All of modern life is a spectacle. Much of what contemporary man experiences in Western society is a false social construct mediated by images.
These mediated images create desires that can never be fulfilled; they create false needs that can never be met. “Many of our daily decisions are governed by motivations over which we have no control and of which we are quite unaware” (Berger 41). The constant spector of the mediated image creates an endless cycle of desire, consumption, and disinterest, fueling a banality in life that feeds the commodification of life.
Increasingly life itself becomes a commodity and the image more important than the reality it represents. This commodification infiltrates every aspect of human production, including the arts, and finds its pinnacle expression in the work of Damien Hirst. Hirst has carefully crafted a brand identity that has far surpassed the value of his art work in importance and worth. Working in tandem with former advertising executive turned art dealer Charles Saatchi, the spectacle of the Hirst image becomes the commodity. “Reality unfolds in a new generality as a pseudo-world apart, solely as an object of contemplation. The tendency towards the specialization of images-of-the-world finds its highest expression in the world of the autonomous image, where deceit deceives itself” (Debord 143).
No longer is the work of art itself a commodity, but rather the image of the artist (his/her/cis brand) that becomes the commodity.
It is this spectacle that drives the consumer to identify with a particular artist or brand. “The astronomical growth in the wealth and cultural influence of multi-national corporations over the last fifteen years can arguably be traced back to a single, seemingly innocuous idea developed by management theorists in the mid-1980s: that successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products” (Klein 4). The image has increasingly infiltrated and dominated the culture and the whole of society and has become “an immense accumulation of spectacles” (Debord 142).
Where once the products of labor were the commodity, now it is the spectacle that has become the commodity.
A prime example of this spectacle is Damien Hirst’s sculpture, “For the Love of God.” The sculpture consists of a platinum skull covered with 8,601 diamonds. The sculpture valued at over $100 million usd/ $129.361,000 cad [exchange rate at time of publication] is clearly out of the reach of almost any collector. The sculpture itself is not the art product, rather it is the spectacle that is the product. “Mr. Hirst is a shining symbol of our times, a man who perhaps more than any artist since Andy Warhol has used marketing to turn his fertile imagination into an extraordinary business” (Riding, nytimes.com). Acknowledging that the sculpture is out of reach for the majority of collectors, Hirst offered screen prints costing $2000 usd/ $2,587 cad to $20,000 usd/ $25,870 cad ; the most expensive prints were sold with a sprinkling of diamond dust.
Karl Marx argued that the value of the commodity arose from its relationship with other commodities; its ability to be exchanged for other commodities. Marx used the the production of a table to illustrate his thesis: “…by his activity, man changes the materials of nature in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered if a table is made out of it. Nevertheless the table continues to be wood, an ordinary, sensuous thing. But as soon as it emerges as a commodity, it changes into a thing which transcends sensuousness.” (Marx 122)
Hirst’s diamond encrusted skull remains mere diamonds, valuable yes, but still diamonds. However, when coupled with the spectacle of Damien Hirst’s identity, the skull becomes a fetishized commodity capable of selling screen-prints valued in the thousands. The argument can be made that diamonds on their own carry value, and could be commodities themselves, however that doesn’t account for the fact the Hirst was able to sell prints of the skull for over $2000 usd/ $2,587 cad. Nor do the diamonds alone account for the spectacle surrounding the art work; it is Hirst’s brand, his image that creates the spectacle.
“The mystical character of the commodity does not therefore arise from its use-value. Just as little does it proceed from the nature of the determinants of value” (Marx 123). The value of a commodity arises from its spectacle, its ability to be desired. In Marx’s day that desire was its ability to be traded for other commodities; today that value is derived from its association to a brand, an identity, a spectacle. “Art reflects the illusory way in which society sees itself, it reflects the bourgeoisie’s aesthetic ideas as if they were universal” (Osborne 79).
The spectacle feeds itself through the mediating of the image to create desire for status and recognition, through associations.
“The ends are nothing and development is all – though the only thing into which the spectacle plans to develop is itself” (Debord 144). The spectacle’s main objective is self perpetuation. Its aim is totality. It must be noted that Hirst himself did not even create the work of art, but rather employed a studio full of jewelers to execute the sculpture, and printers to produce the prints.
Hirst exemplifies the bourgeoisie capitalist employer who retains ownership over the fruit of the employees’ labor. He is in many ways more akin to a captain of industry than he is to the romantic notion of an artist. “In the early twenties, the legendary adman Bruce Barton turned General Motors into a metaphor for the American family, something personal, warm and human” (Klein 7). Hirst has also turned himself into a metaphor, however, metaphors aren’t always true. This falsehod is at the heart of the issue. The spectacle isn’t concerned with what is true, rather it is concerned with what can be made to appear true. It is this appearance of truth that makes a commodity valuable. This fetishism of the commodity is why gold and silver have value, it is because people gave them value. It is the reason Damien Hirst, or any other brand, has value, because people gave it value.
Damien Hirst cannot be blamed for commodifying art, he is simply following a long tradition of turning objects and products into commodities. The fact that his commodity is his own image doesn’t seem to matter. “Hirst is just playing the game. It is a game played by collectors and dealers at art fairs throughout the year; it is a game finessed as never before by Sotheby’s and Christie’s; it is a game in which, in the words of Nick Cohen, a rare British journalist to trash Mr. Hirst’s publicity coup, ‘the price tag is the art’ ” (Riding .nytimes.com).
That final statement beautifully summarizes the commodification of art, ‘the price tag is the art.’ The fact that the art is obscenely priced, and out of the reach for the majority of collectors, the fact that it is made of diamonds, a precious stone known as the blood stone because of its association with brutal and oppressive regimes, merely adds to its allure, to its spectacle. Damien Hirst is merely playing the game, like many before him. He is a part of the growing culture industry that sells image. Images are the new commodity fetish. Images are the new mysterious commodities exchanged for more the more durable and enduring commodities. The bourgiousie sell their images, which have no real value, to the public which consumes them, in exchange for goods of real value.
“The $200 billion usd/ $270 billion cad culture industry – now North America’s biggest export – needs an every-changing, uninterrupted supply of street styles, edgy music videos and rainbows of colors. And the radical critics of the media clamoring to be ‘represented’ in the early nineties virtually handed over their colorful identities to the brand masters to be shrink-wrapped.” (Klein 115)
Nick Cohen said of Hirst, “[he] isn’t criticizing the excess, not even ironically … but rolling in it and loving it. The sooner he goes out of fashion, the better.” What Cohen fails to realize is that the spectacle is a fashion. And when one image goes out of fashion, another takes its place. Hirst may indeed go out of fashion, but another art brand will take his place, perpetuating the commodification of the arts in increasingly bombastic ways.
Perhaps art has always been a commodity?
In the past patrons would hire artists to paint them into scenes from the gospels. Patrons could be seen on the outskirts of paintings piously praying, thus creating an image of themselves as good and pious Christians. By association with the sacred art, the patron was creating a mediated image. Rulers did this all the time. The Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius is a perfect example. Its a mediating image that communicates power and authority.
But none of these examples reach the level of spectacle and fetishism that is Damien Hirst. While art may have been a commodity in the past, it was never commodified. In other words, while the art itself may have been exchanged for other goods, the artist himself was not treated as a commodity. The art of the past may have served a purpose, it may have contained a mediated message, but it was still a product, and it was the product that was valued, not its brand identity.
The commodification of art creates a unique problem in history. If it is the spectacle that matters, and the artist’s identity that has value, then what value is left in the art itself?
What then separates art from ordinary objects? Is there any aesthetic emotion that remains in the work of art itself, or does the aesthetic emotion dwell completely within the spectacle? These are questions that cannot easily be answered, and ultimately will require the lens of history to answer completely. But they are a pressing concern, for when art is commodified, it may cease to be art and instead become celebrity, product, or worse, advertising. For the Silo, Vasilios Avramidis
Works Cited Berger, Arthur Asa. Seeing is Believing: An Introduction to Visual Communication. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2008. Print. Debor, Guy. “Showing Seeing: A Critique of Visual Culture.” The Visual Culture Reader. Ed.Nicholas Mirzoeff. New York, NY: Routelage, 1998. 142-144. Print. Klein, Naomi. No Logo, No Space, No Choice, No Jobs. New York, NY: Picador, 2000. Print. Marx, Karl. “Showing Seeing: A Critique of Visual Culture.” The Visual Culture Reader. Ed.Nicholas Mirzoeff. New York, NY: Routelage, 1998. 122-123. Print. Riding, Alan. Alas, Poor Art Market: ‘A Multimillion Dollar Headcase.’ The New York Times. June 2007, Damien Hirst and the Commodification of Art http://www.visual-studies.com/interviews/moxey.htm
SPOTLIGHT: The Casio SK series keyboards, carries great nostalgia for many of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s.
My friend got one for his birthday, and after spending an entire day at his place sampling burps, coughs and farts, I knew I was destined to become an electronic musician. If this is your story too- let us know below in the comments section.
The SK line’s distinctive design and sound evoke memories of early bedroom-made electronic music and hip-hop production, making it a sought-after collector’s item. The SK sound quality is characterized by its lo-fi charm. Everything sampled into it sounds like crap, but in a good way!
There’s a thriving community of musicians and collectors who appreciate the SK-2 , SK-5, SK-8 et al for their historical significance and cultural impact.
Used prominently on my 2008 release of AUDIOCOSM by Jarrod Barker, the SK-8 was used as a sampling beat box and also one or two of its famous presets were used in a loop to create swirling matrices of sound on a number of tracks. I found this keyboard in a thrift store in 2007 buried in the children’s electronic toys. It was $2.99 CAD and even had the battery cover. This fortuitous discovery was the spark that led to the writing and recording (on a boat no less!) of AUDIOCOSM.
The rare white version of the SK-10.
At their absolute basic, the SK line are fun keyboards and a great introduction tool to lo-fi sampling. But there is much more.
After recording a short audio sample (recorded either via the built in monophonic microphone or by plugging in an audio source using the 1/8″ female jack) you can choose from various envelopes (settings that affect how the sound starts, how long it sounds and how it ends) and also select whether to reverse or loop samples. These toy synthesizers are a treat when connected via guitar effects pedals. A good outboard effect can transform these keyboards into something much more powerful and believable. If that isn’t enough you can explore the factory preset sounds some of which sound more realistic than others but all have usefulness in the correct setting.
Most SK’s have a decent enough piano, vibraphone, flute, trumpet and clarinet sounds. There are also built-in speakers that are loud enough for mobile use such as camping or beach hang outs and of course the SK’s run on batteries. They also have line out feature which bypasses the onboard speakers allowing you to record them into your favorite DAW or standalone recording machine….an analog 4 track is a great bedfellow.
The Mod community and the SK (circuit bending)
Due to it’s relative affordability (used prices have continued to rise in the past 10 years) the SK series of keyboards have been embraced by electronic musician modifiers. Their basic construction and ease of internal access makes modifying them a lot of fun. The creativity of modders seems to be endless- everything from MIDI control to individual audio outputs to real time control of sound chips using dip switches or rotary controls.
Join that thriving community by buying this one from our friend at Tone Tweakers today! For the Silo, Jarrod Barker.
Happiness…..I popped the pink pill into my mouth and waited for the expected feelings of ecstasy. No, the pill wasn’t the drug XTC, but rather a legal and safe “hacking” alternative. Then I put on my trans-cranial stimulation device, known as “The Thync,” and waited to see what happened. Wow! After five minutes, it felt like my brain was flooding me with endorphins. Finally, I placed the scalp stimulator known as the Tingler on my head. When I did this, an orgasmic wave of intense pleasure rippled through my entire body.
After a few minutes of this euphoria, I took off the devices and went about my day. Having just been catapulted into sweet ecstasy, my day became both incredibly productive and happy.
This is not a future scenario.
This is how I like to start my mornings. Nowadays, there are new and improved ways to feel good-even ecstatic-that most people don’t know anything about. In an age when depression is rampant and dangerous drug use is epidemic, amazing new ways to feel peaceful, euphoric, and just plain happy are popping up all over the place. However, people miss out on these amazing methods because they simply don’t know about them. From safe drugs to “happy apps,” to high tech brain stimulation devices, a whole new world of ways to feel good is blossoming.
We live in an age where everything is shifting and accelerating. Yet, most people still pursue an ancient path for finding happiness. Their formula for being happy is to try to control all the external events and people in their lives to be exactly the way they want. This is a tiresome activity at best, and there are always some events and people that we can’t control. However, there is a new model for finding more joy and peace of mind: find it within your self. Of course, this is a not a new idea. Everyone from the Buddha to Jesus has said that heaven can be found within, but now there are cutting edge and more efficient ways to tap into this magical inner kingdom.
As invited to talk to Google employees about “The Future of Happiness.” I described new ways to control their minds and emotions that were more effective than trying to be happy by controlling all the events in their life. The reaction was intense. Everyone wanted to know what some of these innovative ways to “hack happiness” were, and how they could get them. That led me to write a book on the subject.
In my research I learned that different things work for different people.
For example, there are a lot of supplements known as “cognitive enhancers” that can dramatically increase your focus, energy, and mood. Yet, you have to try out many of them in order to find the one or two that really rock your world. I also learned that people define happiness in unique ways. Some people want a gadget that increases their pleasure, while other folks want a tool that improves their relationships or makes them feel totally peaceful.
Gary Numan “Complex” from The Pleasure Principle
As with all technologies, “inner” tech keeps getting better. In fact, some of them are so good that it’s possible to get addicted to them. Ultimately, one has to discern whether a given gadget is truly a friend that helps them find the joy within–or is just another WMD-Widget of Mass Distraction. Since there are many tools that do different things, there’s no simple answer as to whether something is beneficial to you.
For example, people become addicted and dependent on coffee. Yet, on the other hand, caffeine can prevent many types of cancer, and helps people feel good and be productive. So, is coffee a “good” thing? It’s up to you to decide…
In my own case, I decide if a specific technology is truly my friend by asking myself two questions. First I ask myself, “Does this tool lead me to being dependent on it?” It’s always better when technology acts like “training wheels” on a bike-meaning that the tool exists so that you can eventually do without it. If instead a gadget fosters a sense of dependence, then that’s a warning sign it may ultimately not be worth it.
The second question is, “Does this technology help teach me how to better connect with a sense of peace, love, or joy within?” Even the Dalai Lama has reportedly said that if there were a pill that duplicated Buddha’s awakening, he would take it immediately and prescribe it for all living beings. If a tool helps me learn how to get to a more peaceful, loving place more efficiently, I think that’s a good thing.
