My favorite part of this reading was probably the bit near the end of the Guerrilla Girls article about converting the viewer. Nowadays, there are a lot of extremely biased programs running on public television as a result of our political parties becoming increasingly divided. This divide alone could cause future protests, but what was interesting to me was that the guerrilla girls took a different approach than most of the modern media is doing. Channels like CBS and FOX news show effectively black and white versions of the same events, when in reality those events should be considered in shades of grey. Those news channels force their information on the viewer, expecting them to agree and if not, to change the channel. I think this shows a lack of creativity; what is the point of talking with people that share the same exact view and agree with everything you say anyways? Converting the people not to one side or another but rather to better citizens overall should be the goal of the media and especially the public news channels that are free and open to anyone with a tv. Seeing this form of thoughtful conversion coming from a group who is against the media is a bit of a scary juxtaposition, it seems that the most logical people are the ones who are going against the media that feeds the majority of our nation which does not bode well for our future. This quote from the reading sums up what they said about this topic, “We try to be different from the kind of political art that is angry and points to something and says ‘This is bad.’ That’s preaching to the converted. We want to be subversive, to transform our audience, to confront them with some disarming statements, backed up by facts — and great visuals — and hopefully convert them.”
My least favorite thing from the readings was the great importance that the first article gives to physical objects for protesting. Yes, physical objects are sometimes necessary to identify who it is that is protesting or to get the word out for a certain cause, but I see a protest as more about a group of people with an idea backing them instead of a bunch of shiny balloons. I feel that a good protest is more about sharing information to inform the masses than it is about physically making something that will stop the police from killing you, although that may be a necessity depending on how riotous the protest must get. Where in the second article we get information that can change people’s minds, in the first we get a bunch of seemingly random objects that can’t convey the message as well as an actually well educated person. I don’t think this article really conveys anything important except for the awareness that some artists focus more time on physical protest objects, but I suppose we will debate this later next week. Spreading a message seems to get difficult when that message goes against general beliefs. Then comes the question, “Should we just throw the information at them and hope that it sticks?” or “Should we masquerade our protest materials as normal things and have smart people find significance in them?” or maybe even ,”Should we actually attempt to educate the citizens so that they will join us in our push for [insert freedom here]?” I think all of these could be useful questions depending on the protest itself, and maybe someday I’ll be asking them to a group of rebels living in a North-Korea-infested version of the United States. Actually let’s hope that doesn’t happen.
1 Comment
10/5/2015 06:54:21 pm
Jimmy, I like what you say about how "converting people" should not be the goal of modern media but rather promoting a more educated and politically active population. That said, I do think art and creativity play a role in the media. What is cable tv and talk shows but a montage of visually stimulating imagery, performances, photos, and videos? Perhaps the stark images, facts, and statements displayed on partisan television are no different than the provocative posters disseminated by the Guerrilla Girls...
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Jimmy HowertonContact me: |