Comments on: Week 4 – Mental & cultural environmentalism http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/ evolving ecological media culture(s) Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:19:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: chatlines http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-630 chatlines Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:24:06 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-630 I will right away grab your rss as I can’t in finding your e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Kindly allow me understand in order that I may subscribe. Thanks.

]]> By: Brittany Dahlberg http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-235 Brittany Dahlberg Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:47:37 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-235 “Self-absorption is the toxic outcome of our eras unique pollution.”
In Bill McKibben’s article “The Mental Environment,” he describes the importance of realizing the root of all of our misery. McKibben says that actions such as recycling and protesting the XL Pipeline are all things of merit, but separating oneself from consumerism is the most important problem of our time; “It’s the fundamental social struggle of our era” (White). I agree with the majority of the posts above that boycotting media altogether is the ideal manner in which to experience this “epiphany” and break out of the consumer mind-scape but unfortunately, it is not realistic. We live in a culture that has been socially constructed by media, by actions, beliefs, morals, values that have been mimicked from cultures before us. McKibben mentions that “we’ve never owned our minds entirely.” This is most definitely true because none of our thoughts and actions are unique but rather are what Rene Girard calls mimetic desire in which we desire what other people say we do.
Self-absorption or “Hyperindividualism” is the outcome of the 3,000 plus advertisements we see day to day. I want to connect this to Boyle’s example of comparing the equal possession of common land vs. the privatization of that land. Contrary to Garret Hardin’s belief, history has shown that when land and resources are dispersed and shared equally, it has been proven to branch out into more conservation and preservation efforts rather than the privatization of resources which ultimately leads to hegemony of the “lords and ladies stealing from the commoner.” I don’t necessarily believe that individualism is a negative thing but I do agree that focus on community results in a collective consciousness for the betterment of mankind and our Earth.
As Emile Durkheim says, if we go back to the most simple, noncomplex, primitive society’s we can see a collective consciousness that has been ultimately lost as society moves towards a more individualistic lifestyle. Primitive tribes such as the aboriginals of Australia used the totem as their religious practice. The totem, being an animal or plant specific to a tribe, not only was worshipped by the tribe itself but was symbolic of the entire tribe; this brought about a collective unity and consciousness which led to the overall security and benefit of civilization. An individual doesn’t have to have a tribe or totem in order to veer away from “hyper-individualism” but I think putting an emphasis on community will ultimately make civilization better, spreading more awareness of caring, love, interactions between physical entities instead of mediated through a screen, sharing, etc.
Is there a way to use culture-jamming to spark a “wave of epiphanies that shatter the consumerist worldview?” This I do not know, but I think instead of focusing on changing the media, we need to make sure that we educate ourselves on the dangers of consumerism and recognize the effects advertisements have on our interactions with the world. Individual action is the most powerful in pushing for change. If we focus on training ourselves, either through meditation like Micah White or recognition of consumerist charged actions then we can start to try and separate ourselves from the consumerist mind-scape.

]]> By: Sarah Soderbergh http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-231 Sarah Soderbergh Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:58:41 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-231 I find the idea of anonymity extremely interesting because of its power for either good or evil. To be anonymous can give those that did not previously have a voice, say who have disabilities, or are shy, the ability to speak their mind. However, it also gives those who would not normally say crude or harsh words of hatred a voice and method in which to convey their, at times, poorly formulated argument in a very public forum. On the positive side, anonymity on the internet can also provide a loop-hole from prejudice. I took an English class on Race and Crime, and there are subconcious acts of prejudice that occur in even the most politically correct. The subtle tightening onto a purse when passing an African American male, the notion that if a vehicle is from New Jersey, they must be a terrible driver. When accessing the internet, these prejudices are no more – they only information gathered is that which the user allows to be shown. There are no assumptions on sight, but assumptions on words. Is this an effective way to judge a person? Is it enough information to gather a whole personality? Furthermore, does our increasing reliance on technology and forums (our “read-write” culture) weed out those who are not able to read, or to write?
I think that Lessig also provides an excellent point regarding how we create our laws with “common sense”. Granted, Lessig is defining his own verison of “common sense”, but the notion that our children (or us, for that matter) will not respect a legislative system that does not keep up with the needs, or “common sense”, of its people is ultimately rejected. Thereby we are left with extremists on each end: an unwavering law system, and a rebellious young generation. It is time that we update our laws to the technologies they are enacting – let us not be the trespassers any longer!

]]> By: Molly Hoffman http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-228 Molly Hoffman Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:29:44 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-228 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iIkOi3srLo

this advertisement I think every will find interesting, because it takes up Adbusters ideas of feeding better information through media, however, the end result is still consuming. Does this really help?

]]> By: Alex http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-226 Alex Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:02:30 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-226 When reading Norah’s post the first thing I thought of was a quote from a previous Media Environments class I have taken. The quote is: Information is alienated experience. This really opened my eyes to see how the excess of information can really truly reshape, or rather take away, from all life has to offer. This abundance of information is indeed very strong and powerful and many times beneficial, but we must always be conscious of the toll it takes on our life experiences.