It’s hard to say exactly what the future holds, though Steve Jobs was seemingly pretty good at predicting it. In 1972 I had the unusual opportunity to be in a computer class with Steve Jobs. Of course, at the time he was just a nerdy teen and I was four years his junior. He and I would vie to play Tic-tac-toe on a 500 pound “computer” that our High School had recently purchased. Steve was obsessed with this machine. One day I asked Steve why he was so fixated on this refrigerator sized computer. He turned to me and said in an intense manner, “Don’t you see? This machine is going to change everything! It’s going to change the world!”
It turns out Steve Jobs was right.
Well, nowadays it may not seem like the latest brain supplement, neuro-stimulator, or mood enhancing app is going to change the world, but technology has a way of discreetly slipping into our lives. This “technology of joy” will only accelerate until the entire way we pursue happiness is transformed in the next few years. I’ve seen that when people try out enough of these new gadgets, apps, and supplements, they inevitably find something that feels good–and is even good for them. When that happens, their lives are never the same. For the Silo,Jonathan Robinson.
Cleaning is called a “chore” for a reason, it’s a pain to do and nobody likes doing it! Imagine if there were robots that could do ALL of the cleaning for you so that you can relax and spend more time living your life. Look no further than Ecovacs Robotics, an award-winning brand of home robotics.
When the DEEBOT D35 was brand new in 2015, it was the first robotic vacuum designed for kitchen and bare-floor cleaning that had “direct suction” vacuuming. Dual-sweeper side brushes allow cleaning along baseboards, which often collect the most dust and is hardly ever noticed. D35 also has smart technology that can detect obstacles such as furniture to keep from bumping into them, along with sensors to detect stairs, so it can remain safe from taking a tumble. Plus, it will automatically return to the charging station to re-energize after cleaning.
Also from Ecovacs Robotics is the WINBOT W730, the world’s first robotic window cleaner. WINBOT’s operation is very easy – users just power her on, securely place her on the window, and press start. WINBOT’s Pathfinder Technology automatically scans and calculates the size of windows and programs a custom path for speed and efficiency. Her internal vacuum pump and powerful suction motor create a double seal that is able to bear up to 26 pounds and a back-up battery and safety pod ensure that WINBOT will stay secure even if the power is disrupted.
The DEEBOT D35 is available for an affordable $199.99, and the WINBOT is priced out at $399.99 [US dollars]. Learn more about home cleaning robots at www.ecovacsrobotics.com.
PURPLE are now working on a multi-city arts project in China and Hong Kong with The House Collective, a collection of uniquely intimate luxury hotels that includes Upper House in Hong Kong that was just listed as part of World’s 50 Best.
‘Encounters Across Cultures’ will be an immersive journey that travels across four dynamic cities: Hong Kong, Shanghai, Chengdu, and Beijing with The House Collective taking a stance on the importance of creativity within Chinese tourism.
The projects will feature singer-songwriter Vicky Fung, music producer TJoe, erhuist Chu Wan Pin, and the visionary new media artist, Keith Lam. Together, their work will harness the power of biometric data to craft mesmerizing musical compositions and awe-inspiring data sculptures that capture the very soul of each city. Below is a quick snapshot of the key elements of ‘Encounters Across Cultures’:
· Vicky Fung and Keith Lam have created a series of multi-sensory data sculptures that follow four traveling artists – TJoe, Chu Wan Pin, and themselves – as they tour each city.
Data sculpture rendering
· Creating a tangible journey for audiences, ‘Encounters Across Cultures’ will weave together these stories to create four musical pieces and data sculptures, designed with soundscape recordings of the musicians’ movements and biometric data, such as pulse and skin resistance.
Graphic Notation Keith’s Biometric data
· The process includes Lam’s representation of this biometric data into emotive graphics, which Fung reshapes into musical tracks; the biometric data is then transformed into data sculptures that embody each traveller’s visceral sense of the city.
· The House Collective’s four Houses will host the installations, capturing these private journeys into one shared experience for visitors.
This journey begins in October and continues until January, with specific dates for each location as follows:
• The Upper House in Hong Kong: October 9th to October 23rd
• The Middle House in Shanghai: October 30th to November 13th
• The Temple House in Chengdu: November 20th to December 6th
• The Opposite House in Beijing: December 14th to January 15th, 2024
THE HOUSE COLLECTIVE UNVEILS ‘BIOMETRIC’ SENSORY ART EXPERIENCES INSPIRED BY FOUR CITIES FOR THIS YEAR’S ‘ENCOUNTERS ACROSS CULTURES’
Artists and travelers collaborate to capture the heartbeat of four cities, inviting viewers to experience their emotive journeys across each city soundscapes through art, music, and technological forms.
The multi-sensory installations combine numerous art mediums to question whether technology is always a force disconnecting us from one another, or if it can reveal our innermost emotions.
October , 2023 – The House Collective, a collection of intimate luxury hotels, announces the third iteration of its biennial program ‘Encounters Across Cultures’ , which celebrates the immeasurable creativity fostered through multicultural and multidisciplinary collaboration. This year’s program explores the intersection of technology and the creative arts through four multi-sensory data sculptures and music tracks, inspired by biometric data captured during journeys across four cities — ‘Encounters Across Cultures’ will open at The Upper House in Hong Kong, travelling to The Middle House in Shanghai, The Temple House in Chengdu, and The Opposite House in Beijing.
“Art and culture are part of The House Collective’s core DNA and values. Since the launch of Encounters Across Cultures in 2019, we’ve worked with global artists to stimulate creativity and showcase the power of collaboration across borders. This program is not only an extension of The House Collective’s values, but we also hope to invite our guests to explore the beauty of cross-cultural connections, and to be immersed in this unique and sensory art experience together.” – Teresa Muk, Head of Brand and Strategic Marketing at Swire Hotels.
In their first ever collaboration, Hong Kong-based artist and music producer Vicky Fung and media artist Keith Lam have created a series of multi-sensory data sculptures that follow four travelers – guitarist TJoe, erhuist Chu Wan Pin, and themselves – as they tour the four cities. Creating a tangible journey for audiences, ‘Encounters Across Cultures’ weaves together all of these stories to create four musical pieces and data sculptures, designed with soundscape recordings of the musicians’ movements and biometric data, such as pulse and skin resistance. The process includes Lam’s representation of this biometric data into emotive graphics, which Fung reshapes into musical tracks; the biometric data is then transformed into data sculptures that embody each traveler’s visceral sense of the city. The four Houses will host the installations, capturing these private journeys into one shared experience for visitors.
“I do not see the biometric data that we have collected as cold and lifeless data points – instead, each biometric moment is a representation of the traveler’s thoughts and feelings through their movements, and their changing reactions as they enter new environments. We wanted to share our heartbeats, our senses of touch and sight, with everyone through this immersive installation so that they could really feel exactly as we did in each city.” – Keith Lam, Program Artist.
“While we may come from very different backgrounds and live in different places, when I studied the biometric data, I instead found that we were all experiencing many of the same feelings and emotional journeys. The installation brought us closer together, as I felt totally connected to the person on the other side.” – Vicky Fung, Program Artist.
“Earlier this year, we celebrated the brand’s expansion in Tokyo through a cross-disciplinary dance performance that tells the story of honored tradition, modernity, harmony and new possibilities. For this year’s Encounters Across Cultures, The House Collective continues to tell cross-disciplinary stories, pushing the boundaries of innovation and delving into the dynamic realm of Art Meets Tech. Through these programs, we aim to share unforgettable experiences with our guests and expose them to locally curated artistic flavors, where we offer the comfort of being Houses not Hotels.” – Dean Winter, Managing Director of Swire Hotels
Viewers are invited to take a seat on the multi-sensory data sculptures, where they can be immersed in the music created from the biometric data. The result allows viewers to interact with their sense of touch, sight, and sound as they explore the installation.
The House Collective by Swire Hotels is a group of refined, highly individual properties that defy comparison. Each uniquely imagined, The Opposite House in Beijing, The Upper House in Hong Kong, The Temple House in Chengdu and The Middle House in Shanghai were designed for seasoned travelers who seek a different, intimate and personalised experience in luxury travel. Each House is a sophisticated, singular piece of design, created by talented architects and designers, that reflect the unique qualities of their surroundings.
Program Creators
Keith Lam – Media Artist
Media Artist and Co-founder and Artistic Director of Art & Technology studio Dimension Plus. His works have won awards at international art festivals, including Prix Ars Electronica and Japan Media Arts Festival. His works have been shown around the world at top museums and art festivals including Hong Kong Museum of Arts, The National Art Centre at Tokyo, OK Center for Contemporary Art, Ars Electronica Festival, The New Technological Art Award Biennial at Belgium, FILE, ISEA, National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts, National Taichung Performing Arts Center and Hong Kong Art Festival.
Vicky Fung – Artist and Music Producer
Artist, music producer, singer-songwriter and curator, Vicky has always presented uniqueness and novelty in her works with a strong sense of emotional synchronicity. A Clore Fellow of 2023, she has worked with many prominent music artists in Hong Kong with an impressive list of music awards from media and professional associations and seeks to develop her interest in socially engaged art projects. In recent years, she has ventured into multi-media creation, including “Utopia…Momentarily” (2016) in the New Vision Media Festival, interactive virtual reality experience “Silili and The Tree” (2021) and immersive art and music performance “Soul Walk” (2022).
Joel Kwong – Media Art Curator
Joel Kwong is a media art curator, writer, producer and educator based in Hong Kong. She is currently the Program Director for Microwave International New Media Arts Festival, and the founder of SIBYLS – a creative Arts x Tech consultation and production agency. Most recent produced and curated projects include Reimagines Heritage (online portal) (2023), Out of Thin Air – HK Film Arts & Costumes Exhibition at Hong Kong Heritage Museum (2023). Juried around Asia include VH Award (South Korea) (2022), and Siggraph Asia 2020 (South Korea) etc. She has given lectures in many Hong Kong tertiary institutions and universities and has also given talks at international art festivals including Ars Electronica in Linz, Transmediale in Berlin, and ACT Festival in Gwangju, South Korea.
Tjoe Man Cheung – Guitarist
Tjoe Man Cheung, London-based musician and producer working across with artists across UK and Europe, including Brown Penny and PYJÆN, and in different festivals across the world. Alongside, Tjoe also initiated his own solo music projects and has founded NTBM (a jazz collective formed by emerging musicians from around the world) and his solo music projects. A graduate from the Musicians Institute, Tjoe was inspired and nurtured under the tutorship of Scott Henderson, Allen Hinds, Brad Rabuchin and Daniel Gilbert, with influences of jazz, funk, blues and pop.
Wan Pin Chu – Erhuist
Wan Pin CHU is an international award-winning Erhuist and film composer based in Hong Kong. Wan is recognized as a versatile performer with rich emotions and limitless virtuosity in his music. In the UK, he is the first Chinese instrumentalist to perform in The Duke’s Hall in Royal Academy of Music and have performed in over hundreds of concerts all over the world including UK, US, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Hong Kong, Mainland China, and won an impressive list of national and international music competitions. Chu is is also a dedicated composer and have participated in the scoring of many films, televisions, games and commercials.
Royalties Are Bullshit: A Musician’s Case For Basic Income….. “This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
-Woody Guthrie, copyright notice, This Land Is Your Land
Royalties are bullshit.
I say this as a musician, and as a songwriter. But let me go a step further: royalties have always been bullshit. The first problem? They’re not going to musicians, and they never have.
If money is being made, something is being sold. That something has to be a product, something that can be counted. Originally it would have been sheet music, before recorded music was widely available. Later on, it meant records, then tapes, CDs, downloads, streams, as well as licensing rights – use in a specific film, or for a particular commercial. There is a product. Someone is buying it. Some of that money goes towards the cost of producing, distributing, and marketing that product; some of it goes to the artist, as royalties.
Well, a little bit of it goes to the artist.
As Billboard notes, “An accurate map of royalty pathways would be a tangled mess.” It’s not easy to get paid.
Some royalties are set by the government, some are negotiated, some are paid through groups. For example, I license my music through TuneCore, which strikes deals with a series of digital music outlets, like iTunes and Spotify, each of which offers different terms of payment. Spotify pays artists, on average, $0.007 cents per stream.
Beyond that, if you are “fortunate” enough to work with a major record label, there are restrictive terms and conditions. Techdirt quotes Tim Quirk of Too Much Joy explaining the Kafkaesque math [emphasis mine]:
A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.
Of course, none of this is new, really. The history of artistsgettingscrewed by record labels is as long as the history of record labels, and includes everything from the creative math above to outright theft, failure to count sales, or inventive stunts like Fantasy Records accusing John Fogerty of plagiarizing himself. But bear with me, because it gets worse.
In the music industry today, there are a few people who are making money from royalties- and they’re making nearly all of it. More specifically, the top one percent of earners are taking in 77% of the recorded music revenue. Strikingly, these are many of the same artists who are now “at war” with YouTube. Artists such as Taylor Swift and Paul McCartney are convinced that YouTube is making money from their music by selling ads and subscriptions, and not paying adequate royalties. And they’re not wrong; YouTube is definitely making money by selling ads and subscriptions, and there’s no question that most of that is not going to the artists.
However, this is a stupid argument.
It’s a stupid argument because a tiny group of people that’s making the lion’s share of all recorded musical income is concerned that a new service doesn’t adequately compensate them; the major record labels feel the same way, of course. It’s a “war” that leaves out 99% of the musicians out there trying to make music and make a living, and it doesn’t really matter how they settle the conflict.
So let’s say, hypothetically, that we eliminate royalties. This raises a fundamental question.
How do we compensate and credit artists for their work?
I believe the answer is basic income, but first let’s take a closer look at that question. At a glance, it seems like it should be simple: pay them for their music. But what does that mean? It quickly gets complicated.
Part of the problem is that we as a culture equate value with ownership. If musicians have created a song, this thinking goes, and that song has value, they must own it, like any other form of property. But that’s ridiculous, and it’s pretty easy to see how quickly it becomes truly absurd.
