Graffiti In Atlanta

This week, I've decided to switch it up from technology and popular culture and write about graffiti and popular culture. I was inspired by Emma Baughman's blog, Cosmopolitan Greetings and her blog referring to the graffiti artist "SAMO."

Graffiti has proven to be a growing subculture, not only within the hip-hop crowd, but has made it's mark as a form of underground, illegal artwork. Recently, many of my favorite graffiti decorating the bridges, overpasses, and city streets of Atlanta has been painted over, leaving behind a looming and not to mention unentertaining white clouds floating alongside our roadways. One particular piece of work that was prematurely removed from the city walls read, "Life doesn't get any easier," in classic, red graffiti font. Although this piece of artwork did not necessarilly arouse happiness to the hustling and bustling bypassers on Moreland Avenue, it meant something. Or at least it did to me. The artists appeared to be making a statement on what sometimes feels like the downhill battle of life. There was nothing vulgar or distasteful about the artwork and this is why it concerns me that people are more concerned with marking out something which has been displayed in pursuit of art than bothering to worry about the meaning behind it.





Yes, artists such as Vomet (whose tag I am sure you've seen plastered on some billboard, lightpole or condemned building around the city) or the late 'Oh No' (many of his tags have been topped with halo's, courtesy of other artists memorial efforts) have and will continue to illegally make their mark on our city, but why is our society determined for the victimless crime to desist?


Atlanta is littered with taggings (these are the pseudonyms of graffiti artists spray painted anywhere they choose to mark their territory) of artists, many of which are aestetically pleasing to the eye. Amongst themselves, the artists become famous and books have been published on all of the various, established graffiti artists around the world. Thus, why is graffiti such a controversial subculture?



Granted, trainyards, abandoned buildings, and billboards are either public property or privately owned, presumably not by the graffiti artists tagging them. However, can we not just accept graffiti as a form of expression, most often unoffensive, and decorate our city with artwork, rather than poorly painted splotches?



This subculture has sparked a trend in art that has also been featured in ads around Atlanta concerning everyone's favorite cheap beer, Pabst Blue Ribbon. Graffitied billboards display multiple artists interpretation of the famous PBR can, making it difficult to distinguish an ad from a stealthily sprayed spectacle.






An alternative to illegally painting artwork onto a building is entering contests through organizations like Living Walls the City Speaks. Works are chosen to be printed on rice paper which is plastered onto buildings whose owners willingly agree to have them posted. The rice paper is resiliant and the art is displayed to the city as if it had been painted there to last forever.




Graffiti has obviously surpassed the test of time and will continue to be an outlet for many artists to come, but it cannot be ignored that this subculture is gaining more recognition by the general public than years previous. Although this deviant behavior may be frowned upon in the law books and those in opposition will probably continue to paint over many of the pieces painted by anonymous talents, it cannot be ignored that the artform itself has gained credation in popular culture today.

Consumption

Initially, I did not consider how much feminism actually exists from a technological standpoint. Consider the technologies available to our society that make household work bearable. The dishwasher, the clothes washer and dryer, the iron, the garbage disposal, the vacuum cleaner, the blender, etc. And even newer technologies are being introduced such as, the Roomba, a robotic vacuum cleaner no bigger than a dinner plate that roams your house and does the work for you, along with Swiffer's which have nearly replaced brooms and mops altogether. Swiffer recently added a vacuum to their dust busting alternative, as well. And when you think about all of these things, think about how they are advertised.

Tonia Modleski's essay 'Femininity as Mas(s)querade: A Feminist Approach to Mass Culture' explores consumerism and women from a mass culture standpoint. It is obvious which kinds of technologies are marketed to women and those that are advertised to men. When the Dirt Devil commercial flashes on the screen, who is wielding the vacuum under whom's feet? And consider this LG washer & dryer commercial. The look of utter desire and temptation in that woman's eyes epitomizes the idea that "women's habit of consumption [is] nearly as unavoidable as death." (49) Coincidentally, the technological products being marketed to women are kitchen appliances, household cleaners, and the like. This has not changed since the dawn of advertising.

So, what about other technology? This Mac vs. PC ad exaggerates the aesthetics of their product (represented by a male) and it's functions by using a female model to represent something that was created by the Mac. Although the iPad commercial represents both genders by merely their hands and feet. All of the Blackberry Torch commercials I have found, are geared towards men or have no gender connotations whatsoever.

Modleski’s essay also mentions a “leftist view of popular culture” which I understand to be that of its cause of distraction to society. Modelski quotes from Manuel Puig’s novel Kiss of The Spider Woman saying, “It can become a vice, always trying to escape reality like that, it’s like taking drugs or something. . .” I think that pop culture today has much to do with technology and many Americans may benefit from a leftist view of it. Not only are women consuming these technologies on a daily basis, but men and children alike. The essay discusses consumption in a “readerly” manner by women, and a “writerly” or masculine manner by men. However, from a technological standpoint, I think it is safe to say that most all of us consume technology in an excessively “readerly” manner.