I think this ties to Diego’s question asking if we can ever truly step outside the constant exposure to modern media enough to realize it’s effects. I think that ad busters approach, advertising information rather than products for consumption, is a strong attempt to reshape the way that the media works but may not be enough. We may change the material that we are viewing, but we are still just viewing. We must remember that accessing the information that is available is important, but so is utilizing the world around us.

Finally I want to touch on our return to a read-write culture. I do, without a doubt, think we are moving towards a more participatory culture in which amateurs have a more equal playing field when compared to those we have titled experts or professionals. As discussed before, anyone can publish anything but just clicking the “publish” button. It is no longer necessary to meet with publishers and sign a contract. Whether or not this is for the “better” I do not know. With amateurs, individuals who do something for the love of it, I think the media being produced us much more pure. It has a unique truth to it without a paycheck pushing it into existence. At the same time, I do believe there is a place where “experts”
are indeed necessary and should definitely continue to exist. But then I wonder, is it only as long as copyrights exist that experts ay exist? Are the only ranked higher in a field because of the more access they have to information? With the internet providing all it does, amateurs are moving more so into the realm of publishing their work, but if copyrights ceased to exist… would everyone have the tools available to become an “expert”?

]]> By: Cary http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-225 Cary Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:29:58 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-225 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg

Derren Brown- Subliminal Advertising

]]> By: Emily Reynolds http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-224 Emily Reynolds Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:21:06 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-224 A lot of people have spoken about how the best way to combat the media saturation and media culture is to remove oneself from that environment. I would like to point out that in many ways this is an incredibly privileged world view that neglects the fact that many people can not escape hyper-saturated cities and streets. We are incredibly lucky in Vermont because we do not have advertising in our state. Not all people can just move to Vermont and go hiking for a week to get an individual break. Many people have work and kids that require a lack of mobility. Bill McKibben and Adbusters are at least on the right track acknowledging the mental environment is a systemic issue and needs to be fought against in a structural way, instead of solely individual approaches. Trying to deal with the media’s influence in an individual way is like trying to recycle to prevent environmental catastrophe, sure it’s helpful but in no way is it enough. We need to combat systemic issues with real change, not just change that makes the individual feel better. I agree that hacking is significantly more effective than culture jamming, because it shuts down the entire structure of the media, but going into the woods is not an option for most people.

]]> By: Eric Trancynger http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-223 Eric Trancynger Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:12:22 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-223 The fierce debate over the legality of user generated content in relation to copyright protection brings me back to the rap mixtape scene of mid to late 2000′s. Just a decade before in the mid 90′s the rap music industry had reached a pinnacle in its commercialization. Labels simply owned their artists down to the lifestyles that would eventually get them killed. The breaking point came with the deaths of Tupac and Notorious BIG, famed superstars who represented the this moment in rap music to the greatest number of listeners. Moving forward to the mid 2000′s we saw the emergence of the mixtape, new kind of user generated promotion within the industry, one that disregarded the old paradigm of strict legal bind between label and artist, but controversially dissolved the idea of copyrighted content. The mixtape its self is a promotional album made up from series of instrumentals made by prominent mixtape producers. These albums varied widely featuring artists ranging from the unknown local MC, those up and coming, to well established artists like Lil’ Wayne. The artists usually never meet or were even made aware they were to be featured on the same track, and financial compensation was typically not given to the featured artists unless they sold their own copied mixtapes. These mixtapes were sometimes distributed free online or could be bought in a store as a burned copy for between $1-10. Soon the mixtape became the king of the street, reaching markets where the content of the music was relevant and engaging, while at the same time missing the financial mark of the big record labels. The featured artists had mixed feelings about this and soon the rap community began to reach the ambiguous line our culture draws on copyright infringement. On one side of that hazy line you have the underground/local MC trying to make a name for himself, get heard and maybe play a few shows, this kind of user of the medium is looking for the promotional benefit of the medium and the target market it appeals to. On the other side of the line you have someone like Lil’ Wayne, someone who has used the medium of the mixtape to break into stardom but now sees it as a threat to his ability to attain maximum profit. You begin to see that the ambiguous line between what divides the polarizing views of copyright stems from the relationship one has between time and money and not amateur and professional. The example of the underground/local MC is of someone believes that if they put in the time and gain no profit the publicity gained will eventually pay out in recognition. While a person like Lil’ Wayne believes he has already crossed that threshold from strictly promotion driven effort to a developed recognition through an established fanbase. Therefore since a person such as Lil’ Wayne he has a what the unknown MC is looking for, that being his established fanbase or “market share”, then Lil’ Wayne will view his time on a track from a monetary perspective requiring the lesser known artist to pay a royalty that is far greater he/she can afford. This rant helps focus just a little bit that ambiguous line we know as copyright and the mixtape sat on the line until 2007 when Lil’ Wayne a performer who rode his mixtape influence to stardom toppled this underground promotional industry. This example only scratches the the surface and fails to point out how distribution and the middle man plays a crucial part in the equation.