For example, take a classic blues song, like Big Mama Thornton’s “Hound Dog.” Is that her tune? Yes! Does she deserve credit for it? Absolutely. Big Mama Thornton has a special place in blues history, and rightly so. But is it the first example of a 12-bar blues? No, of course not. Is it the first time someone used lyrics about a dog? Is it the first time someone used the call-and-response verse structure of a repeated first line and different last line? No, and no. And even though she made it a hit, the lyrics were by Leiber and Stoller. So which part of the song does she “own”? Is it just that specific recording? If so, how much does the bass player own, or the drummer? Do you pay royalties for playing it on the radio? What if it’s on the radio, and you tape it? What if you give that tape to a friend? I know, I know, nobody tapes anything off the radio anymore. What if you cover it in a bar? What if you sing it in your living room? What if you sing it in your living room and upload it to YouTube? What if you share the MP3? Where do we draw the lines?
Woody Guthrie, speaking from the folk music tradition, said “New words, new song.” Bob Dylan took that lesson to heart, both in early works like “Masters of War,” which took a melody from an English folk song called “Nottamun Town,” and in more recent releases. On Modern Times he lifted lines from a Civil War era Confederate poet named Henry Timrod, and used the arrangement of Muddy Waters’ “Rollin’ and Tumblin'” with re-written lyrics and the same title.
I don’t mean to discount Big Mama Thornton, or disparage Bob Dylan. I’m a big fan of both. What I want to illustrate is that “property” and “ownership” is a meaningless way to look at music, because it’s a living, inherited tradition. Everybody got something from somebody. Every electric guitar player owes something to T-Bone Walker, and T-Bone owes something to Blind Lemon Jefferson. Every folk singer owes something to Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger. And more to the point, if you ask any great musician, they will tell you who they got it from. Eric Clapton tells people about Buddy Guy, but if you put a microphone in front of Buddy he’s going to tell you about Muddy Waters, BB King, Guitar Slim. The greats are always ready to turn around and credit the people who came before them, because that’s how a living musical tradition works.
So again: how do we compensate and credit artists for their work?
Splitting the question
One answer is to split up the question. When you think about it, it’s really two different questions. Let’s look at the second part first: how do we acknowledge and appreciate and credit the work that artists do? This is especially important because many important contributions to music, art, and human history generally, were made by people who get erased from popular culture- in particular women, LGBTQ folks, and people of color (Ma Rainey, for example, was all three). They are erased, in part, because there is money to be made by erasing them.
The uninformed still think “Hound Dog” and “That’s All Right” are Elvis Presley tunes. And while Presley himself was quick to credit his influences, most people have never heard of Arthur Crudup, and everyone’s heard of Elvis. Sometimes people were erased several times over; early blues music was driven by women like Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, and Sister Rosetta Tharpe, who were largely displaced by black men, who then had their music co-opted by white guys playing rock’n’roll versions of the same songs. Some made serious efforts to show people where the music had its roots – The Rolling Stones, appearing on the show Shindig in 1965, insisted that Howlin’ Wolf also get to perform. On the other hand, Led Zeppelin took Willie Dixon’s song “You Need Love,” and recorded it as “Whole Lotta Love,” without ever mentioning where they got it. It’s ironic, since Dixon himself was notorious for taking credit and royalties for other people’s work, often by offering to “take care of the paperwork” on a new tune.
So how do we make sure we credit and acknowledge artists? One way, I believe, is to end a system of compensation based on owning something that cannot be owned. In a system like we have now, where the focus is on ownership of a particular sound, or song, or style, there is a real financial incentive to take credit. In the case of the record labels, you can even get the actual rights to an artist’s songs. If we disconnect the money from the “ownership” of the music, we are removing part of the incentive to pretend that new music doesn’t freely flow from old music.
Universal Basic Income
To be clear, I’m not suggesting artists should not be paid. There are different ways to support artists, and the internet has allowed for a lot of direct interaction between artists and fans. There are crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Patreon, there are independent music platforms like BandCamp and CDBaby. They’ve got their advantages and disadvantages, but what I’m advocating is something simpler, more widespread and direct: universal basic income.
Universal basic income, sometimes called emancipatory basic income or simply “basic income,” is an easy idea to understand: you give everybody money. Everybody. Rich people, poor people, working people, the unemployed, the young, the old, everybody. Everybody gets a salary. It’s not a lucrative salary, but enough to make sure you can provide for yourself.
First, let me clear something up: this is not a wild, crazy, utopian idea. It’s a serious proposal, that is increasinglybeingtreated as such. Even Forbes ran a piece called “Universal Basic Income Is Not Crazy.” Of course, it works better if you already have some of the social framework much of the world takes for granted: child care, family leave, health care. But let’s leave those aside for a moment to look at basic income from the musician’s perspective. What is the impact for working musicians?
Quit Your Day Job
Many, if not most, working musicians [and artists CP] support themselves with a day job. This includes long-time performers with steady gigs, people who have gone on world tours and recorded on dozens of albums. Buddy Guy drove a tow truck into his thirties. Composer Philip Glass worked as a plumber and taxi driver until he was 41. Wes Montgomery worked in a factory from 7am to 3pm and played gigs until 2am.
Let me tell you: it’s not easy. As a musician, you already have to balance many competing demands: playing gigs, traveling, booking and promoting shows, recording new material, rehearsing a band. Being a professional musician is, effectively, more than one job already. Now try to schedule all that around a conventional job structure that wants you working at 8 or 9 in the morning, 5 days a week, regardless of where you played last night or when you got home. It’s hard to fit all of it in, and that’s without stopping to consider that it might be nice to sleep occasionally or even see your family now and then.
One reason basic income is sometimes called “emancipatory” is because it frees you from this burden. You’re still going to be out there hustling for gigs, scheduling sessions, trying to record and promote and – let’s be real – get paid. Basic income doesn’t eliminate the desire or possibility for people to make money by working, it just means you don’t have to worry about starving or getting evicted while you do it. And let’s remember, most of the money musicians make doesn’t come from royalties anyway. People are getting paid for gigs, for shows, for studio sessions, for tours, sometimes for merchandise or direct sales (in particular if you’re producing your stuff independently).
Make The Music You Want To Make
Musicians make compromises all the time. Sometimes it’s about timing: you want to put something out, and you can’t afford to wait, so you settle- you keep a take that could have been better, you scratch a song that needs a few more sessions to come together. Sometimes it’s about the sound: a record label wants to market you a particular way, a track needs to be “radio friendly” to get airplay. Sometimes it’s just about resources: recording and producing music, even with all the advances in digital technology, is a laborious, expensive process. For some players, there’s also the trade-off between taking gigs that might pay better but be musically unfulfilling (think wedding band or corporate events) versus pursuing a musical vision that might not have a ready-made market. And, of course, there’s that most precious of all resources, time, which is often given over in huge amounts to the aforementioned day job.
Basic income removes the immediacy of financial pressures, and frees up a lot of time. Does that mean we won’t have choices to make? No, of course not. There are always choices, and there are always constraints, and even if we get basic income that won’t turn time itself into a limitless resource. But it changes the balance of the decision.
Creative Liberation: Supported By Research
Right now, across the country, there are brilliant artists whose music could change and enrich our culture in ways we can’t imagine, and we don’t get to hear them. They’re stuck working day jobs, playing the gigs that pay the bills, and trying to fit their creativity into commercial constraints. Pause for a moment, and imagine the explosion of new sounds and ideas we can liberate with basic income.
As a musician, that paragraph felt intuitively true to me. However, a number of people who were kind enough to review an early draft of this essay suggested that my point might be better served if I backed it up with “evidence” and “examples.” Of course, there’s not exactly a one-to-one comparison available, so I’m going to draw on some similar programs and related ideas.
First: the MacArthur “Genius” grants. These fellowships are awarded to people who are already recognized to be exceptional; they provide a no-strings-attached stipend of USD$625,000 over five years. Obviously that’s a lot more than “basic” income, but they underpin the idea that simply providing creative people with resources allows them greater freedom to explore, discover, and create. In a review of their program and its effectiveness, The MacArthur Foundation found that 93% of the fellows reported greater financial stability (no surprise) and 88% reported an increased opportunity to express creativity. Three quarters felt it lead them to make riskier, more ambitious choices in their work.
Some might argue that the fellowships exhibit a selection bias, since they go to people already known to be creative. However, there’s good reason to believe that supporting the poorest and most marginalized offers even greater benefits. Dissent magazine recounts the history of the Federal Writers Project, which offered “unemployed” writers guaranteed income by giving a fixed salary to produce travelogues or other commissioned writings:
…with regular paychecks, FWP writers could experiment with more creative projects at the same time. Over the course of eight years, the program employed over 6,600 writers, including Nelson Algren, Jack Conroy, Zora Neale Hurston, Richard Wright, and Ralph Ellison. The FWP enabled new classes of Americans to become “professional” writers.
While employed by the FWP, these writers—most notably writers of color—wrote fiction that challenged the political status quo, and they revolutionized literary form in order to do so. To be sure, many of these writers developed their politics in pre-FWP years, but stable employment facilitated their political and artistic ambitions—by providing them with steady income, connecting them to other writers, and offering literary inspiration. From 1936–37, between posts at the Federal Theatre Project and the FWP, Hurston wrote her beautiful and troubling novel Their Eyes Were Watching God, a book celebrated today for its inventive use of black vernacular. Wright spearheaded the “Chicago Renaissance,” a creative community strengthened and supported by FWP projects in the state of Illinois. Meanwhile, in New York City, Ellison was conducting FWP oral histories when, as he reported it, he stumbled across a man who described himself as “invisible.” This encounter would be the genesis for his Invisible Man, surely one of the strangest and most significant novels of the twentieth century.
I recognize that the subjective self-evaluation of MacArthur fellows and even the impressive work of FWP authors can be considered, to some extent, anecdotal evidence. But there is also controlled research, and what it shows is the flip side of the coin: that poverty impedes cognitive function. Lead by Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan, the team found that “experimentally induced thoughts about finances reduced cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants.” They also found that farmers showed diminished cognitive ability before harvest, when they were poor, compared to after harvest when they were relatively rich. That’s after controlling for free time, nutrition, work effort, and stress.
If you’ve ever been broke and had bills to pay, this is not news. It’s hard to focus when you have a huge bill hanging over your head and no immediate prospect for paying it off. When you’re in a position of financial hardship, a portion of your brain is effectively set aside to repeating over and over again, “AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT.” Or the hospital bill, or the car payment, etc. You know the classic sci-fi trope that imagines what you could do if you could harness the full power of your brain? Turns out it doesn’t require genetic engineering – you just need to be able to pay your bills.
I would argue that we are effectively paying a cultural opportunity cost in the form of lost creativity. Coming back to music, anthropologist David Graeber puts it this way:
“Back in the 20th century, every decade or so, England would create an incredible musical movement that would take over the world. Why is it not happening anymore? Well, all these bands were living on welfare! Take a bunch of working class kids, give them enough money for them to hang around and play together, and you get the Beatles. Where is the next John Lennon? Probably packing boxes in a supermarket somewhere.”
The Robot Imperative – It’s Not Just About Musicians
I realize we’re covering a lot of ground here, and we’re about to talk about robots. So first, a quick recap
Royalties don’t go to (most) musicians.
Royalties don’t make sense because they rely on ownership of something that cannot be meaningfully owned.
This system of ownership creates financial incentives to take credit for other people’s work.
Eliminating royalties forces us to confront the fundamental question of how we credit and compensate artists for their work.
Basic income answers part of that question – compensation – while eliminating royalties removes, at least in part, the financial incentive to take credit.
Basic income liberates musicians from the constraints of a day job and the pressures of commercial music.
Evidence supports the idea that this liberation leads to more, and more adventurous, creative work.
In short, basic income separates the idea that people have value from the idea that they must own something valuable.
All of that has been true for quite some time, and in fact arguments for basic income are as old as Thomas Paine. But there is a huge, disruptive change happening that makes this a much more urgent question, not just for musicians but for everyone. Namely, robots. Robots and computer automation are about to eliminate huge numbers of jobs (think tens of millions). Some are in the news right now: Uber is testing self-driving cars in Pittsburgh. Driverless trucking is not far behind, taking 3.5 million jobs with it. And it’s not just truckers: designers, fast food workers, accountants, financial analysts, doctors, hotel concierges. Thousands of news stories are being written by robots. An Oxford University study estimates that 47% of total employment may be at risk. Even jazz musicians have to be worried.
In short, the day job could be going away, and not just for musicians. The question is, what will we do with these millions of people, once they’re out of work? Will we insist that truckers can all get jobs doing social media? Will a few wealthy people retreat behind high walls and leave the rest of us to fight for the scraps of employment through a fog of financial worry and expensive, short term trade-offs?
Or will we embrace basic income, recognize that people have innate value, and unleash a wild torrent of creative exploration the likes of which we’ve never heard before? For the Silo, Anthony Moser.www.anthonymoser.com
@mosermusic
PS – My music is available on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bandcamp, and a host of other digital music services. If you catch me at a gig, you can buy an album for name-your-price. And if anyone ever uploads it to The Pirate Bay, torrent with my blessing. As Woody Guthrie would say, “Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
Come on, you have to admit. It’s a lot of fun to stumble around YouTube with that old pre-internet habit of television channel surfing surprising you with random discoveries.
When I do, I particularly enjoy reading comments left by others who have somehow found their way to whatever it is I happen to be watching. This comforts me because I know that this method of purposeful and accidental consumption of media is not exclusive to me [many comments start with: “Not sure how I ended up at this video but….” or ” __________led me here.”] but perhaps I’m alone in the belief that spontaneous discoveries help connect me better to the production. I think what I’m talking about is called “verisimilitude” and no doubt as I type this out there’s someone trying to figure out how they’ve discovered the same excellent BBC synth documentary that I discovered by chance: Synth Britannia.
Not one to beat around the bush, Will wanted to know what had happened to the future? Specifically the future suggested if not promised in comic book ads to the then pre-adolescent Will Ferrell. He asked, where were the Jet packs, autopilot-flying cars and robot butlers? It occurred to me that if Will was an electronic musician he would have come to the same conclusion that the producers of Synth Britannia did while they drew up the plans to make their excellent documentary: The future did come, it just wasn’t so literal.
To compound matters this future somehow passed by all of us, unless perhaps you were a student of history or an existentialistic, free-radical electronic acolyte or computer programmer back in the golden age of dystopia vision. I call this era the ‘other’ 1970’s.
I have added the qualifier: ‘other’ 1970’s, because today’s media mistakenly focuses on reinforcing the bell-bottom, disco driven qualities of the 1970’s but there was a much more robust, artistic movement running against the grain in the same way that meaningful art has always done. This movement bridged fashion, art, cinema, sound design and of course music and if you want to learn more while being thoroughly engaged, then spend some time paying attention while you watch Synth Britannia.
You might even find yourself considering an impulse purchase of a mini Korg 700S. I know I did.