Anonymous Antagonists

While reading Dick Hebdige's essay 'Subculture' a little worm squirmed it's way into my mind. Computer geeks and internet nerds cowering behind computer towers, infecting other's computer's with lethal virus' and worms make up technologies subculture. These tech savvy parasites can uncover all sorts of information thanks to the Internets obvious lack of concern for privacy. Not only are the sites you set up for the public to see available to hackers, but the information you keep "password protected," may be compromised because to a hacker this means "just a click away." Interesting enough, however, is the fact that all of the materials needed to understand and successfully hack into a computer are just beneath even my own fingertips as I type this blog. Codes and prototypes can be found with a quick search and basically anyone could be a hacker. Not all of us choose to engage in pointless destruction, I guess.

Who hasn't used McAfee Anti-Virus on a PC before? This security system or another like it is a necessity for browsing the internet. You screen your e-mails for the inevitable "YOUR A WINNER!" or Viagra subject lines, which most internet users know now are scams and virus's. Always use protection. My question, however, is WHY should I have to protect my computer against complete strangers? What is their motivation for doing this? And where does the gratification for destructing other's property right from the comfort of your rolly chair come from?

The Social Network, a new pseudo-documentary of the beginnings of Facebook, demonstrates how one computer wiz capitalizes on his ability to hack into his college network, providing him with names, photo's, and other information on his classmates. The movie also touches base on the inventor of Napsters success after performing some rather illegal computer tricks. Some hackers use the internet to access social security numbers and bank accounts giving them free reign over the financial well-being of unsuspecting individuals.

Internet stalkers and violent criminals could technically be included in this subculture for using the world wide web as a tool to target almost anyone at all as a victim. There have been numerous NBC Dateline's, 20/20's and other major news shows concerning Internet safety and the stories which evolved from the members of this subculture viewing the Internet as nothing more than a ListServ of innocently browsing casualties. With the opportunity to be whomever they need to be to lure in a victim, internet criminals use the screen as a mask, utilizing the anonymity of the Internet to commit hostile and emotionally damaging crimes.

Virtual Reality

Aestheticism is defined as pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality. When it comes to the sleek designs of technological devices as of late, this definition strikes me as slightly ironic. You hold in your hand one of the most innovative devices since the light bulb and just as much thought has gone into the aesthetics of the phone, simply for the sake of economic success over other phone companies. Apple's iPhone and the HTC Droid collection currently reign supreme in popular technological culture today. Apple continues to go as sleek as they can get with the MacBook Air.

"The ability of the people to discriminate between the products of capitalism, particularly those of its culture industries, should never be underestimated," says John Fiske in his essay "Popular Discrimination".

These companies are clearly souring high above the rest in sales because of the sheer demand for their products. Not to mention most of these aesthetically pleasing gadgets are (not surprisingly) expensive. The essay also mentions high culture versus mass culture when it comes to society's ability to discriminate amongst products. It is clear which cell phone companies and computer producers have "[established] superiority" over the rest. Their ability to do so stems from marketing success along with the production of products that are constantly revolutionizing. With the major advances in technology, Apple can produce a new computer each year, thus creating something new for consumers and rendering the previous years production out of date.

Bowling For Soup said it best in their song, 'High School Never Ends' because society seems to play the popularity game just as well as a gaggle of giggling 9th graders sitting at a long lunch table. Not only will people follow the trends of buying these products for their aesthetic value, but many will continuously upgrade for sake of having the latest and greatest. In the essay the relationship between "economic necessity" and functionality are discussed and when applied to today's technology, how much of it is actually necessary? We discriminate amongst the technologies available and ultimately end up with our eyes locked on a visually stimulating screen, completely ignoring the world around us (i.e. texting and driving).

It's What All The Cool Kids Are Doing

When I was in high school, text messaging was on the brink of exploding as the favorite form of communication amongst my peers. All of my friends sported the coolest new flip phones and my parents had me convinced I wouldn't ever get a cell phone before college. However, they underestimated the convenience of being able to get in touch with me at any moment once I passed the test to get my driver's license. I, too, received my very own flip phone just before my 16th birthday. Mine was nowhere near as fancy as many of my classmates, but I had a phone and fit in, nonetheless.

This was all before touch screens and internet capabilities for cell phones. Teachers around the world crusaded against these ringing and buzzing little boxes and soon they were banned from many high schools altogether. That did not stop us, though. It probably fueled our fire even more. We all know that with high schoolers, the first thing they want to do is break the rules. We brought our phones to school and stealthily texted from our laps during class. Instead of passing notes, we simply shot a text across the room. Many of the sneaky tricks we adopted have since been exposed by teachers everywhere, but back then they were bulletproof.

