Jordan's article deals with street party culture and the effects it has on society and the people within it. I particularly liked this reading because I was able to make connection to other classes. I studied Guy Debord and the Situationalists during a previous course and what they did was extraordinary; they attempted to create these "situations" that were meant to shock people and get their attention. These activities went against the norm and could be illegal. In fact, illegal activity is one of the best ways to grab the attention of masses of people. Detournament is one strategy one could use, taking something (often known by the public) and transforming it to give it a new meaning specific to the Situationalist.
Street parties are perfectly in line with the Situationalists. They definitely got the attention of the law because their street parties are very illegal. Jordan argues that this itself is an art form, one that differs from the normal art forms that mainly focus on the spectacle of artwork for a profit. Debord antagonized the spectacle, claiming that it made people passive since people can look at it and be satisfied. It does not prompt them to do any activity. Rather, he wants people to go from passive to active citizens, creating these situations and participating in Detournment. he argues that those who actively engage with their lives become more enlightened and will not be subjected to the Capitalistic shithole.
In getting off topic.
Street parties provide a means for citizens to actively redefine what the streets are for. Previously, they meant cars, travel, capitalism, and private space. The streets represent boundaries that the government places on its citizens. However, during thee parties, they redefined the streets to means pedestrians, freedom, expression, art, and public space. This form of detournament is not meant to create immediate legal change. However, the way I see it, it is all about changing the way that society understands themselves, how they are governed, and the dominant rule. This illegal behavior is a fight to make higher authorities understand that there will always be people who will not stand for higher abuse of power. These street partiers will not stop partier until they have won. The things is, they will never win. However, that's the point; they know this.
Fiske's article was a little harder to understand. Sure, I can understand the arguments being made (I think). It's that women have exerted power in a space that is exclusively for them. Essentially, since men cannot to this, it is empower for women since it is an activity specific to them. I mean....no? I can understand this, but Capitalism and consumer culture invests money to exploit women and their interests, such as self-image, that would make them slaves to Capitalism. And concerning the price if right, this man just told me that it subordinates women, but because women know this knowledge, they are empowered???? I am so confused. I can understand that things that are specific to women would empower them, but that if these specific things attempt to control them?
Omar's presentation was cool. Seems like a really cool space in cultural studies to focus on.
No comments:
Post a Comment