Supplemental- While I polished this article, one thing became apparent. New music or to be specific, those new artists that are being profiled on national television as new music agents are all lacking the one thing that characterizes the heroes of this column. Simply put, today’s music heroes are not a unity of ideas and expression. They are not bands. They are performers representing wish fulfillment with no sense of genuine attitude or social commentary and perhaps even worse, no sense of daring inventiveness. So far, most (but not all-there are exceptions) of today’s star performers are ‘safe’, predictable and lacking in terms of communicating their alienation. They have become game show contestants. This is because media business (in other words the television networks) has formulated and created what is palatable to an audience. The home video game market further suggests and reinforces created fantasies with interactive games that essentially boil down to a form of karaoke or twister. Simply put, new consumer habits are being engineered and I’m sure they always will be.
So, as listeners, is it fair to say that we no longer think for ourselves and we no longer question what is ‘good’ or ‘impactful’? With today’s de rigueur promise of dream and wish fulfillment (in terms of television shows that empower an audience with voting privileges to create the next pop star) that most crucial artistic ingredient: “individualized commentary” has been eradicated. Even more alarming is that consumers’ freedom of choice is being challenged.
That’s likely because the major media corporations feel wholly threatened by what the internet promises: a vast sea of content that is discoverable and searchable by desire or by chance.
So-is it fair to say that we have become woefully inadequate in identity and informed choice? If there is art, angst and message, where can we find it? Try channel surfing around YouTube and follow what catches your interest. For the Silo, Jarrod Barker.
Do you have trouble using your smart device in the cold?
Here’s some good news for you- we’ve improved our knitted touchscreen gloves, raising the bar again with the introduction of the Single Layered and Double Layered Touchscreen Gloves. Featuring an updated nanotechnology design that includes a leather wrist strap, leather cuff boards, upgraded material for increased durability and maximized grip and a magnetic snap closure ensuring strong holding power while reducing tension on the strap during opening / closing. Here’s the story behind these innovative gloves-
There’s a new kid on the block, a brand new addition to Mujjo’s highly appraised line of Leather Touchscreen Gloves. Fitted with a fold-over closure and marked with the brand’s familiar slant line, the new Leather Touchscreen Gloves are a bold statement with an iconic look.
Crafted with poise and quality
Designed by Remy Nagelmaeker (Co-founder) with subtleness in mind, the new gloves were formed according to Mujjo’s signature aesthetics. Crafted with poise and quality, the gloves present characteristics of masculinity with carefully considered materials. The matte finishing of the leather allows for a well-balanced iconic look in uniform dark tones along with a few areas of contrast intensifying the low-key design.These gloves are equipped with a magnetic snap closure, ensuring strong holding power while reducing tension on the strap during opening / closing.
Powered by nanotechnology
Powered by state of the art nanotechnology, which mimics the conductive properties of the human skin, Mujjo’s touchscreen gloves offer an unrestricted touchscreen experience and enable the user to utilize all fingers and even the palm of their hand.
To make the gloves compatible with touchscreen, nanotechnology is infused into premium Ethiopian lambskin known for offering the best isolation properties of any kind of leather. The technology functions independently from the human skin which enables us to fully insulate the gloves with a soft and warm cashmere lining.
A great gift for someone
There’s no doubt our product would make for a great gift for someone, which is why we’ve put serious effort into designing the gift box. It is important to us that the high-quality of these leather gloves radiates through the packaging. The gift box package embodies the low-key personality of the gloves, delicate yet striking. Made with attention to detail, the materials are of uniform dark tones and contrasting textures.
The Story
Mujjo pioneered unrestricted touchscreen gloves and has continued to improve and evolve on all aspects of the designs ever since. For the Silo, Jarrod Barker.
If you’re a fan of body shaking bass frequencies and missed our article from waaaay back in 2016 about SubPac, read on because you’re in for a treat.
SubPac is a pioneering technology from Los Angeles, California that is defining the physical-sound category where music, VR, games and film can be experienced in a whole new way. Through its patent-pending immersive physical-sound technology, SubPac transcends the traditional audio experience by allowing users to actually feel sound throughout their body.
Wear a subwoofer? Sounds like fun!
SubPac is creating its own physical-sound category through two unique products; the SubPac M2, a wearable vest, and the SubPac S2, a seatback device. Both create a new form of expression for musicians and sound designers to connect with their fans on a deeper level by using innovative technology that allows consumers to physically feel sound. This tangible connectivity captivated GRAMMY-winning producer Timbaland to come on board as a partner and introduce the brand to the music industry.
“SubPac is a game changing experience for both artists and fans,” said Timbaland. “It lets you feel the music like never before. It’s the feeling that’s been missing, until now.”
The SubPac vest is getting a lot of attention and its clear that listeners on the go are ready for an immersive experience, especially one that works while being active- jogging, playing basketball, cycling etc. It’s a logical step to add a wearable to our listening routines and the idea now is to connect your smartphone to the SubPac control unit via the headphone connection. This allows for an audiophile hookup of headphones for the mid and high frequencies and vest for the bass frequencies.
Now you can feel deep bass wherever you go and wherever you choose to enjoy your music.
Back in 2005, composer Lewis Spratlan and I began work on an opera inspired by Louis Kahn. Kahn, who excelled in music and once considered becoming a composer, was especially cognizant of how sound works in a physical space. “Space has tonality,” he often said. Kallick, a professor of music at Amherst College, made recordings of the “acoustic envelope” at several Kahn buildings, which were employed in composing the work’s prelude and interludes.
Key elements from Spratlan’s music were integrated into this electro-acoustic music, creating a seamless connection between the narrative world of the characters and the sounding spaces that filled their dreams. Opening in the ruins of Rome and ending with the healing waters at Kahn’s Salk Institute, ARCHITECT: A Chamber Opera narrates the dramatic arc of Kahn’s journey from dreamer to master builder.
Click the link below to read about Spratlan discussing the project with Frederick Peters, board chairman of New Music USA, which supports composers, performers, and audiences of new American music. For the Silo, Jenny Kallick- Amherst College.
I spent most of yesterday afternoon watching and taking notes from the 86 minute documentary ELEKTRO MOSKVA. This film is so rich and interesting that I found myself sitting in reflection every time I jotted down another intriguing story element…..and believe me there were lots.
The film’s official website describes itself like this: “ELEKTRO MOSKVA is an essayistic documentary about the beginnings of the Soviet electronic age and what remained of it- a huge pile of outdated, fascinating devices. Today they are being recycled and reinterpreted by musicians, inventors and traders, who carry that legacy on into an uncertain future. An electronic fairy tale about the inventive spirit of the free mind inside the iron curtain- and beyond.”
Well all of that is certainly true but I discovered something deeper….. something partially hidden and really only stated at the end of the documentary: A metaphysical connection between electronic instruments, their circuitry and between immortality and rejuvenation. A sort of Frankenstein subplot. And that makes ELEKTRO MOSKVA much more interesting. It lingers and stays with you as all great films and documentaries tend to do.
Leon Theremin
Leon Theremin
If the inventor of the world’s first electronic instrument- The Theremin is to believed, his experimentation with electronic instrument designs led to techniques that allowed rejuvenation of human life and the bringing of the dead back to life. Kooky stuff to be sure but in our modern age of DNA manipulation and Stem Cell research shouldn’t we keep our minds open to all biological possibilities? Why is it so obtuse to think that electronic manipulation holds the key to immortality? The brain is after all- a sort of electronic computer. Why else would Russia have kept the body of Lenin whole and entombed for over a hundred years? Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself- let’s move instead to the birth of Communist Synthesizers.
A Ghost of Communism: The backdrop for the film
It began with the Soviet electrification of the country. As Russian homes and farms became wired, Science and Technical Progress became heralded by the state as ‘the new Gods’. In 1926 Léon Theremin ( Lev Sergeyevich Termen ) invented an early form of television which was adapted for border security use and classified. At the same time, the state decided that technological developments were only considered legit and legal if they strengthened communism.
The long awaited electrical revolution expected by the masses and any notions of new, exciting products in Russian homes became instead a sort of electrified jail and super factory. Then, after Russia had successfully developed nuclear bombs and orbited the first man in space- things changed. A celebration of technical progress and Soviet achievement became politicized through the use of synthetic music and sound. Found out what happened next by watching ELEKTRO MOSKVA online in HD. Highly recommended. For the Silo, Jarrod Barker.
Is it ethical for media streaming companies, such as Spotify, to take advantage of IP loopholes, which are known to negatively impact artist revenues?
Values:
>Balance & Fairness
>Legal Values
Loyalties:
a. Duty to service
b. Duty to subscribers
c. Duty to shareholders
d. Duty to Intellectual Property
e. Duty to Art & Commerce
Principles:
Aristotle’s Mean: “Moral virtue is a middle state determined by practical wisdom.” Virtuous people will arrive at a fair and reasonable agreement for the legitimate claims of both sides somewhere in the middle of two extreme claims.The two sides must negotiate a compromise in good faith. “Generally speaking,in extremely complicated situations with layers of ambiguity and uncertainty, Aristotle’s principle has the most intellectual appeal.”
BASIC CONCEPT:
Negotiated compromise.
>>Streaming Media Company
For the Purpose of analyzing an isolated streaming media company, Spotify will be examined through the lens of the potter box. Spotify is a streaming service with cross-platform availability that specializes in music, and generates income from its 20 million premium and 75 million free users, respectively. Spotify boasts an extensive catalogue for free and for a nominal fee. Spotify’s extensive catalogue is made possible due to established agreements between various record labels and media companies. Agreements that are known to negatively affect artists, while benefiting both Spotify & Record labels, plague the music industry. Payout deals between Spotify and record companies range from royalty payout to equity deals.
Spotify does not want to make adjustments to the model of its free service, because if their users are not able to find it on Spotify, they will utilize other streaming services such as youtube, which is likely to have the content. They have identified this free offering as being their driving force for getting new subscribers to the service. New subscribers that turn into increased revenue for record labels, as 70% of revenue from $10 per month subscriptions and advertisements are paid to record labels, artists, and song publishers.
>>Artists—Influence: Art/Media Creators
The Artists on Spotify collectively stream over 30 million songs across 58 different markets. Despite collectively making up a heart from which Spotify thrives, Artists receive 6.8% of streaming revenue, the smallest share of the pie.
Artists receive 10.9% of the post tax payout between artists, labels, and songwriters/publishers. Many artists including Adele, Taylor Swift, the Beatles, and Coldplay have opted for keeping music off of Spotify.
Spotify does not have direct agreements with most artists. The streaming company has agreements with labels, whom are responsible for not only securing licenses to music, but to are also responsible for payouts to artists. So essentially, Spotify pays labels, and the label is empowered with payout to artists. The problem is not that Spotify refuses to fairly pay for royalties; it is the trickling down of payment from labels to the respective artists. Spotify has wholesale access to music catalogues from record labels, which makes it hard to fairly split royalty payments amongst artists that are under contractual agreements with respective label.
Even with leaked contract between Spotify and Sony Music available, it is still unclear how much of payouts to record labels actually get to the hands of the artist. It is clear that Sony Music is getting a hefty payout annually, but the question is still whether or not these hefty payouts are passed on to the artists.
>>Major Record Companies
The music catalogue on Spotify is mostly populated by content from major record labels that include Sony Music, Universal Music Group, EMI, Warner Music, Merlin, and The Orchard. Self-published artists as well as artists from independent labels also help makeup Spotify’s catalogue.
Record companies have begun to further question Spotify’s free model since Taylor Swift and other artists have proactively opposed Spotify’s extensive free offerings to users. Streaming consumers of music increased by 54% between 2013 and 2014 according to the Nielsen SoundScan. Major record companies are often made better deals, which disproportionately disadvantage independent artists and labels.
Executives at major record label such as Universal Music and Warner Music have made statements about the extensive free offering of its licensed music is not sustainable long-term. It was suggested that there needs to be a more clear differentiation between content available to free and premium users. Bjork has suggested that Spotify should not allow access for certain content right when it comes out, but should allow for content to go through certain rounds of monetization before ending up on Spotify, similar to Netflix’s rollout method for its content. Major record labels are currently in the process of renegotiating agreements, and are mostly pushing for adjustments to free service offered.
Their goal is to have the “freemium” model disappear as time persists.
What is the current policy?
A legal agreement between Sony, the second largest record company in the world, and Spotify recently leaked, which further intensifies questions about fair payouts for artists. The contract confirmed that major record companies benefit from the success of the streaming service Spotify. The contract details advance payments of over $40 million, with a $9 million advertising credit. Sony has declined to comment on the leaked contract, as it was illegally obtained. Labels routinely keep advances for themselves according to an industry insider.
The leaked contract detailed agreements between Sony Music and Spotify, but not between Sony Music and artists. Such fruits of private agreements don’t necessarily trickle down to the artist, because in most cases they are not even aware of an under the table deal unless a leak has occurred. Unstated under the table deals are not ethical, because artists do not benefit from funds received on account of their intellectual property. The International Music Managers Forum urges European and American authorities alike to use the Sony leak as an example of why more transparence is necessary.
Artists are not being fairly compensated for use of their intellectual property.
Streaming companies have established a revenue arrangement with major Record Companies that often does not favor artists. The obvious shortfalls with existing policy include the lack of transparency when it comes to agreements between record labels and Spotify. There are no systems of checks and balances for ensuring that labels adequately and fairly share Spotify revenue with artists. There needs to be a streamlined system that puts everything on the table in clear view, for fair agreements between artists, label, and streaming company to be arrived at. Current policy also allows Spotify to take up to 15% off the top from revenue generated from ad sales.
What needs to be changed?
Spotify seems to be fairly paying for royalties, but the flow of cash does not always get to the artists. Substitute apps; try to compete with Spotify, by challenging the freemium model. Other apps such as Tidal aim to provide audience with exclusive content that they won’t find anywhere else. The problem is that apps such as Tidal market themselves as a music-streaming app by the artists for the artists. Nowhere in that equation is the interest of the average potential consumer considered. Artists may receive more money per stream, but the service is double the price of Spotify. Record companies, and artists alike, are moving away from Spotify’s freemium model. The digitization of music is not the problem, as most artists and labels generally trust certain digital services such as itunes, because it translates into revenue for artists with no veil or strings attached. Extensive free offerings seem to be the major issue that involved parties have with Spotify, but it is the only thing that drives traffic according to Spotify. The freemium offerings need to be changed in some way, but in a way that is non-disruptive to Spotify’s commerce. Since Spotify pays its fair share of royalties, a more streamlined agreement between record labels and artists should be established and transparent, as should deals made between Spotify and record labels.
