same person.
Fascinated by the way Carles molded Bebe Zeva, I attempted to make a similar character with potential for his involvement. Inspired largely by my old roommate, Hannah Weir, the new character is a 19 year old living in Tacoma, WA. Hannah Silva spends a majority of her time taking photos, listening to music and trying to learn new things. I purposefully made her character vague. There are not many photos that feature faces, and none that outright admit the subject is Hannah. At first I created a tumblr, but then realized that only posting photos does not imply authorship (as I had hoped). I started to create more text based, testimonial posts and at the same time created a twitter. Ultimately, the character development was not necessarily a reflection of my own personal desires, but rather what I thought would be an ideal person for Carles to mold. There are several posts on each platform, and both profiles are linked in the signature of the email.

After a few days of attempting to make these profiles look real, I wrote an email to Tao Lin and sent it to both available emails for Carles and Tao Lin. The email sounds slightly immature, but is essentially a plea for Tao Lin to construct this new identity like he did for Bebe Zeva and himself.

The email:

bb tao,
i extremely admire your ability to construct identities (see: carles, bebe zeva) and i look forward to any opportunity to be molded into “the” face for a new trend, style, music, hipster icon, etc. the internet is your medium and it’s unfortunate that for your art to be successful, it must remain anonymous. but i confidently believe that your first construction was yourself, as an artist. your multi-faceted face of alienating audiences while also forcing a sort of human identification is quite fascinating. i can definitely identify with your stories about acid trips and sex, even if they aren’t true. i think i might like them more if they are fake actually. there is no solid ground with your personal identity, despite your internet persona that dictates otherwise. it seems unlikely that you and megan boyle were ever married, more so a construction for internet fans to gawk at. (not tryin to say you weren’t in a relationship, you might have been, but your choice to publicize the matter came across as entirely sincere, yet i’m sure it was furtherest from.)
also, even though you and the rest of the internet says otherwise, i am 89.5% sure you are carles. you have applied the same style of identity construction to this character.
i thought all of this was just fine and dandy– until i realized you constructed bebe zeva. if you are interested in creating more female indie web celebrities, choose me. i will make whatever twitter handle you want. tacoma is sort of boring, but i could always move. bebe did! i will make up a new fashion trend. i will design my own high socks! i can ironically combine two pieces of art to create something new and relevant! i am 19 and inspired by your work. the potential is there for real.
lets gchat?
–
Hannah Mercedes Silva
http://ruvibin.tumblr.com | @buzzedvibes

Ultimately, this was an interesting experience but I consistently felt very creepy and inappropriate. Anytime I chose photos to represent this character, I was afraid that he would recognize the person and the entire identity of Hannah Silva would immediately fail. I attempted to localize content to try and make this character more believable. Scouting Tacoma craigslists and twitter pages was interesting, but I slowly realized that for a truly believable character, there must be public interaction. Hannah Silva has no Tacoma friends and no interaction on Tumblr or Twitter.

I am quite unsure whether Tao Lin/Carles read the email, but I have not received any response. If he did respond, I would anticipate a fairly sarcastic, rude email. It is extremely difficult to construct a believable identity in two weeks and show it to a master of identity construction.

Comments Among Music Blogs

A large number of content based websites or blogs currently employ a comment section. This interaction has become a somewhat necessary part of employing a sucessful website. As A Networked Self describes, comments can strongly influence user interaction with original content.

The influence of Web-based social comments on perceptions of individuals extends beyond the inspection of recommender systems, and even beyond the deliberate consideration of others’ comments. Peers’ online comments can also influence readers’ attitudes and perceptions about the news.