]]> By: Adam Johnson http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-222 Adam Johnson Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:55:58 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-222 Katie- I experienced many of the same thoughts while reading chapter 3 and pondering the various differences between the physical and the intellectual. I found that by creating something physical, say a book or something, there is a capital investment and inherently a financial risk. Though the book is filled with intellectual content, there is now some degree of excludability associated with the product and this is how sites like Amazon, publication companies and even the UVM bookstore make their (massive) profits. Excluding fiction, I believe that the book’s primary purpose is not to solely provide you with information, as I could attain the same information in an instant about molecular biology on the internet, but rather serves as a user-friendly organization tool which is easy to learn from. The same principle applies to the music industry. It was the invention of the record, not the composition , which created a market for a physical, and excludable good. People shared song and dance through demonstration free of cost for decades until somebody stuck a capitalist knife in it.

The truth is, if there were no records or physical music “things,” then yeah many of us wouldn’t know songs like Stairway to Heaven or Smells like Teen Spirit. This doesn’t apply anymore though, as the age of digital archiving is upon us. Sharing an MP3 is JUST like sharing a blues song in 1921. The only reason anybody is making a fit about this is because of the history of buying music. You can probably see any piece of artwork on google for free, save it on your desktop, and print it out for your vacant dorm walls. The only difference I see is that one associates hearing, and one visual.

Back to the article, and somewhere between question 1 and 2 (having to do with free access coinciding with capitalism). First of all this may be one of the best things that ever happened to capitalism as far as I am concerned. Capitalism, and consumers, thrive off of competition and innovation. This new internet era of free music and media discussion has hurt music industries, paper industries, and so many others. Well, I guess it’s time to innovate. I don’t know much about Mark Zuckerberg, but I’m pretty sure 7 years ago he didn’t have too much going for him. The physical and virtual world have been seperated on the grounds as what Boyle pointed out as Commons of the Mind and Earthy Commons. 60 years ago he points out that violating intellectual property rights was extremely difficult and as he breaks down how one would do so it feels comical. Now we view it as the opposite, and difficult to not encroach on ones mental property.

Is citing a source not enough credit to the author? Is having Metallica’s vibrant album cover on your Ipod screen not acknowledging their creation enough? Does MONEY really have to be given to them to feel successful? I think we are crossing into the greed zone when making countless profits on the non-rival non-excludable goods of today.

]]> By: Max http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/2013/02/03/week-4-mental-environmentalism-the-free-culture-movement/#comment-221 Max Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:18:40 +0000 http://blog.uvm.edu/e2mc/?p=112#comment-221 I find the idea of removing one’s self from technology in general as a way to combat advertising fascinating. I have had experience backpacking and camping for extended periods and found an incredible dichotomy between the world of technology and the world outside of it, but an increasing overlap between the two.

Last spring, I lived in Chilean Patagonia, conducting field research. I lived and worked in the field for 3 months with a group of students, sleeping in a tent or under the stars, hiking every day to our field sites, waking with the sun and bathing in rivers. During this time, most technology became foreign to me. Everything from using computers to even having paved roads faded away and I adopted a new mindset. Not being constantly connected truly felt like a cleanse of the mind. I was more carefree, and was forced to live in the moment and simply enjoy where I was and what was happening that very minute.

Yet although, I was in one of the most remote parts of the world, I could not escape technology all together. Our research included detailed data entry using laptops (which we had to power through swapping out truck batteries and charging one with the engine), as well as detailed digital photography. Further, every 3 or 4 weeks when we had to resupply, I found myself in an internet cafe at the end of the world, checking my email and going on Facebook to tell friends and family I was still alive. After these sessions, I felt mentally and emotionally drained, a side effect of re-immersing myself into the world of technology.

In Patagonia, I was an 8 hour drive on washboard, dirt roads to the nearest hospital and closer to Antarctica than to the capital of Chile, there was still internet and thus still ads and a consumer attitude. In this day and age, It seems almost impossible to go completely off the grid. Every single product you use, and every aspect of our modern lives is affected by advertisements. From the time we are born our “mental environment” is clearly influenced by technology and the like and the idea that some types of information can be “pollution” does seem feasible.

However, after removing myself from technology at different points, Micah White’s idea “To escape the mental chains, and finally pull off the glorious emancipatory revolution the left has so long hoped for, we must become meme warriors who, through the use of culture jamming, spark a wave of epiphanies that shatter the consumerist worldview”, seems counter productive in a way to the overall message of culture jamming and fighting “toxic-information”. Using memes and other culture jamming techniques seem to me to just be adding more clutter to an already over saturated pool of useless information. I think if one is to turn to this method, it will not lead to an enlightenment of the mind, only an incredible cynicism and skepticism for every and all information source one comes across, and that just seems exhausting. At this point, I wouldn’t mind going back to the days when you could just watch Walter Cronkite and the news was the news. (Commence ignorance is bliss argument!)

]]>