Major record labels need to stop double dipping. Not only do they receive cash advances & royalties, but they also benefit from Spotify’s overall revenue stream as they have equity in Spotify of up to 18%. Billboard magazine interviewed two dozen record executives and they agreed that they were confused as to what Spotify was replacing, whether being a substitute for sales or piracy. Examples of setting limitations of the freemium service have showed signs of slowing down subscription growth rate. Spotify has stated that if artists are not fairly compensated from stream revenue, then it is a result of recording contracts and or label accounting practices. Some major record labels are fine with Spotify using their music to build business, because of their equity; they are looking ahead for profit from a future IPO. The artists would not benefit in the same manner, despite their content being the driving force for the app in the first place.
Scenarios
In a time of changing platforms and distribution methods, consumer trends has undoubtedly been in transition. The radio still accounts for an estimated 35% of music consumption, followed by CD consumption at 20%, free streaming at 19%, and paid streaming at 1%. Multichannel consumers, mostly millennia’s, account for 66% of music consumers. A multichannel consumer may pay for a streaming subscription, and make a physical and/or a virtual music purchase. The most common multichannel consumption combination is free streaming coupled with CD listening which accounts for 49% of multichannel listeners, followed by free streaming coupled with music downloads which accounts for 44%. Millennia’s are also known to engage in both free streaming and downloading.
Evidence
During the first quarter of 2014, Pharrell Williams garnered 43 million Pandora streams, which only paid him $2,700 as a songwriter. A statement from Pandora indicates that all rights holders were paid upwards of $150,000 within the first 3 months, and that the real issue is the financial dispute between labels and publishers. Pandora also indicated in the statement that labels are free to split royalties between themselves and artists, however they see fit. Clearly there needs to be more transparency for the cash flow between streaming company, label, and the artist.
Spotify returns 70% of its revenue to rights holders, with information about each artist to aid in the royalty split process. Streaming companies are engaged in fair due diligence where payment of royalties are concerned. The evidence is as follows:
Actionable Policy
The music industry needs a streamlined agreement between streaming companies, record labels, publishers, and artists. It is imperative that there is increased transparency, especially where cash flow is concerned. Artists should be able to see all cash and data exchanged between streaming company and label. Royalty holders need to publicly split funds amongst themselves and artists. Record labels need to be accountable to both their artists and streaming company, because an artist that feels swindled can create bad blood between the artist and the label and/or the artist and streaming company.
Recommendation
>>Actionable
1. Artists are cut into equity deals based on audience pull to streaming service per qtr
>>Streaming Services should provide analytics with specific data to aid audience pull observation for given artists
2.Major Labels are transparent with cash flow of compensation from Streaming Companies
Is it ethical for media streaming companies, such as Spotify, to take advantage of IP loopholes, which are known to negatively impact artist revenues?
Judgment:
It is ethical for streaming services to take advantage of IP loopholes, which are known to negatively impact artist revenues. Music platform are changing, and as such, better agreements need to be drafted to complement this change. Streaming companies have shown the numbers, and they are paying for royalties, which is essentially paying for the use of the music in their catalogue. Music streaming is an emerging market, which record companies themselves are invested in. The common mode of music monetization is moving away from CD sales, and that is undeniable. Music downloads take up a lot of data, so streaming is the most practical way for consumers to enjoy their music.
The freemium model of Spotify should not be eliminated, but it should certainly be reconsidered, or at least limited in music access. Premium, new, and sought after music should not be as accessible as music that has already exited the promotion stage. Their needs to be some sort of compromise between record labels and Spotify, to better differentiate between premium content and freemium content. Spotify does not want to compromise the availability of its music on either platform, and labels reserve right to pull any of their artists from Spotify as they wish. Spotify should do a better job differentiating free content from premium content, it’s only fair. Spotify should not compromise to the point that it becomes impractical, but should compromise in a way that is cost-effective for all parties. If this were to be attained, streaming companies, record labels, and artists would be happy, circumventing social dilemma. Jordan Muthra The New School University, M.A., Media Studies, Graduate Student
Yoshihito Isogawa believes his books should be like the LEGO brick—minimalist, colorful, and full of possibility.
In his nearly-wordless releases from No Starch Press, such as The LEGO Power Functions Idea Books (No Starch Press, $24.95 USD each, 324 pp./328pp., October 2015), Isogawa shares hundreds of creative ways to build mechanisms with Power Functions, a wildly popular LEGO TECHNIC system of electronic components. In these books, Power Functions gears, lights, motors, and control units are used to make sliding doors, walking robots, steerable tanks, and more, with each project encouraging readers to become inventive LEGO builders.
Isogawa’s previous books have been praised as “invaluable” (BrickJournal), “fantastic” (Boing Boing), “minimalistic but highly informative” (Booklist), and “indispensable” (The NXT STEP Blog), and this two-volume set is a treasure trove of tiny but surprisingly elegant creations that millions of LEGO Power Functions owners will use for design inspiration.
The LEGO Power Functions Idea Books showcase small projects to build with LEGO TECHNIC gears, motors, and other moving elements that are depicted in vibrant, detailed photographs. Each model includes a list of required parts that guides readers through the build while exploring the principles of simple machines, gear systems, and power translation.
Each of these volumes continues No Starch Press’s tradition of publishing high-quality books that inspire readers of all ages to stretch the limits of their imagination and build creatively with LEGO. The LEGO Power Functions Idea Books are available now in fine bookstores everywhere.
I then entered the working world and forgot all about making music. Fast forward 30+ years, and the itch to make experimental music overtook me again, but now technology had changed drastically. I no longer needed hardware. I discovered apps on my iPhone, and music platforms like SoundCloud and Bandcamp were all that I needed. I was immediately obsessed.
I yearned to use hardware/instruments again, but not being able to play an instrument is a definite hindrance 🙂 I searched for cheap keyboards on the net. I soon discovered the “Stylophone” and ordered one ‘sight unseen’. It was unique, inexpensive and fun, but quite limited in sound variety. I started mixing the Stylophone with app produced sounds/music, as well as other “found sounds”. (I really appreciate the functionality of software based mixing apps, which are almost essential to my creations these days). I then stumbled upon a couple of user videos of the Hyve synthesizer, and knew I had to have it. It was clearly non-musician friendly (and looked so different, cool and fun).
Then came the disappointment … You can’t buy one! (BUT I HAD TO HAVE ONE!!!) Turns out, the engineer/designer guru behind this awesome device (Skot Wiedmann), has work shops in the Chicago area, and you can go build your own, ( very inexpensively ). I knew what I had to do. I looked at a map, saw that Chicago was about 8 hours away, and realized that I had to go build it. I started to plan the trip. I knew that a fellow SoundCloud musician and Facebook friend (Leslie Rollins) lived in Berrien Springs, Michigan, about 2 hours outside of Chicago.
This presented a twofold opportunity. I could hopefully, meet Leslie face to face, and hopefully have a place to spend the night. I contacted Les and everything was A-OK! I purchased a ticket to build my Hyve, and started to plan my road trip. The workshop was going to be from Noon to 3pm, Saturday Sept.24 in a cool space called Lost Arts in Chicago.
I had the whole week off from work, because I was overseeing a contractor doing extensive yard work at my house all week, and I was hoping to leave Friday so as to arrive at Leslie’s place in the late afternoon or early evening, spend the night, and leave for the workshop Saturday morning. Alas, plans rarely work as hoped.
The contractor wasn’t finished until Friday afternoon, and Les wasn’t getting home from a business trip until late Friday night. New plan! Early to bed Friday. Early to rise Saturday (2:30 am), and depart for Leslie’s place in Michigan. It was an easy drive, and I got to Berrien Springs (a beautiful sleepy little university village) around 8:30 am. Met Leslie, and got to trade stories over a great breakfast in a local cafe. Then, I quickly admired Leslie’s impressive modular synth racks at his home studio “Convolution Atelier” and then left for “Lost Arts” in Chicago.
Lost Arts is located in a cool old industrial complex. The workshop provided everyone with a surface mount board with the touchpad on one side, and components layout on the back. A sheet listing components and placement was also handed out, along with tiny plastic tweezers. Everyone then had their component side “pasted” with a solder paste applied through a pierced template, in a process similar to silk screening. Everyone then started to receive their very tiny components from the parts list. Following the placement locations, the components (chips, capacitors, resistors, etc) were set into their pasted areas with the tweezers (magnification and extra lighting was a must). Once all the components were placed, they were carefully “soldered” into place by simply holding a heat gun over each component until the solder on the board had adhered it. Once this was done, everyone had their 9v battery and line-out jacks hand soldered into place by Skot , and then … the moment of truth, Skot tested each one for proper operation.
It was a fascinating process and great experience. I met a lot of cool people at the workshop, both builders and staff/helpers! I can’t say enough what a fantastic experience this was, and what an awesome, diverse and versatile device the Hyve is. I doubted my sanity when planning this trip, but it turned out to be very rewarding!
Leslie and I then went back to Michigan, stopped at a local brewery in Berrien Springs (Cultivate) and sampled a few of their excellent brews, and then proceeded to Convolution Atelier to play with Leslie’s modular system. (I’m a newbie to all things modular, and I received a great crash course from Leslie on his very cool array!) Then it was out to dinner with Leslie and his wonderful wife Lisa, and finally back to their house where I stayed for the night, and finally hit the road towards home the next morning. It truly was a great adventure! For the Silo, Mike Fuchs.
Peter Auto is delighted to announce that the Concours Chantilly Arts & Elegance Richard Mille, which will be held on 4th September in the Chantilly Domain for the third time, is welcoming two new partners: BMW and ACJ (Airbus Corporate Jets).
BMW was present at the 2015 event as entrant in the Concours d’Elégance reserved for concept cars and won the 1st prize with the 3.0 CSL Homage R. In 2016, the year which marks the Bavarian make’s centenary, BMW has joined the Chantilly Arts & Elegance Richard Mille in the context of a wider partnership that will be announced at a later date.
ACJ provides its clients with the most modern business jets in the world based on the full range of planes made by Airbus, leader in the field of aeronautics, thanks to its unique expertise, innovative technology and bespoke customer service. A fully personalised interior can be installed in these very spacious VIP planes including, for example, a lounge, an office, a bedroom and a bathroom. By combining interiors with unique living spaces and a range of action that enables its clients to cover the whole world, ACJ facilitates their life style. With ACJ Chantilly Arts & Elegance welcomes a partner whose values of excellence, innovation and luxury dovetail perfectly with those highlighted by the event.
BMW and ACJ join a list of prestigious partners who have renewed their confidence in Peter Auto in 2016 for the Chantilly Arts & Elegance Richard Mille: DS Automobiles, Le Point, Bonhams, Relais & Châteaux, Charles Heidsieck, Radio Classic, the IDEC Group, etc.
The first two Chantilly Arts & Elegance Richard Mille were an instant success with the public, manufacturers, collectors and partners. They were also rewarded in Great Britain by the prize for the Motor Car Event of the Year in 2014 and 2015 at the International Historic Motoring Awards. In 2015 the event received the backing of the French Ministry of Culture and Communication, which has renewed its support in 2016.
The 3rd Chantilly Arts & Elegance Richard Mille follows in the same vein as the previous ones by continuing with the Concours Automobile allied with a wide range of activities that include the French Art of Living, Fine Arts, Arts of the Table, Fashion, Music, Watch making, etc. with the partnership of prestigious houses and brands. Thus, all the ingredients are combined to make it a rendezvous that’s unique in its field in an exceptional setting only a few kilometres from Paris. The riches of the Chantilly Domain and the eponymous princely town give Chantilly Arts & Elegance Richard Mille the quintessence of art and elegance, which all the visitor can enjoy at this convivial, family event.
Is the Alien(s) franchise overdue for an official day of recognition and fan celebration? I think so. Fans of the original 1979 movie and the sequels and prequel that followed are a loyal bunch. They spend money on toys, posters, t-shirts, Blue-ray box sets and some like me, shelled out big bucks in 1987 for a pair of Reebok’s Bugstomper shoes. That’s dedicated fandom.
Perhaps I’m splitting hairs here. There’s a good chance that the re-issue shoes might be slightly different than the original Bugstompers. Images and an official 20th century fox poster being used to promote the re-issues show the Alien character Ripley in a pair of very noticeable “high top” Reebok Bugstompers. Back in the day, only “mid top” shoes were available.
What else besides shoes?
Beginning at midnight and lasting 24 hours, 4/26 (an homage to the planet LV-426) will be filled with product launches, nationwide screenings and a Twitter trivia contest that will give away ALIEN merch every 42.6 minutes. Now you know what that twitter hashtag #AlienDay426 is all about: make April 26 the de-facto fan day for the Alien franchise. CP
Did you know?
The most sought after Alien collectible is the 1979 Kenner 18″ Alien doll– a fine likeness of H.R. Giger’s design. Originally pulled from toy store shelves due to frightening parents and children alike.
UPDATED- Aliens | July 2016 Comic Con Full Panel (James Cameron, Sigourney Weaver, Bill Paxton)
OCCUPY BLACK ROCK! THE METAPOLITICS OF BURNING MAN by MARK VAN PROYEN
As annual journalistic rituals go, the annual Time Magazine “Person of the Year” has been the most enduring barometer of the spirit of the moment of its announcement. For close to a century, the banner was “Man of the Year,” but after Corazon Aquino and Queen Elizabeth smiled at the world from the front cover of that influential publication, gender neutrality became the preferred modality. In 1982 “the computer” received the coveted award, so gender went out the window altogether. But the 2011 award was given to “the protestor,” and the representative image was a masked face of an angry-eyed anonymous person.