There are multiple reasons why comments and immediate interaction appeal to an online platform, so its ultimately quite interesting when a site, video or other new media platform chooses to disable comments.
Pitchfork Media is one of the few music blog sites that does not incorporate an interactive comment section. Often criticized for the paradoxical concept of being a music giant within an underground culture, this lack of comments ultimately seems a source of control. With strict requirements for rating, Pitchfork sets trends for the rest of current culture. For those who strongly disagree with these ideas, they are forced to go to third party sources. Commenting on reblogs, tweeting about it, or posting extended commentary within their own social network, this lack of comment ability within Pitchfork forces shares otherwise, which will most likely be more representative of personal taste. As A Networked Self points out, comments can strongly influence others opinions, so because Pitchfork chooses to disable this option, the company may either be trying to silent the noise and allow users to only intake the site’s opinions or trying to minimize criticism.
As the ‘top dog’ among undergound music, Pitchfork’s lack of a comment section encourages reblogs, creating a sort of heirarchy. Pitchfork has grown as a giant due to longevity and fitness. Surprisingly, the lack of comments and user interaction has not lowered their fitness, but actually increased links and references to Pitchfork.
Comments help create a community, which is particularly important among such a niche market.
When brainstorming other music blogs that disable commenting, I could not think of one prominent site.
But when browsing YouTube, videos that disabled comments were often ones that included marketing or subjects that could potentially attract unnecessary negativity. This Obama video for example, now has disabled comments.

With user interaction being so important, why would a site choose to not include this feature? Can you think of any famous examples?

Technological Disaster Movies?

It seems that society is consistently obsessed with creating fantasy situations, whether in an attempt to prepare for the future, or simply just for entertainment. Disaster virus films like Outbreak and the recently released Contagion focus on the helplessness of man to mutated biology. Simply browsing the wikipedia page for Disaster Films,  it becomes increasingly obvious that there are a  large number of films that focus on natural epidemics and causes, but fail to highlight technological disasters. Either there haven’t been films focusing primarily on a computer virus or hack leading to a wide spread disaster, or we haven’t collectively determined these incidents to be “disasters”. This concept of a technological disaster may not be taken seriously because an incident cannot, at this time, directly physically harm someone. Although when considering society’s extreme dependence on technology, a serious widespread bug could cause irreperable damage.

Although logistically it seems unlikely that one program, virus or bug could cause irreparable damage and spread as quickly as a biological virus, there are physical ways of causing damage that could affect the technological. According to Celias, if the Internet was a country, it would be the fifth largest energy consumer in the world.

So even by limiting energy consumption alone, there could potentially be some major shifts. Physical copies of data have become virtually obsolete, so a well planned attack on server houses could cause some pretty serious damage. As we move more towards considering technology an extension of the biological, maybe there will be more disaster movies focused on technology.

Analyzing viral attacks ultimately comes down to intention–a technological disaster could be the result of a natural disaster, or a strategically planned attack. With technological disasters though, the intention would be strikingly obvious (unlike a biological attack)–either the accident is a result of another occurrence (earthquake, bomb, etc), or it stands as a lone incidence. In order to effectively cause damage to major server systems, it would require immense inside planning–almost to an impossible degree. But the impossible does not exist in entertainment, so it still baffles me that more movies, books, etc have not pondered the implications of a technological attack in a real world setting.

Even small disturbances (ANON, host failures) can cause quite a big of damage to businesses–so imagine if those small attacks were permanent. Personally, if my Google Docs isn’t accessible for more than a few hours, things go wrong. I can’t even imagine if entire databases were lost all together. Do you think that as society accepts technology in a more biological, natural sense we will proportionally see more disaster films concerning the subject? Or do our current systems seems too fail-safe to even ponder the idea?

 

 

Identifying Early Connections Between Biology and Media

The connection between viral media and its’ original namesake, genetic viruses, seems vague at first–yet when the structure of both entities are compared, the similarities begin to stack up. Both media and biological viruses center around one rather small, limited idea or infectious agent that left alone would be rather harmless to mass populations. In Viruses, Plagues and History, Michael Oldstone identifies five factors that cause viruses to surface– all of which relate to viral media.

“Viruses can modify their behavior and increase their virulence as they evolve through changes in their genetic material. Such genetic evolution can occur through reassorting of genes, recombination of a viral gene, or mutation within a viral gene” [202].