I would be willing to bet that my generation financially supported the cell phone industry, at least at the very beginning. We were the first to be interested in and understand these new technologies. How many of you have parents or grandparents who ask you to teach them how to use their shiny new iPhone that they know nothing about? We made the cell phone cool and it did not take long for the cell phone companies to catch onto the trend.

During my years in high school I saw the LG Chocolate, the T-Mobile Sidekick and the Motorola Razr gain and lose popularity as if they were part of the cheerleading squad. We were the one's using their products and the companies took advantage of that with their use of advertising and cell phone plans offered. Even today, Verizon's new "Rule the Air" campaign features ambitious teenagers plastered on billboards or television commercials who need a strong signal to change the world.

The Apple Store offers free iPods to students buying laptops during the early fall and just in time for back to school. Who doesn't want to go back to school with a fancy new computer and glittering iPod to sport to your classmates?

As a society we have even begun to identify ourselves with what type of technology we use on a day-to-day basis. I'm a Mac, but my parents are PC's. See what I mean? It is not cool to read a real book anymore, but the Kindle puts the bookstore right in the palm of your hands. Satellite radio and iPods have phased out CD's gradually for the last few years and CD's did the same to cassette tapes years ago. VHS's were replaced by DVD's which are gradually being trumped by Blu-Ray discs. Video game consoles and wireless controllers are on every teenage boy's Christmas list. All of which are marketed to my generation and younger.

To have all of these things, especially as a teenager, is to be cool. Everyone wants to be the first to have the newest technology and there is new technology for basically every aspect of life. High schoolers will always define cool by what is new to them, therefore technology will probably be an aspect of popularity from here on out.

I educated myself today on the benefits of global capitalism after reading Paul Smith's essay, "Tommy Hilfiger in the Age of Mass Customization". The essay mainly focuses on the fashion industries need for a high rate of productivity along with constant changes in the goods themselves. Smith says, "However, it is open to question whether the industry is in fact responding to cultural demand or whether it is producing that demand as a way of itself responding to the changing conditions of global capitalism." The sparked my interest in the term and I went digging for something like this.

My interpretation, of course, went something along the lines of that childhood tale Robin Hood. Not necessarily steal from the rich and give to the poor, but allow the poor to produce goods that the rich will buy.

Whole Foods Market sponsors a charity called the Whole Planet Foundation which gives small loans to small private businesses in places like South America, Thailand and Indonesia. By allowing those less fortunate than many of us here in the land of the free the opportunity to produce goods and services to those in their own communities and supply to global investors the spread of wealth spans further than simply our American economy.

I am by no means an expert on the topic, and this didn't even have a lot to do with technology, but all I'm saying is an open market isn't such a bad idea. Although it's nearly unattainable according to the economics professors I've had, I feel like if people themselves were not so selfish, this type of marketing solution could be highly beneficial.

In Paul Smith's essay there seems to be a discussion of individuality in a world of mass production. Allowing private businesses to establish their creative fashion revelations into the industry would create an even greater since of individuality. Just think, if Tommy Hilfiger loaned out money to small fashion designers what that could mean for your closet?

As a kid, my favorite movie ever made was Walt Disney's Peter Pan. As an adult, I have a tattoo on my shoulder mapping out the directions to Neverland (second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning). Disney was a major part of my childhood. I lived an hour north of Disney World in Orlando and visiting the park just so happened to be my families favorite summer endeavor. Point being, there will always be a soft spot in my heart for the company and strong will to defend it. In Janet Wasko's essay, she exposes Disney's strict copyright enforcement as brutally inappropriate when "Disney threatened to sue three Florida day-care centers," because they displayed images of copyrighted characters.

This is the real world people. Because Disney stands for celebration and being forever childlike, we have to remember that in and of itself, it is an incredibly successful company in Corporate America. Society associates Disney with images of cartoon characters, not lawyers with briefcases storming into day-cares. The circumstances are grim, however, had SunTrust sued Bank of America for the use of a copyrighted logo, the negative connotation is skewed. Each are businesses operating under certain laws. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement no matter if the guilty party is a day-care or any other business.

In the essay, a Disney representative, Paul Pressler, is quoted to have said, "Our characters are the foundation of our business and project the image of our company, so it's imperative that we control who uses them and how they are used." When these images appear on associations separate from Disney, a person automatically makes a correlation between the two. Although, some may argue that painting Mickey Mouse on the wall of a day-care center is harmless, it is arguable that the day-care center could potentially mistreat children, be exposed and the images displayed create an association with Disney, which ultimately leads to the loss of customers.

I have heard rumors all of my life about an underground Disney World. It's the place where all of the characters go to change out of their costumes and the inner workings of Disney really take place. I have been told that it spans all beneath the theme park. Much like underground Disney, the economical, political and administrative aspects of the company are very much an underlying layer to the whimsical facade. We are taught equality as Americans, so why do we so critically judge one companies actions, when the same instance occurs in so many more cases than Disney's and not a head turns?