This image followed a long year of public demonstrations that started at Cairo’s Tafir Square in late January 2011, spread to the shores of Tripoli and then moved on to Damascus. In September 2011, it arrived in New York’s Zucotti Park, a tiny sliver of public space surrounded on all sides by the world’s most prominent financial institutions. According to the surging multitudes that participated in what would come to be known as Occupy Wall Street, those institutions were evil, and needed to be called into account.It took the major media a full ten days to report the story of the occupation of that little park, although the story had already been thoroughly distributed via social media networks. The movement’s rhetoric was ingeniously crafted for those modes of distribution, and usually took the form of declarative slogans. These proclaimed that the protestors represented the 99 per cent of the American population that would no longer stand for being fleeced by irresponsible government tax policies, a lack of regulation of the financial markets and a vast system of political bribes routinely called “campaign contributions.” Conservative commentators squealed “Class War!” in comic disregard of an OWS placard reminding its readers “they call it class war when we fight back!” From the OWS point of view, that war had been ongoing since Ronald Reagan’s first term in office. When the major media did get around to picking up the story, “What do they want?” or “What are their demands?” were published everywhere, as if the protestors were unintelligible in their calls for economic justice and political fair play. OWS did not give in to the “demand for demands” and this is crucially important, because their movement never was nor is now a conventional exercise in political advocacy. It is much better to describe it as a case of spontaneous socio-cultural upheaval intended to reshape contemporary political priorities into a more ethical form. In an America where an uber- wealthy minority has garnered a proportionally larger piece of the economic pie for decades, one might have anticipated that the protesters would have adopted a more conventional form of utopian rhetoric. But theirs was decidedly pragmatist. They pointed at real problems that could and should be solved in a political practice governed by simple sanity. One sign read, “I don’t mind you being rich. I mind you buying my government out from under me.” The sign referred to the draconian political atmosphere created when the Supreme Court voted five to four to overturn the McCain/Feingold Campaign Reform Act in the now infamous Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission decision of 2010. 3
The real issue at stake in the Occupy Movement’s actions is the control that money exerts over the political process. The movement reveals the plutocratic Achilles heel of neoliberal corporatism’s claim that it is more democratic than its chief rivals in model government. I call these rivals “state capitalism” and “theocratic tribalism,” and intend them to be non-euphemistic names for what are conventionally called socialism and religion-based social organization. Because of its distinctly modern emphasis on upholding the prerogatives of individual political actors, neoliberal corporatism is easy to sell as the ideology of choice for free thinkers. But, as history shows, free thinking never stays free for long, because it too has to live in a marketplace of encouragements and discouragements governed by instrumental rationales that are epiphenomenal to the formation and protection of wealth. In other words, those who have the gold set the standards, regardless of any vision of or obligation to social fair play. This insures that instrumental reason will always protect itself from any utopian vision so that in the realms of conventional discourse, we are always given an “intelligentsia” that functions as the public face of bureaucracy and policy. However “oppositional” its posture of hidden loyalty might be, it will nonetheless always end up fleeing from the Socratic mandate that philosophical thinking helps its aspirants to actually live better. From the point of view of the Occupy movement, that mandate desperately needs to be returned to the core of any thinking that seeks to establish anything resembling a political priority.
When I refer to model forms of governmentality, I am not pointing to any operational political entity, any and all of which are circumstantial admixtures of the three models of neo-liberalism, state capitalism and tribal theocracy all achieving legibility much in the same way that tertiary colors do through the mixture of the primary hues of red, yellow and blue. For example, social democracy is really a blend of neo-liberal corporatism and state capitalism. Another example reminds us that there will always be a black market of goods and subversive ideology working in the shadows of any state capitalist system, or for that matter, within any theocratic tribe. Any system configured around any of these three model forms will also contain latent aspects of one or both of the others, arranged into dominant and subordinate formations. These are always in a perpetual state of change and reconsolidation.
They are also always in a state of subtle redefinition, and the factors that shape these redefinitions can sometimes come from surprising vectors. The Occupy Wall Street movement is one such example, surprising in that it refuses to operate according to the rules of normative political advocacy. Whereas the extremely conservative Tea Party rallies held during the previous year were examples of a durable tradition of anti-government American populism, the OWS movement is representative of an equally durable anti-bank populism that has a long-standing place in American history reaching back to early colonial laws against debtors’ prisons. Even though the two groups blamed different entities for the economic misery that swept the land after the 2008 financial crisis, there is an important difference: in an act of support for the second amendment, Tea Party activists often brought guns to their rallies. The only firearms seen at Occupy Wall Street (and its more contentious sister event, Occupy Oakland) were in the hands of over-zealous law enforcement officers. Occupy Wall Street events are significantly more complicated animals than their Tea Party predecessors. The movement has gone far out of its way not to be co-opted by the mass media or any collection of candidates for public office. Conversely, the Tea Party groups were all too happy to be ventriloquized by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News affiliates. OWS had a justifiable concern that any such affiliation would inevitably lead to the seven stages of political futility: cooptation, division, dilution, pacification, neutralization, disappointment and betrayal. Because of these concerns, what one sees coming out of the Occupy movement is not an exercise of politics defined by the normal terms and conditions of any conventional political science. Rather, it operates as an example of what Alain Badiou has called a Metapolitics, that is, a strategic restaging of the ethical grounds by which political matters are imagined, understood, debated and acted upon. According to Badiou, Metapolitics is a form of “Resistance by Logic.” 4
No group, no class, no social configuration or mental objective was behind the Resistance… there was nothing in the course of this sequence which could have been described in terms of objective groups, be they ‘workers’ or ‘philosophers’…. Let us say that this resistance, proceeding by logic, is not an opinion. Rather, it is a logical rupture with dominant and circulating opinions…. For the contemporary philosophical situation is one where, on the ruins on the doctrine of classes and class consciousness, attempts are made on all sides to restore the primacy of morality. 5
It is particularly interesting to look at Badiou’s metapolitical thesis in light of his larger project to transform the most basic grounds of philosophical inquiry so as to place greater emphasis on ethics. He is well known for proposing a change in the basic categories of philosophy (metaphysics, ethics, logic and epistemology), seeking to restage them as the interdependent “truth procedures” of “art, love, politics and science.” 6
His metapolitical restaging of the truth procedure of political science can be understood to be of a piece with his postulation of an ethical “inaesthetics.” This seeks to deny the meditative subject/object relationship of contemplation with something suffused with “immanence and singularity,” leading to a “transfiguration of the given.” The Occupy Wall Street movement has followed suit on this score, fashioning itself as an immanent and singular metapolitical gesture that has embraced a unique resistance by logic that was and still is a vigorous disruption of logic. It has accomplished this by staging a theatrical moment that calls attention to the withering state of the commons, that being the place of democratic co-existence and rational debate where all citizens can freely enter and exist regardless of their inability to rent media time. And let there be no mistake: in the second decade of the twenty-first century, social media has become the new commons, needing only a shared event to galvanize its attention to the point of putting a wide-ranging discourse about political priorities into play on a vast and unregulated scale. Occupy Wall Street is one such event, one whose time has clearly come. But the model for this kind of actual/virtual exercise in reformulating a common space into a rhetorical congregation had been established two decades earlier in a very different public location that also galvanized a vast virtual community. It too was a brilliantly conceived exercise in a metapolitical “resistance by logic.” That space was and still is the vast Black Rock Desert, a dry lakebed in northwestern Nevada that is administered by the Federal Bureau of Land Management.
The event was and still is Burning Man. Since the early beginnings of the Internet, many observers have postulated that there was revolutionary potential in its ability to widely and instantaneously distribute unmediated information. Some have proclaimed it to be the new commons, this in recognition of how the forces of neoliberal corporatism have turned the old commons into shopping malls of various kinds, those being places where the subtle doctrine of “pay to play” began to slowly displace all other opportunities for political participation. Burning Man was the first major instance of an organized recognition of this new communal possibility of the digital revolution, and the first to act upon it at any meaningful scale. It did so by “occupying” a piece of public land in a wilderness area, and then configuring itself as a kind of free city where monetary exchange and corporate advertising would not be allowed. Participation, collaboration and self-reliance were upheld as paramount civic virtues, and art was defined and welcomed as the product of any “radical free expression” that any person could devise, regardless of any lack of previous experience or education. When web-browsing software first became available in 1994, Burning Man was already nine years old, and had already been using email networks and virtual bulletin boards to distribute its messages to a growing audience. The emergence of such communications technologies were a natural fit for the event, and even to this day, it has never paid for any advertising beyond the printing and mailing of its own promotional materials. That was the same year that the mass media initially came out to report on the event. The following year, the population doubled, making it clear that a tax on participants was needed to cover necessary costs for staging the event on a much larger sale. Admission tickets were sold, and federal rules were re-written so that the federal Bureau of Land Management could charge the organizers of Burning Man a hefty fee to use the space. Soon after that, much more money was spent in legal fees to support litigation that should have never have come to any court’s attention, if constitutional guarantees of rights to free assembly and self-expression were deemed worthy of any respect. But they weren’t, because it was difficult to convince certain political operators that the self-expressive thing that had engendered Burning Man’s free assembly of pilgrims had anything to do with art. From their point of view, what was happening at an increasingly large scale every year in the Black Rock Desert on Labor Day weekend was much more frightening, in that its almost complete lack of artistic supervision portended something akin to a mass participation Satanic ritual.7 It also threatened to unmask the lie that art had become.
I
From the perspective of an art world populated by museum curators, globe trotting art collectors and the toney gallerists working the crowds at international art fairs, Burning Man represents a kind of Special Olympics for Art. To give credence to this view, all any nay-sayer would have to do is attend the event and take in its many starry-eyed unicorns and countless geodesic domes built in service to obscure comic-book deities fashioned from disfigured mannequins. If our nay-sayer were guided by courage and in search of additional evidence to support her initial observation, the next logical destination would be the large indoor exhibition space called the Café, which is usually decorated by the work of a great many amateur photographers and collage artists working on heavy doses of misinformed spiritual pretense and undeserved self-esteem. And yet, as revealing as the Café environment might be, it still pales in comparison to the best place to witness Burning Man’s culture of unfettered creativity, that being the array of unmapped theme camps located away from the Esplanade that separates the event’s semi-circular camping area from the mile-wide no-camping zone at its core. Here, one is liable to find a vast assortment of incomprehensible do-it-yourself efforts at representational makeshiftery, often times manifested in things that look more like distorted family entertainments than the objects of any conventional art history. Looking like the mutant offspring of a theme park and a slum conceived in the prop closet of George and Mike Kuchar’s Studio 8 Production Company, 8 these provisional amalgamations of such materials such as fluorescent fabric and solar powered lava lamps oftentimes seem to allegoricize the traumas and contradictions of a consumer culture blindly addicted to the debt-driven circulation of pseudo-goods and non-services; all saying something troublingly oblique about an America that is amusing itself to death in the age of Walmart.
The real value of Burning Man lies in how it reverses this model. It does so by simply allowing its participants to amuse themselves back to life through their participation in a week of collective catharsis. Fortunately for our dyspeptic pilgrim, the artistic offerings of Burning Man get bathed in a seemingly endless sea of electro-luminescent blinky lights when nightfall arrives, and her attention will then most likely be diverted by an omnipresent soundscape of pulsating techno music punctuated by the explosive flashings of propane fireballs surging into the sky. To this, add the lumbering peregrinations of large, slow moving vehicles that appear as grotesque carnival rides taken from a Dada-themed amusement park, and the picture of a vastly absurd semiotic entity comes close to completion, a relational esthetics
gesamtkunskwerk 9 that is metaphorically and geographically located at the exact half-way point between San Francisco’s Mission District and Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty protruding from the north shore of the Great Salt Lake. It is equal parts game space and refugee camp, and as such, it presents itself as a gargantuan omni-participatory rejoinder to the regulation of subjectivity embedded in the cognitive illusions bred by normative market-defined existence. And for this reason, the ensemble experience of participating in Burning Man provides a much-needed transfiguration of everyday assumptions about what passes for cultural nourishment. Its chief lesson lies in the way that it demonstrates how well a do-it-yourself social economy can work if and when it reframes itself in the terms of a do-it-with-others ethos, and this represents a profound political revelation as well as its chief metapolitical legacy to be later taken up by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Rather than calling this vast entity by its proper name of Black Rock City, lets give it a more descriptive moniker: the living model of an alternative version of contemporary culture based on advancing an ethical glocalism as the highest of priorities. And then let us note that, in theatrically performing itself as such a model, it also forms itself into a fun house mirror reflection of the absurdities of twenty-first century existence, all-the-while organizing itself as a temporary corrective for many of that century’s social and political shortcomings, especially those pointed toward systematically excluding people from social participation for no good reason. At Burning Man, the stranger is always welcome, and there are always opportunities for any given participant to do things that she never imagined herself to be doing. And in so doing, she oftentimes learns a great deal about the roles that she plays in her everyday life, in turn allowing her to imagine and act upon other roles that might lead her to a better world, at least for herself and maybe for others. Yes, Burning Man does feature a great deal of so-called “New Age” art made by people who might best be called hippies, and yes, almost all of that art is at best a guileless exercise in naïve cluelessness that is scripted not so much by any “radical free expression” as it is by the simplistic recirculation of pop cultural cliché. At worst, it is something on a par with toenail fungus, but even that can be strangely entertaining when contrasted with the vastness of the desert. Indeed, accounting for maybe two- or three-dozen notable exceptions during the past decade, we would have to concede that almost all of the art at Burning Man is as bad as its detractors say that it is. But in admitting this fact, another obvious question comes to the fore: in the great scheme of things, how important is it whether any of it is bad or good? And following from this, another obvious set of questions: who or what are the entities that are empowered to decide on any such differentiation? What values do they represent? What is masked by the authoritative proclamation of said values? And again: why does any of it matter?
Turnabout being fair play, it now becomes obligatory to imagine what an everyburner might make of the current world of contemporary art, resplendent as it is when ensconced within opulent museum architecture and festooned with price tags that are the monetary equivalent of real estate when it is not. It is undeniable that those environments are the sites of a kind of authoritative coldness designed to intimidate the viewer into a kind of passive submission to the historical authority of those things that are beheld within them. It is also undeniable that the large majority of those snobjects contain very little that conveys the kind of truthful generosity that might reward the attention of the serious viewer who is not party to the vested interests that have been influence-peddled into the visible existence of their environment’s adoration.