While the original viral media object does not mutate, the subjects and conversations that surround the item can alter the way the object is perceived. Most similar to biological viruses is the idea of “reassorting”–this occurs when a virus swaps gene segments from a different virus to form a new strain entirely. Again, while the original media object does not change, if a response video becomes increasingly popular, the original media object can rarely be discussed without considering responses.

“The second way that new viruses surface is when their hosts undergo an increase in the susceptibility to their harmful effects” [203].

This may be a vague connection, but just as immunosuppressive drugs increase susceptibility, technology and browsing habits increase our inclination to view viral media. Searching tools are now targeting highly shared media first, which definitely increases your susceptibility (i.e., Google’s new algorithm, Facebook shows higher engaged posts, etc).

Higher engagement leads to higher impressions on Facebook. This helps media become increasingly viral (snowball effect).

“The third route of viral emergence is when people increase their contact with vectors or humans that carry virulent viruses” [205].

This point relates very closely with the method previously mentioned, but adds another layer of interaction. Technology changes increase viral media susceptibility, and these changes have forced certain hierarchical social changes on the web. “Hubs” have formed within social media circles–sharing relevant content at a higher rate, which increases “followers” and thereby increasing impressions and share likelihood.

“The fourth origin of new viruses is simply an increase in their recognition and classification as biomedical research technologies advance” [205].

Obviously, viral media has become a huge part of our social culture. Regular small talk often refers to the latest youtube video or the latest clever marketing campaign. Websites have formed solely to help masses keep up with the latest viral media–only furthering the sharing cycle. The Daily What, Mashable, The Soup and countless others all focus on sharing videos with viral potential.  The conversations surrounding viral media play a huge role in the success of its’ popularity, and these websites definitely encourage and offer a platform for discussion.

“The fifth source of new viruses is referred to as the mystery source because the cause is completely unknown” [205].

There is always a percentage of error with any theory or analysis. Just as viruses arise from questionable sources, the reason why media becomes viral is often curious. Because the Internet constantly gathers so many analytics, sources are fairly easy to recognize; but pre-Internet media can often be hard to dissect. Idiomatic expressions and references often are sparked from small, often humble beginnings that are difficult to completely identify.

Sources:
1. Oldstone, Michael B. A. “An Overview Of The Hemorrhagic Fevers.” Viruses, Plagues, and History: Past, Present, and Future. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. 202-05. Print.

long term goals realized for Facebook

Think back to a few years ago on Facebook. When the site was still new to our lives and adding friends could take time because it didn’t happen that much. You had the option of clarifying where you met, which schools you went to together, and other customizable details. This took quite a while, time we just can’t afford anymore.

Facebook made a wise business choice by making it less complicated to add friends. While adding all this information is nice for records and keeping track of the tangled webs we weave, it is also time consuming. Facebook has largely grown because society has accepted it as an easy, approachable entrance to the social media world that includes identity development, user generated content and strategic tool utilization; because they have managed to mask the complexities and lure everyone in.

Facebook identities are extremelely closely related to real life personas, which has also allowed society to honestly incorporate it into real life planning. Try and plan a party these days without a facebook event, its doubtful you will have very many attendees. So now that Facebook has fooled everyone and gotten us addicted, they have incorporated one of their founding ideas back into the profile development. The ‘new’ profile now has spaces to include ‘lists’ of friends, options to tag coworkers and friends in projects, and even spaces to add specific classes.


These days, the minute you meet someone, full names must be exchanged so Facebook relationships can be forged. And if its not ‘facebook official’, you may as well not be dating. Now you can tag friends in photos, events, projects, lists, and posts. Facebook has realized it goal of being a close parallel to our real lives. Social networking has absorbed us, and now we are guided based on their business model choices. Little to most Facebook users know, it is in the site’s best interest to increasingly entangle and involve users because this helps mold massive data reports, which Facebook then sells for mad cash.

INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE DEBATE RAGES ON

This is an abridged version of the text for our group presentation. You can find the entire text here. Pay particular attention to bolded and block quoted statements, as these will pertain strongly to class discussion.

