Another group like Ad Busters is called the Billboard Liberation Front. This group uses current ads on billboards and other major art advertising pieces by changing it just a little bit to radically change the message but still have the one that everyone knows and understands underneath it. It creates a clever image that is nothing like the original corporate one and makes one think about the promotions we see every day.

http://www.billboardliberation.com/

Although both groups use advertising, they use it in such different ways than the standard corporate message that it makes us think more about not consuming. Also, for the most part these ads are not what Herold calls “sticky” which are the worst sort of ads. These pop up on my Facebook page all the time because of the information I put on my page. These advertisements are there because the company has the information about the things I am interested in and my demographic information. The anti-ad groups don’t really use these and if one wants to find these they need to look a little harder for them.

Their storefront page is titled “culture shop”, which I think speaks to Adbusters parodying its own complicity in consumerism, as if to say, “Because we are warning you that we are capitalists instead of lying to you and saying we aren’t, it’s all ok. Now buy our stuff.” Clicking the link, we find a number of products that really speak to contradictions outlined in Harold’s chapter. In one section we see the Media Literacy Kit, with a description: “Hey Teachers, inspire your students to think critically about the world around them.” This is a promising product, and yet it is still a PRODUCT.

Then there is the Corporate America Flag, whose 50 stars have been replaced by corporate logos; the tragic message underlying this product’s description, “Wave this classic 2′x3′ flag at a protest or hang it on your wall”, is that we still need to consume in order to have identity. The same goes for the Blackspot Shoes, “Earth-friendly, anti-sweatshop and cruelty-free, Blackspots are the only shoes designed to give big business a swift kick in the brand. In 3 different styles.” Again, it is hard to say whether Adbusters is tacitly parodying marketing styles with this blatant catcalling, or if they have given in to the notion that every product needs to serve a niche if it is going to be worth producing.

Ultimately, what I am realizing is that the only way to truly opt out of consumer culture is to STOP CONSUMING. If you want a pair of sweatshop free shoes, perhaps you have to make them yourself (a difficult reality to manifest, but one worth imagining). Otherwise, you run the risk of propping up a tradition of consumerism in the name of anti-consumerism, rather than opting out and trying your own model. If you want a protest flag, you’re going to have to make one yourself–the message will be made clear that you are more than the sum of your expenditures.

One last point: we know that a major tenet of the Zapatista movement is to avoid the cult of personality, the organization of priorities and goals around the whims of a figurehead or leader who claims to speak for those who support him. Our major criticism of modern corporations is that they have shifted from production of useful goods to the manufacturing of brands, so that every product is fortified by a cult of personality; this personality, however, is not a real person, like a dictator or CEO, but an imagined version of the person that the consumer wants to be. By the same token, I conclude that Adbusters has failed at being anti-capitalist because they have produced an anti-capitalist personality, a hypothetical “cool guy” who is cool because he buys their products and worships their message. I don’t know exactly how a magazine set on disseminating anti-marketing ideals can successfully reach the masses without marketing, but perhaps they could take a lesson from Subcomandante and stop trying to be the One Rightful Bearer of Anti-Capitalist Truth.

I really like Diego’s first sentence in his post, “I think consumers might not be able to generate their own views or opinions without advertising influence unless they are totally removed from society.” Although I do not believe one has to be completely removed from society, I do think that Adbusters help us realize how ridiculous the adds we see everyday truly are.

In the “obsessed with breasts, but what are we doing about breast cancer?” campaign, for example, Harold reports that the adds may have trigged opposing feelings and left women even more unlikely to get a breast exam. “After I saw that ad, there is no way I’m ever going to have another breast exam because I’d rather be dead than look like that.”
That woman is an idiot.
This campaign focuses on a serious health issue that kills millions of American women each year, the fact that this add aims to shed light to this fact and gets criticism for it is laughable. God forbid adds try to remind us all of what really matters, our own health, rather than a pink lace push up bra for $29.95.

Critics charge Adbusters of using this form of culture jamming towards smug self-satisfaction, self-righteous elitism, and hypocrisy. Although I believe there is a possibility for Adbusters to get caught up in these sentiments, I believe that the core of their work builds upon encouraging consumers to think “rationally.” Adbusters gives consumers the tools to no longer blindly accept what adds they come across in their everyday life. Through their mockeries, they instead encourage consumers to give that add a second glance and analyze it for themselves, making their own inferences and actively choosing whether or not they want to participate in that add campaign.

Also,
there’s this.
http://instagram.com/p/TyBRaUsNdr/

Christine Harold’s article “Legacies of Tactical Media” focuses on the barrage of new media forms and the plethora and overwhelming force of voices on the internet. Although the internet has seemingly democratized media and advertising in many ways, it has only lead to a more complex and tangled mess of ideas.

Groups that seek to reduce the effects of advertising by using more advertising and mass media are, in my opinion, only contributing to constant buzz of the internet and the indecipherable cloud of information within it. Furthermore, by using fire to fight fire, they are only contributing to the overall strength of the internet as an advertising force.

The way to combat and undermine mainstream media, advertising and ideas has not changed since the days of Socrates. Education and a healthy skepticism is the only true antidote to advertising. If groups like adbusters really want to help the public and resist advertising, maybe they should promote education rather than counter culture. If someone is well informed and well read they will hopefully put thought into their decisions and be less easily swayed by obvious marketing schemes.

I think the articles we read for this week give way to much credit to the power of advertising and make it out to be some ominous force that controls us all, when in fact, it only has as much power as we let it if we just stop to think about our actions.

I know that a group is doing a project on culture-jamming and anonymous CAE artists like Banksy for their critical analysis, but I have been following his work for a while, so I find it worth mentioning in my post briefly. His work definitely creates this idea/following/culture of “cool” mentioned in the Harold piece. Some may say his art is pointless and quotes like from Michael Hugh Anderson, “You self-righteous, self-important wretches! You high-and-mighty crapmongers!…What precisely do you suggest we all do? Any helpful suggestions at all” might seem to be a response he’d get about his work. But I disagree. I find his work to be very successful. The political/social/environmental issues he projects in his work reach an audience of followers that might have never been exposed to that information otherwise. For this reason alone I find street art in the form of culture-jamming and CAE to be crucially important.

Here are links to two of his pieces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hjIuMx-N7c
Called Pier Pressure, in response to an oil spill

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAMsZxABiv4
Called Pet Shop, about animal cruelty and the industrial meat industry

Lastly, I think that art is a fantastic tactic for a movement/rally/protest. It cannot be the only tactic for success, however it is a vital component. Visual stimulation can intensely affect human emotion, and the combination of art (graphic, 3D/installation, or fine arts) in media and movements can be a crucial catalyst for creating change. It can be a tool for uniting people towards an issue, uniting a community, or causing attention to an issue for the public.

The idea of using culturally recognized images to relay an idea does not always have to be in a parody form. For example, (one of my MOST favorite artists) Candy Chang uses the familiar image of “Hello My Name Is” sticker to create awareness on an abandoned community of New Orleans.

http://candychang.com/i-wish-this-was/

or http://candychang.com/neighbor-doorknob-hanger/

^ which takes the recognized “Do Not Disturb” sign and creates projects for connecting neighbors and creating community. This could be seen as culture jamming for it’s using the idea of “Do Not Disturb” to critique our societies tendency to be too individualistic, every-man-for-themselves, and uninvolved in building social capital (only economic capital). However, it approaches this issue in a positive and much lighthearted way.