And so, our everyburner would no doubt ask: given the sorry state of the world, why all the fuss? Presumably, money is part of the equation, although it is difficult for the uninitiated to see exactly how it plays out through the elaborate web of private, corporate and public support that buoy any given museum’s orchestration of the importance effect. As Paul Werner succinctly put it in 2005: “The illusion that art museums could be run for profit like everything else was derived from the notion museums themselves had worked so hard to foster: that art and capital were all one and circulated in the same manner.”10
Werner goes on to quote former Metropolitan Museum director Phillipe de Montebello’s statement that “It is the judicious exercise of the museum’s authority that makes possible the state of pure reverie that an unencumbered esthetic experience can inspire,”11 and then goes on to state that “by the same logic, the absence of ‘a state of reverie’ interferes with ‘the judicious exercise of authority.’” Werner drives this point home when he writes “What Brecht wrote of the Nazis then now applies to cultural apparatus of the twenty-first century: they want to turn the People into an audience. Same policy, different means.”12
Once again, we are reminded of the truism stating that propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated believe that they are acting on their own free will. How you might ask, and the answer is obvious: in the way of the translation of a certain class of objects—let’s call them symbolic commodities—into a certain class of equities. It is easy to suppose that said equity is simply gained from the fortuitous position that any given investor might take amid the normal value/worth fluctuation of the commodity in question. But works of art are not commodities in same way as are barrels of crude oil or tons of copper, nor is it a form of reserve currency as are ounces of gold or silver. The commodity value of a given work of art is instead a function of its status as a reliquary representation of its own myth status, and that is something that continues to be manufactured long after said work of art leaves the studio of the artist who created it. Ultimately, it is the museum that confirms the mythic status of the objects that it chooses to display and collect, creating a fortuitous feedback loop that points to how the world of contemporary art has been transformed into a rather perverse epiphenomena of the financial services industry.
Here is how the normative art economy actually works. Artist a) makes a work of art b) and shows it at the gallery of dealer c), who gets it written about by critic d) and then sells it to collector e) for f) amount of money. Collector e) hangs on to artwork while the reputation of artist a) rises by way others repeating the same machinations described in the aforementioned equation, and then, at a fortuitous moment, she either sells said artwork for profit f)+x , or more normally donates said artwork to museum g), for which she receives donor recognition h), which represents the fair market value that museum g) places on artwork b).
Because the work has been accepted into museum g)’s collection, its fair market value automatically rises, so that donor recognition h) is actually worth much more that the original purchase price f) of work of art b). And it is donor recognition h) that collector e) sends to the tax collector as a claim for a tax deductable charitable contribution that reduces collector e)’ s overall tax burden by a significant sum of money (yes, the federal government does support the arts!). The value added portion of this equation lies in how much greater a sum of money donor recognition h) represents in relation to original cost of artwork b), and in many cases that sum is ten or 20 or 100 times the original investment. Thus the economy of art is laid bare, and it can rightfully be called a speculative marketplace in objects that might represent a significantly enhanced tax-deductability that can be exercised at some future juncture, all assuming that museum g) is interested in acquiring work of art b) at any point in time. This means that work of art b) has to fit in with what museum g) considers to be a worthwhile esthetic experience, based in part on its own vested interest in perpetuating its ability to exercise such consideration. Werner gets that particular point right when he states that “if the Guggenheim, or any other museum, had actually covered its expenses through admissions, that would have harmed its true function: The manufacture of exclusiveness.”13
But, even though money is a major part of the equation, it by no means is all of it. It is worth noting that Werner’s remarks about the museum world point to a specific historical moment, and that moment was defined by the aftermath of the politically motivated reformulation of the National Endowment for the Arts that took place between 1989 and 1994. After that reformulation (which effectively ended government support for the arts in the United States), both the world of the museum and the larger world of contemporary art were momentarily recast as perverse sub-functions of the entertainment industry, with a reigning style called “Pop Surrealism”14
This coming to the fore as the stylistic marker for the art of that brief and bygone moment, and indeed, a perfectly useful and legitimate term that could accurately describe much of the art that one might find at any given iteration of Burning Man. In fact, it is a far more accurate term than the more common ascription pointing to it as new form of “outsider art.” This is so because at that particular moment, there was a major lack of clarity about what was inside or outside of anything other than what financially motivated turnstiles might keep in a state of separation, and in the wake of the cessation of government funding, an increase in audience size became an necessary institutional mandate. Thus, we had an art style that “took its inspiration from popular culture,” meaning that it was trying and failing to be popular culture, rather than the kind of critical comment on it that we saw with 1960s Pop Art. Part-and-parcel with the 1990s embrace of Pop Surrealism as an audience development strategy was another related trend called Postart spectacle, which transformed whole museums into elaborately staged pseudo-operas of the type made famous by Matthew Barney, Paul McCarthy and Martin Kippenberger—artists who all infused Pop Surrealist esthetics with the theme park ambience of an arena rock concert. Finally, it is worth noting that the rhetorical pendent that was hung around the neck of this esthetic shift toward popular entertainment was something called “art writing.” It did not come from the traditional world of art historically trained art critics, but instead issued from a new hybrid discourse that proclaimed itself to be something called “visual studies,” which in many cases was little more than culturally sensitive entertainment reporting—“celebrity porn journalism” to use a deservedly uncharitable term. Its most characteristic feature was a shameless willingness to be used as a tool for institutional audience development.
Nonetheless, in the art world, all of this was brief and transitional, because the focus would again shift in dramatic form after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, making Pop Surrealism suddenly look very anachronistic. Very soon thereafter, Globalism became the new buzzword for a suddenly robust emphasis on a transnational art hailing from under-recognized parts of the world. Presumably, Globalism represented an impetus toward encouraging the embrace of art as an instrument of national liberation, or failing that particular pretense, as a focal point for the kind of cultural lubrication that might politically facilitate desirable access to the labor, natural resources and markets of the developing economies so dearly prized by neoliberal corporatism. It might also represent a politically motivated usage of art as an instrument of pacification, that is, as an administrative technology for deflecting the potential for actual conflict into the containable realm of symbolic conflict. The visible shape that this newly globalized art took on was not manifested in any particular form of artistic cultural production, but instead, was revealed as a relatively new form of cultural presentation called the Mega-Exhibition. These were exemplified by such time-honored extravaganzi as Documenta and the Venice Biennial, but also by a metastasizing host of newer entries into the global mega-exhibition fray, held in such cities as Istanbul and Taipei. These are giant affairs that operate under the guidance of an elite class of internationally renown curatorial directors, and in addition to operating as certification mechanisms for the investability of the art contained by them, they also function as major engines of cultural tourism and transnational ideological propaganda that have been used to enrich the coffers of their host cities. It is also worth thinking about how other imperatives might be in play. As Okwui Enwezor has written, globalism embodies a new vision of global totality and a concept of modernity that dissolves the old paradigm of the nation-state and the ideology of the ‘center,’ each giving way to a dispersed regime of rules based on networks, circuits, flows, interconnection. Those rhizomatic movements are said to operate on the logic of horizontality, whose disciplinary, spatial, and temporal orders enable the mobility of knowledge, information, culture, capital, and exchange, and are no longer based on domination and control… globalism was part of the maturation of a certain kind of liberal ideal, which in its combination of democratic regimes of governance and free market capitalism was prematurely announced as the end of history.15
These attributes are all pointed at the imagination of “a truly unified world system whereby all systems of modern rationalism would finally be properly fused.”16
Of course, the inquiring mind will ask, to what end? And more importantly, to whose end? Of course, answers to these questions are never made clear, perhaps because they cannot be made clear. But it is worth pointing out that the impetus toward the aforementioned fusion is a very different thing than the impetus toward cultural diversity, and it is also interesting to note that among the many topics of cultural identity that have surfaced during the heyday of the global mega-exhibition, the debt obligations of post-colonial nation states is one that almost never comes up. That is because the thing instigating and benefiting from the aforementioned fusion is a global, trans-national banking system that has learned how to use both art and nation states as tools for its own purposes. That much said, we can go on to productively note Burning Man is also a mega-exhibition, but in many ways it is also an anti-mega-exhibition, especially in the ways that it prefigured, mirrored and satirized the “the rhizomatic logics of horizontality, interconnection and dispersal” that have become de rigueur themes in twenty-first century art. III
For all of Burning Man’s claims of being a place apart from the default world that it pretends to leave behind, it nonetheless does seem that the event sustains an oblique relationship to that world. During the technologically addled 1990s, Burning Man seemed to be prophetically far ahead of the cultural environment surrounding it. The chief reason for this was its far-reaching imagination of the ways that new technology could recast how social relations might be reconfigured in critical relation to what Naomi Klein would later call “Disaster Capitalism.”17
In those days, the presiding spirit of Burning Man was not any getting back to the mythical garden that so captured the imagination of the Woodstock generation so much as it was a celebration of various kinds of real and imagined love taking place amongst the post-apocalyptic ruins of rampant military adventurism and financial and ecological unsustainability. But in 2001, the specter of real apocalypse became traumatically evident when the 9/11 terrorist attacks ushered in an unfunded war wedded to the draconian trappings of the National Security State. Suddenly, the world caught up with Burning Man’s parsing of the utopian and dystopian themes of technologically-assisted social capitalism, making them seem redundantly similar to the mass media narratives about a brave new cyber-economy as well as the emergence of other forms of Postart spectacle that had come into prominence in the art world. The fact that Burning Man had become the putative darling of a kind of trivializing mass-media condescension did not help, and over time the event become more-and-more indistinguishable from the “wild and crazy” caricatures that were heaped upon it. By 2007, the event had clearly become a victim of its own clichés of flagrant silliness, mired in a repetitious cycle of nostalgia for the exuberant 1990s. Soon after that, that the world would pass it by, because in 2008, the story would take another turn, a downturn to be exact. The financial crisis that exploded in October of that year once again recalibrated the larger terrain of cultural understanding, and the urgency of that moment began to make Burning Man look every bit as indulgent and frivolous as it did the institutional art world. Soon thereafter, a new concern for the politics of social justice had come into the foreground, eclipsing the themes of alternative identity and self-sustaining community-of-desire that were such prominent features of the event during its 1990s heyday. It was time to pass the metapolitical torch of the do-it-with-others ethos so that a very different fire might be lit with the aid of a few well-placed Falstaffian pitchforks.
Returning to Badiou, we read that the ethical understanding of justice is something quite specific. It is based on the following injunction: “to examine political statements and their proscriptions, and draw from them their egalitarian kernel of universal signification.”18
If Burning Man has done nothing else, it has certainly created an Archimedean ground from which such an examination might proceed, much more successfully than anything that happened in the institutional art world during the same time period. Following from this recognition, we might then ask how the metapolitical kernel of Burning Man was passed to Zucotti Park, as if, in an age of social media, the assertion and exertion of any influence on anything can somehow be supposed to not be operable until proven otherwise. We know that one of the key instigators of the OWS movement was Micah White, the Berkeley-based co-editor of the Vancouver-based journal Adbusters , therefore a Bay Area connection is easily made, although it is not clear if White was in any way influenced by Burning Man. Because there is a very large contingent of Burning Man participants that hail from New York City, one could easily suppose that their experience of the event might have had something to do with the encampment at Zucotti, especially since Occupy Wall Street initially took place just ten days after the conclusion of the 2011 Burning Man event. But there is one important kernel of indisputable influence that clearly stands out, and that is Bill Talen, who is better known in his performance guise of Reverend Billy of the Church of Stop Shopping, a New York-based performance group that has extensively toured the United States and is the subject of two widely circulated documentary films. What makes Talen’s performances so timely for this discussion is his evocation of the tropes of a theocratic tribalism that are severed from the politics of hate and fear, all enacted in service to the kind of communitarianism and pleas for justice that earmarked the earliest Christian communities of the second century. Obviously, those same values are in short supply among so-called evangelical churches populated by legions of CINOs (Christians-in-Name-Only), reminding us of how deeply perverted the gospel message has become in twenty-first century America. The fact that the more organized churches proclaiming allegiance to the gospels have been outdone on this score by a performance artist should be cause for concern, outrage and cruel mockery. Starting in 2002, the 30-member band and gospel choir of the Church of Stop Shopping has regularly performed at Burning Man, putting on a rousing revival show that is a stunningly convincing mimic of similar services consecrated to “the old time religion” a la Elmer Gantry, only at Burning Man, it was comically staged under the shadow of an 40-foot-tall effigy that echos the real old old old time religion of Neolithic cult worship.
At the forefront of the Church’s performance is Talen’s character named Reverend Billy, who preaches in passionate, Elvis Presley-inflected voice about the evils of consumerism and the tragic human cost of debt-driven consumption, backed up by a gospel chorus and small orchestra featuring a church organ. The chorus sings songs about the virtues of an economic democracy that is described as a promised land, and the mood is always persuasively festive, even joyous.
Talen’s passionate and eloquent sermons come across like rhapsodic poems made from the many fragments of Occupy Wall Street signage, and in fact, Talen did perform (sans choir) at the 17 September 2011 beginning of OWS, just a few days after returning to New York from Burning Man. Subsequently, he performed with the choir at Zucotti Park on several other days, to audiences that grew ever larger during the month of October. These were rousing and inspirational shows that galvanized the attention of ever-growing crowds in a way that gave them a coherent group identity, meaning that, for a few brief moments, the Occupy protesters found themselves attending a church of their own politically inclusive revelation, which allowed them to see themselves as being a part of something much larger than themselves.
As always, Talen’s performances were a brilliant obversion of the pernicious role that religion has come to play in American politics, where so-called “values” candidates have been using church affiliation for decades as the preferred excuse for supporting candidates and policies that embody the hateful opposite of Christian morality. Such ethically duplicitous rhetoric also has a metapolitical name, and that name is Neoconservatism when practiced by Americans who identify with Judeo-Christian tradition, and fundamentalism when practiced by others. Either way, the word “fundamental” applies in all of its many nuances, especially the one that highlights its definitional opposition to enlightened sophistication. Essentially, Neoconservatism is a subtle theologicization of the neoliberal doctrine that defines the subject along the secular lines of economic self-interest, but it deviates from that doctrine in that it assumes that self-serving moral edicts are required when the economic interests of cultural Others begins to gain too quickly in relation to the economic self-interest of the culturally entitled.
Talen’s Reverend Billy performances are so entertaining and well executed that it is easy to miss the seriousness of the metapolitical critique embodied in them. Certainly, they provide a thoughtful and dramatic critique of the empathy deficit disorder that is bred by neoliberal corporatism, and they command and entice their audiences to insist on ethical correctives. As for the relation of his work to his experience of Burning Man, Talen himself has a clear vision of the similarity between Burning Man and the OWS movement. He writes:Burning Man and Occupy Wall Street share this: we discovered that living together is a performance with long-range power. How we live—people watch and learn. Then they live back at us and we change too. We experience the decisions of how to live as drama, and (we found out) as protest—more than traditional theater which rarely has electrical charge these days. For years we were the butt of journalist jokes, calling us refried 60s protesters—angry people carrying signs and chanting. All that was wiped away by the glorious arrival of Occupy, which was the simple notion of living together in public, in a park under the scrapers of Wall. Sharing food, stories, making media, figuring out laws, discussing health, feeding each other—LIVING TOGETHER is the devastating protest form of our day. Burning Man’s fascination—you see it around the world—flows from living together under arid desert conditions for a week. BM also chucks the conventional stage and finds a new charged theater in sashaying in outrageous costumes and nakedness in front of 50,000 people who are doing the same thing back at you. Burning Man is great theater—leaves Broadway in its playa dust. And Wall Street guys are there too—wearing fluorescent underwear while they check out a 100-foot-long chandelier. How change comes to the world from these two forms of theatrical living— stay tuned! It has begun.” To this I can only say Amen.
notes- *apologies for layout issues, text spaces have been modified to allow for full citation listings.