The current regulatory framework

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has the power to enforce restrictions on internet content hosted within Australia and to maintain a ‘blacklist’ of overseas websites – a list that it then makes available for use in commercially available filtering software. Content is considered ‘prohibited’ where it is (or in ACMA’s judgement would likely be):
* refused classification, or classified as X 18+
* classified R 18+, and not protected by an adult verification system
* classified MA 15+ and not protected by an adult verification system, where the user has paid to access the content.

ACMA can also alert the relevant law enforcement agencies to material that is actually illegal (such as child pornography).2

Currently, internet content is only reviewed in Australia when a complaint is lodged with ACMA. ACMA then applies to the Classification Board for the content to be classified.

The Suicide Related Materials Offences Act 2006 makes it illegal to use the internet to promote suicide or self-harm. There is also some legislation relating to copyright protection, and some state governments have legislation banning the transmission of material unsuitable for minors.

What is being proposed?

In 2003,[..] prominent think tank The Australia Institute proposed the idea of a mandatory internet filter for children [...]3 This sparked some serious debate…

….what is being proposed now by Minister Conroy (the third version of the ALP’s policy since the release of its 2007 ‘Plan for Cyber-safety’) includes a mandatory ISP-level filter.

The government has committed $125.8 million5 over four years to the development of a program that is essentially a two-tiered filter system, backed by other supporting measures.

The mandatory element is an ISP-level filter for all households, based on a new ‘blacklist’ of RC websites (still maintained by ACMA and still based on public complaints, and which will be added to by international agencies).

The second tier of the filter system is a series of grants to encourage ISPs to offer a filter for additional content, such as X-rated pornography and gambling sites; this will not be mandatory (either for the ISP to offer or for a household to implement). The government is also providing increased funding to law enforcement agencies, researchers, working groups and education programs for children, parents and schools.6

Now there is a lack of opt-out for households without children and the scope of content included is narrower – only RC content, rather than the broader concept of ‘prohibited material’ (which includes X-rated material).

What’s all the fuss about?

* It degrades free speech; it’s censorship, not protection

The RC material being caught in the filter may contain information on topics about which adults, and even children, may simply want to engage in some debate – such as euthanasia, safe injecting procedures, abortion or even graffiti. These are the grey areas in what may be considered banned material (such as instructions in self-harm or a crime).9 Many opponents (from individuals posting on discussion sites and senior citizen groups attending lectures on how to bypass the filter to organised protest groups such as Stop the Clean Feed. Libertus.net and No Clean Feed) consider this a potential attack on free speech. However, it is worth remembering that there is no legislation to protect a right to free speech in Australia (other than parliamentary privilege). Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world without formal overarching human rights protection.

Opponents of the mandatory filter also believe that Minister Conroy has been using the ‘protect children from pornography’ line to lull Australians into believing that this will be the end result of the filter. Instead, it is argued, it is really a means for ACMA to effectively decide what adults should and shouldn’t see, because a mandatory filter affects everyone in a household, even if there are no children. Moreover, it bans material that it is not illegal for adults to view in other formats simply because the material is on the Web. It also doesn’t ban a lot of the material that parents wouldn’t want their children to see.

Berners-Lee ‘s larger vision, however, was for it to be a social medium, not a technical one: a medium where people could create and share information, not just look at it. [...] ‘Every powerful tool can be used for good or evil. Those things are illegal with or without the Web. 11

* It will block legitimate and legal content

A document purporting to be the ACMA secret blacklist was leaked in March 2010. Approximately half of the websites listed were not related to child pornography. There were various poker websites, YouTube links, regular porn websites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia websites, websites of fringe religions, Christian websites, the website of a tour operator and even the website of a Queensland dentist.13 Minister Conroy issued a statement claiming that the list was not the ACMA list and many websites on it had never been part of any ACMA investigation.14