1.
Alain Badiou,
Metapolitics
(1998), translated by Jason Barker, London: Verso Books, 2005, p. 19.
2.
Jean Tingley, “On Statics,” (text from a leaflet dropped near Dusseldorf in 1959. Recorded in
The Diary of Anaïs Nin, Volume VI
, edited by Gunther Stuhlman, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1966 p. 284.
3.
See Adam Schiff, “The Supreme Court Still Thinks That Coroporations Are People,” (July 18, 2012)
, translated by Norman Maderaz, State University of New York Press, 1999. Further references to Baudiou’s ideas are extracted from this source, unless otherwise cited.
7.
Claims of Burning Man being a socially dangerous satanic ritual were made on the 18 May 1998 broadcast of Pat Robertson’s 700 Club program on the
Christian Broadcast Network
.
8.
George Kuchar (1942–2011) and Mike Kuchar (b.1942) were San Francisco-based underground filmmakers whose low budget works used and misused exaggerated gender clichés to satirize the most preposterous aspects of conventional “sinematic” exposition. George Kuchar’s most well known film was titled
Hold Me While I’m Naked
, 1966, while Mike Kuchar is best known for his 1966 film titled
Sins of the Fleshapoids.
In 1997, they collaborated on a book of comic reminiscences titled
Reflections from a Cinematic Cesspool
(San Francisco: Zanja Press). Here we might note a persistent albeit unconfirmed rumor that San Francisco’s long-running stage play titled
Beach Blanket Babylon
was originally indebted in some way to the George Kuchar esthetic. In Jennifer Kroot’s 2009 documentary film titled
It Came From Kuchar,
it was revealed that Bill Griffith’s comic character named
Zippy the Pinhead
was modeled on George Kuchar.
9.
Gesamtkunskwerk
literally means “total work of art.” It was coined by Richard Wagner to describe his view opera production as a synthesis of all of the arts. See his
The Artwork of the Future
(1849, translated by William Ashton Ellis) at http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagartfut.htm. “Relational Esthetics” was a term originally coined by Nicholas Bourriard in 1986 as a way of calling attention to certain artistic practices that were/ are less concerned about the creation of a final product than they are about the social processes of inclusion and participation leading up to it. Bourriaud defined the approach simply as “a set of artistic practices which take as their theoretical and practical point of departure the whole of human relations and their social context, rather than an independent and private space.” (p. 113). See Nicholas Bourriard,
Relational Esthetics , Dijon, France: Les Presses du Reel , 2002. For a critique of Bourriard’s thesis, see Claire Bishop, “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics,”
October 110, Fall 2004. Bishop points out that “The curators promoting this ‘laboratory’ paradigm—including Maria Lind, Hans Ulrich Obrist, Barbara van der Linden, Hou Hanru, and Nicolas Bourriaud—have to a large extent been encouraged to adopt this curatorial modus operandi as a direct reaction to the type of art produced in the 1990s: work that is open-ended, interactive, and resistant to closure, often appearing to be ‘work-in-progress’ rather than a completed object. Such work seems to derive from a creative misreading of poststructuralist theory: rather than the interpretations of a work of art being open to continual reassessment, the work of art itself is argued to be in perpetual flux. There are many problems with this idea, not least of which is the difficulty of discerning a work whose identity is willfully unstable. Another problem is the ease with which the ‘laboratory’ becomes marketable as a space of leisure and entertainment. Venues such as the Baltic in Gateshead, the Kunstverein Munich, and the Palais de Tokyo (in Paris) have used metaphors like ‘laboratory,’ ‘construction site,’ and ‘art factory’ to differentiate themselves from bureaucracy-encumbered collection-based museums; their dedicated project spaces create a buzz of creativity and the aura of being at the vanguard of contemporary production. One could argue that in this context, project-based works-in-progress and artists-in-residence begin to dovetail with an‘experience economy,’ the marketing strategy that seeks to replace goods and services with scripted and staged personal experiences. Yet, what the viewer is supposed to garner from such an ‘experience’ of creativity, which is essentially institutionalized studio activity, is often unclear.” (p. 52) Bishop goes on to quote Bourriard: “It seems more pressing to invent possible relations with our neighbors in the present than to bet on happier tomorrows” (p. 54;
Relational Esthetics,p. 45), Then she adds “This DIY, microtopian ethos is what Bourriaud perceives to be the core political significance of relational aesthetics.” (p.54). It is worth noting that there has never been much difference between Bourriard’s assertion of “Relational Aesthetics” art practices and Allan Kaprow’s much older advocacy of Happenings, the first principle of which being “the line between the Happenings and daily life should be kept as fluid as possible,” so that “the reciprocation between the handmade and the ready-made will be at its maximum power.” (Allan Kaprow, “The Happenings are Dead: Long Live the Happenings!” (1966) in Jeff Kelly ed., The Blurring of Art and Life: The Collected Writings of Allan Kaprow , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996, p. 62). The key point lies in how both Relational Esthetics and the earlier Happenings resurrect the tenants of Lukasian social realism by substituting real-time face-to-face encounters for the older tropes of representing and/or narrating ideas of “class consciousness.” More recently, similar activities have again rebranded themselves as “Social Practice Art,” as a way of emphasizing more specific political ambitions. See Nato Thompson, Living as Form: Socially Engaged Art from 1991 to 2011,
Cambridge, MA. MIT Press, 2012. But even here, the obvious equation of institutionally supported “social practice art” with inefficacious postures of mild political concern (scented with the bad faith of loyal opposition) are never directly addressed. An important early instance of a Relational Esthetics artwork was San Francisco-based artist Tom Marioni’s Drinking Beer with Friends is the Highest Form of Art
, a weekly relational esthetics performance that has been ongoing since the mid-1970s. Clearly, San Francisco-based Burning Man is far and away the largest and most complex example. Neither was mentioned in Bourriard’s famous book.
10.
Paul Werner,
Museums, Inc.
, Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2005, p. 9.
11.
Ibid., p. 15.
12.
Ibid
.,
p. 58.
13.
Ibid
.,
p. 41.
14.
Pop Surrealism was the name of a 1998 exhibition organized by Richard Klein, Ingrid Schaffner and Dominique Nahas held at the Aldrich Museum in Ridgefield Connecticut. It contained the work of artists such as Peter Saul, Mike Kelly, Paul McCarthy, Lisa Yuskavage, Ed “Big Daddy” Roth, John Currin and Robt. Williams, and could be said to have reprised and expanded upon an earlier exhibition titled Helter
Skelter that was organized in 1992 by Paul Schimmel at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. The monthly publication Juxtapose (founded by Williams in 1994) has done much to promote many of the artists associated with the Pop Surrealism movement, but the publication’s claim that the movement originated in southern California is erroneous. The real historical sources of the Pop Surrealism movement is found in the earlier work of Bay Area-based artists such as Peter Saul and George Kuchar, as well as the underground comics movement that was based in the same area during the middle 1960s. Chicago artists of the early 1970s such as Jim Nutt, Gladys Nielson and Karl Wirsum were also important early influences. The most important aspect of the Pop Surrealism movement lied in its embrace of a populist turn in art that was responsive to circumstances related to the political controversies surrounding government funding for the arts. In 1998, the National Endowment for the Arts published the findings of a multi-year research project that concluded that the arts were widely perceived to be irrelevant and elitist. The project was called American Canvas
. See Gary O. Larson,
American Canvas: An Arts Legacy for Our Communities
, Washing ton D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1998.
15.
Okwui Enwezor, “Mega-Exhibitions and the Antinomies of a Transnational Global Form,” in Andreas Huyssen ed.,
Other Cities, Other Worlds: Urban Imaginaries in Globalizing Art
, Duke University Press, 2008, pp. 148–149.
16.
Ibid
.,
p. 149. In an anonymous introductory remark made in the online journal
Italian Greyhound , we read that “Enwezor uses as an illustration of the serious and thoughtfully considered nature of righteous internationalists in fomenting new representations in academic programs and curated collections by pointing to a think tank he participated in 1997 in Italy whose members came from Brazil, Turkey, Cuba, Australia, South Africa, and Thailand, amid other countries. These panelists endeavored to recode the complex dialectics between globalization and the long process of modernization towards market basked-economies on the course of which much of the developing world was set since the early days of decolonization. Enwezor reports that this group drew and reached no conclusions other than to continue meeting at subsequent retreats and biennale exhibitions.” The same anonymous interlocutor also summarizes a response formulated by art critic George Baker to Enwezor’s essay that takes exception to its optimistic assessment of the equalizing nature of enormous international art fairs, arguing that “the only valid definition of globalization is one that must include an acknowledgement of the invasiveness of multinational corporations.” Baker defiantly asks “who and where is the audience for mega-exhibitions?” echoing Enwezor’s use of the words “spectatorship” and “spectacle.” The roving biennale, Baker says, “creates a traveling fair for global elites, excluding both artists and the local populations where such exhibits take place.” Baker dismisses Enwezor’s Trauma and Nation model concepts, claiming instead that “shows such as Documenta existed for years merely as a forum for exported American art and views of art.” Baker further argues “mega-exhibits are in fact created, like the Olympics, with the intent of defining, promulgating, and delineating American culture.” Baker asks “why it is that biennials,” (which are, he says, “essentially the same showcasing of many of the same works repeated in different time zones”) “are the new model for counter-hegemonic spectatorship?” (See the summary provided at athttp://italiangreyhounds.org/errata/2007/06/13/“mega-exhibitions-and-the-antimonies-of-a-transnational-global-form”-by-okwui-enwezor-vs-“the-globalization-of-the-false-a-response-to-okwui-enwezor”-by-george-baker/)
17.
See Naomi Klein,
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,
New York: Henry Holt &Co., 2007.
18.
Badiou, Op. Cit., p. 17.
19.
Bill Talen, Email correspondence with the author, 7 April 2012.
LIFE SPORT (est. 2014) is both a sweatpants shop and an art space. Based in Athens, we aim to become a fully functioning shop with the intent to generate alternative arts funding in a time and place where there is none. Hosting presentations, spoken word and services, LIFE SPORT is invested in the experiment of the invention of life as sport, whilst encouraging collaborations with artists that share our ambition to reclaim independence and self-empowerment.
LIFE SPORT sweatpants are critical wearables made of 70% cotton and 30% polyester and are entirely produced in Athens. This product is the result of a year-long research and observation of Athenian lifestyles, taking sweatpants and their wearers as the starting point for a portrait of a city. Sweatpants are everywhere, they defy notions of social stratification, gender and age. Sweatpants unite contradiction, they are a symbol of defeat or paralysis for some, a statement of ultimate resistance and emancipation for others. At the very least, they are really comfortable, fit everyone and wash at 40 degrees.
I was a bit confounded because at first, I couldn’t understand what was drawing me into the advertisement- then I remembered a well worn paperback book I have called Media Sexploitation by Wilson Bryan Key, sitting on a book shelf somewhere back home. That book is all about subliminal advertising and its photo section showing examples of ‘hidden words and symbols found in ice cubes’ has stayed with me. So I studied the McDonald’s ad again, this time paying special attention to the ice cubes and that’s when I saw it: “Sex”.
Did you know? Subliminal advertising is banned in the UK and Australia but is legal for use anywhere except television and radio in the USA and Canada.
I turned to my 15 year old son- (the reason for the McDonald’s visit in the first place was to buy him an after- Summer Hockey root beer) and asked him if he could see the words “Sex” in the ice cubes. It didn’t take long for him to get excited because he saw it immediately.
That’s when the drive-thru line was getting ready to move ahead and I jumped out of the car, grabbed my iPhone and took the photograph you see above.
“On January 27 2007, viewers watching the Food Network’s Iron Chef America may have noticed a brief flash of red that appeared for a split second towards the end of a show when the challengers’ entries were being assessed and two men raised their glasses. What had audiences seen but barely been aware of – all but invisible to the naked eye? A McDonald’s logo that popped up for a single frame together with the hamburger giant’s slogan, ‘I’m lovin’ it.’ Following the revelation, accusations of subliminal advertising were met with claims that it was a “technical error” by the television network, but skeptics unsurprisingly weren’t convinced. How could such a thing occur accidentally? A McDonald’s spokesman said: “We don’t do subliminal advertising.” Sure, just an accidental glitch – a supersized one. ”
So you be the judge- these drive-thru advertisements are probably found in most Southern Ontario McDonald’s drive-thrus and you can take a look for yourself. We’d love to hear back from you on what you find. For the Silo, Jarrod Barker
The music collective GANFUNKEL released the 5-song-EP Fighting Music with Music following the successful 2013 release of Machine Coincident Jazz. The former album produced one song that reached #1 on jazz radio charts, 2 songs that reached #2, and one song that reached #3.
Ganfunkel is California-based and led by Simcoe native Rik Ganju. Personnel on Fighting Music with Music have recorded and toured with Esperanza Spalding, the Kronos Quartet, John McLaughlin, Terry Riley, Bela Fleck, Wayne Shorter and Zakir Hussain.
Ganfunkel’s sound is influenced by rock, jazz, funk and Indian classical music. Standing out on the new album is Stars Fell on Daniel featuring tabla maestro Salar Nader, and the legendary George Brooks on saxophone.
“The success of Machine Coincident Jazz validated our belief that multi-genre music has an audience that doesn’t want to be confined by traditional categories, “ says Ganju. “People are open to many styles of music depending on their mood. And just as film music evolves from minute to minute, our sound changes texture as the mood of the tune allows.”
Ganfunkel albums are available today on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play and most major music download sites, and music videos can be found by searching on Ganfunkel at Vimeo.com
Ganju’s experiments with multi-genre music stretch back to the mid-2000s when he collaborated with Jarrod Barker on many avant-garde experiments.
The track listing for Fighting Music with Music:
Chunky Town (featuring Kai Eckhardt and Dana Hawkins)
Shot in a Gambling House
Stars Fell on Daniel (featuring Salar Nader and George Brooks)
That Feel on Flesh (featuring Kai Eckhardt and Dana Hawkins)