What constitutes RC content is contained within several legislative instruments15 and is interpreted by ACMA officials. In very short summary, it includes imagery of child sexual abuse, bestiality or sexual violence; detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use; and/or material that advocates committing a terrorist act (as contained in films, publications and computer games).16 Importantly, it also includes material relating to sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty or violence, or the depiction of a child who is, or appears to be, under 1 8 (whether engaged in sex or not) that may cause offence to a reasonable adult or offend against reasonable standards of morality and decency.17

But who is a ‘reasonable adult’ and what causes ‘offence’? While the concept of the objective ‘reasonable person’ is used throughout our legal system – for example, to determine whether someone’s specific conduct has breached the law – the concept of what is ‘offensive’ to someone’s ‘morality’ is a much more loaded and subjective question. It also needs to be noted that in many cases, it is not illegal for adults to possess or privately view RC material in other formats in most states (except for child pornography).’8

* It won’t actually achieve what it sets out to

Obviously, child pornography is not commonly distributed openly via websites (although websites may be hijacked for this purpose). Child pornographers often use other internet tools, such as FTP. instant messaging, chat rooms. Usenet groups and peer-to-peer networks, none of which are covered by the filter. The filter will also not monitor high-traffic websites such as YouTube (because that would essentially prevent the whole system from working), nor will it monitor proxy servers (a common way for those in the know – including school children – to bypass blocking systems).

It seems the filter will do nothing to protect children from what parents are really concerned about, dangers like cyberbullying, online predators, viruses, spam or identity theft – all of which were identified in the 2007 policy. Having said that, the other measures relating to funding for education on cybersafety and more funding for policing of these issues are surely a welcome move.

* The filter itself is flawed

According to anti-filter website Stop the Clean Feed, trials of the filter blocked as many as 7.8 per cent of legitimate websites (close to one in ten); as much as 1 3 per cent of material that should have been blocked was still accessible.20

The government released reports from the latest trials by Enex and Telstra, both of which raised concerns about the ease with which anyone who wishes to will be able to circumvent the filter using proxy websites and virtual private networks. Enex tested thirty-seven different circumvention methods and virtually all of them worked.2′ Both Enex and Telstra reported that the filtering/blocking systems trialled were incapable of preventing circumvention/bypassing of the blocking systems.22

In response to criticism that the filters will be relatively easy to circumvent. Minister Conroy has argued that there are other laws that are relatively easy to get around, like those that deal with under-age smoking, speeding, drinking and driving, and that this does not serve as an argument for not having these laws.

We [...] propose a strategy with three components: a schools-based educational program, an opt-out system of ISP-filtering and some additional measures to protect children from exposure.*5

That the government’s proposal has no opt-out for adults.

* It creates a false sense of security and is paternalistic

The Save the Children Fund believes that the proposed filter will lull parents into a false sense of security, that they may become less vigilant because of a false belief that the filter will absolutely protect their children.26 Many see supervised internet use, including the use of voluntary home-based filters (even those like the Howard government’s NetAlert system, now discontinued), as the best way to protect children. Indeed, the Internet Industry Association’s Peter Coreónos has stated that home-based filters are a more flexible way to protect children than the government’s proposed system:

If it is your intent to provide families with customisab/e solutions and you want to accord to families the right to determine what their children can and can ‘t see, then you’re far better off to implement those user solutions at the user end . . . You couldn ‘t possibly impose that level of control at an ISP end without significantly degrading the network for all users.27

Almost every other Western countries that have some form of internet filtering (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, France and Canada) implement it on a voluntary basis.28 In the UK, for example, ISPs voluntarily agree to block URLs that are on the Internet Watch Foundation’s ‘secret black list’ (these sites are apparently mainly those that contain images of child pornography). The technology used to block the sites is up to the particular ISR It is believed that up to 95 per cent of UK households have their content filtered (because many of the larger providers have agreed to use filtering).

Where to from here?

When Clive Hamilton commissioned his research on access to child pornography by teenagers in 2003, 93 per cent of parents of teenage children said they would support a filter to prevent access to extreme and violent pornography. M However, now that the details are available about what type of filter the government is actually proposing, some of the latest polls indicate a sharp turnaround in opinion. In a recent Fairfax Media online poll, 96 per cent (of 45,154 people who voted) said they did not support the proposed filtering policy.31

Media coverage nationally and internationally has grown particularly negative, while search engine giant Google has also voiced its objections. Google Australia’s head of policy, larla Flynn, has stated that ‘The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.’32

Kids will continue to access inappropriate content . . . and . . . [people] . . . will continue to learn how to bypass the filter when it does eventually become law. One thing can be guaranteed. A debate which has polarised the community will continue to rage.34

This article has been altered for #atec2322 class discussion purposes. Read the full article in its entirety here: http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201010/2158039281.html#ixzz16gqZmStO

we are data

The other night I was watching Tron, the 1982 cult classic, in anticipation for the upcoming sequal, for the first time. It was interesting to see computer functions personified as characters–programs and users. This physical representation of an abstract concept was particularly fascinating when analyzing the differences between the users in the “computer world” vs in real life. The user’s representation in the “computer world” has the same goals, but lacks the intelligence necessary to problem solve.

I think there could be a parallel to this idea of representation and the current identity constructions in our virtual worlds. If my Facebook persona came to life, it might be similar to my actual self–but lacking serious facets of my inner self. But if my Google persona came to life–it might actually be a close match. Both sites have mass amounts of information about me. Easily enough to construct a virtual identity. But which is more accurate?

Facebook gathers data I choose to share, comment on, discuss, etc–all consciously chosen by me. Facebook knows who I want to be. All those things I share mold together to form my online identity.
But Google knows much, much more than that. Google knows what I search when know one is looking, what links I really spend time searching for–all those embarrassing or personal sites. Google knows who I am.

But are either of these truly accurate? Can my entire self be translated into a virtual world?
The 1982 Tron, virtual characters were somewhat shallow–mirroring the level of personality that society associated with virtual identity. But in the upcoming 2010 version–will the characters be much more multi-faceted? Our society closely associates actual selves with online identities, so it would make sense that this cultural shift will be mirrored in the film.

If there was an online Tron version of your life, would you want Google or Facebook designing your character?

“strangers taking pictures”

When I took Photo 1: Darkroom Basics in high school, my teacher, Ms. Toews, gave me some great, valuable advice about creating art: “The worst insult to an artist is having someone walk right by your work–not even look at it.” Art is entirely subjective so opinions of a piece may not be representative of the true value. But if no one cares if its good or bad, then that silence becomes somewhat of a unanimous indicator of low value.
Unfortunately for my friend, no one really talked about his art project–which is one of the biggest factors that the early trials haven’t been more successful.

Alex Hays, friend and fellow EMAC student, came up with a fascinating social art project: the Disposable Movement. This project started at SXSW ’09. Alex got ~20 disposable cameras, disassembled the boxes, turned them inside out and essentially turned these boxes into envelopes for the cameras–and addressed them back to himself. So the idea is: find a stranger, give them a camera, they take photos and send it back, then it goes on www.disposablemovement.com.



Alex said he was “interested in the idea of making strangers the artists. Someone who used to be an observer can now be part of the art piece […] It’s like giving a paintbrush to a stranger and making them do art; giving them a tool to make art so they can do what they want with it. “
He took inspiration from performance and social artists like Marina Abromovic, whose most recent work, The Artist is Present, was featured at MOMA for 4 months earlier this year. Alex has always appreciated artwork that gets the audience involved, and “in some way, the Disposable Movement is an extreme version to get the audience involved in the art, so they can create everything.”

I got involved with this project this summer at Bonnaroo, but only gave out 10 cameras. Out of the ten I gave out, we got one back. One.

The Disposable Movement idea excited me, and everyone I told. Yet the rate of return/production is very low. Although that trial didn’t work that well, Alex had better luck at SXSW ’10. In his first attempt at SXSW ’09, he originally just gave out cameras and asked people to upload and tag the photos on flickr. He received zero response. He had to reduce labor to increase productivity because it’s so hard to get people involved. Luckily the Internet has helped create a space that allows for easier connectivity, which increases activity. So Alex is slowly trying to evolve the project to mirror this model. Hopefully the easier it is to make the audience the artist, the more art will be created.

This idea explores concepts of community, what it is to be a stranger, and anonymity. If only more people talked about it, the momentum of excitement could potentially make this project realistic.
“Ideally, it would be nice if it was self sustaining thing; for it to became a social occurrence rather than someone being forced to do it.” said Alex about his hopes for the project. Successful movements, such as PostSecret, present an idea and allow the audience to transform and mold the project. Hopefully if the Disposable Movement can get enough involvement, we might actually start getting strangers giving other strangers cameras.

oilanimals.org #atec2322 transmedia campaign

For our in class assignment today, Emilia and I had to create a marketing campaign for a hypothetical cause. We chose animal oil spill clean up. Using a cross-media strategy, we will employ: social media (twitter, facebook), traditional media (billboards, print, TV, film), youtube, flickr and small amounts of guerilla marketing. Our goal is to gain attention and funds to help clean up the oil spill, in particular the animals affected.
Twitter: we would tweet photos everyday with before and after photos of the animals; try to push a trending topic such as #oilanimals or something
Facebook: adopt a pet–similar to farmville-esque game. pay real money to acquire virtual pet (more money=less damage and will be reflected as such virtually)
YouTube: make stop motion photography videos showing transformation from dirty animal to clean–pathos/ethos appeals; use these same videos for TV (only slightly altered)
billboards/ads: graphic photos of oil animals with QR codes that link to website or facebook game
guerilla marketing: slightly undeveloped idea, but generally placing stuffed animals with oil on them in public places/parks with ads for cause next to it (gaining attention in person to relate to online space).

Freaks

So the other night, I wanted to watch Tod Browning‘s controversial film, Freaks (1932).
Disappointed that it wasn’t on Netflix Instant Queue, I googled it. And behold, there it is in its entirety. Free to stream on Google video. Why? Because of the very thing we were learning about in #atec2322 this week.
Freaks is one of the few films that falls in the public domain. Currently only films produced prior to 1923 have expired copyrights that allow it to be in the public domain. Interestingly enough, in the 1980’s Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan and former carnival worker, purchased the rights to Freaks and re-released it as public domain.
Lucky for me. But could you imagine if things fell in the public domain as copyright laws originally intended? If 14 years after music, movies, books, etc. were released for profit, they became available for free viewing?
IT WOULD BE SO AWESOME.
Freaks is a controversial cult classic, so it makes sense that it should be in the public domain. It provides an interesting example of film, especially so considering the time period. I know movies are expensive and must make money. But there should at least be a compromise. Because the ~95 year copyright law we have is insane. How are we supposed to have an informed and inspired public when the creativity has been exploited for profit and made difficult for the masses to acquire?
The Internet has allowed for an unprecedented opportunity as a boundary-less space for information to travel freely. In the past, distribution was expensive and widespread viewings were only an option for large production companies. Now with the Internet, all those woes are gone. Distribution can be virtually free. So why not lower the copyright law times? Lets give our public what we are creating.
Freaks has been remixed in this YouTube video that has over a million hits:

And as RiP!: A Remix Manifesto displayed so well, musicians like Girl Talk, The Hood Internet and team9 who disregard these laws, are creating some of the most innovative and popular tracks being released.
Sure, capitalism is great. But come on people. This is art. We can’t be greedy. Art is beautiful and limitless and in my opinion, cannot be categorized by price or profitability. Let’s make a compromise and lower the copyright times.
But I did notice one potential issue: Netflix could not post Freaks for streaming because it is a profitable business. BUT Google Video could. So will public domain cause a shift to make website like Google even more powerful? And we should consider: Google does profit off of its content, no? So what must be considered when deciding what is considered profitable (especially since businesses are changing their profit models)?
When things are released to the public domain, will we just be shifting power? Or will it just be redispursed back into the public as it should?
I would love a world in which we could make more commentary of ourselves. I think this often starts with art and popular culture of the time–which the public domain could encompass so well.