It has come to my attention that
previous blog posts have not been kept to a satisfactory standard in the regard
of grammar and structure. To this I
would like to make one simple argument: the purpose of a blog is for the writer
to express themselves in a manner that they see fit. Scholarly papers, journals and articles are
held to a certain standard and should meet that standard. Blogs were created to give the public a voice
in any fashion that they prefer. When I
write a blog I prefer to do so in a conversational and semi stream of conscious
fashion. Therefore, some writing may
have grammar or sentence structure that reflects this laid back tone.
On top of this, I work 28 hours a
week and take 6 classes both physical and online, as a result I simply do not
have the time to put forward my very best work every week. “Best work” should be strived for every time,
which I do, unfortunately it does not always turn out to be up to standard.
In the future, since grammar,
vocabulary and structure all seem to be held to a scholar-esque standard, I
would suggest picking a different medium for weekly class contribution.
That all being said, let us get to
business on this week’s topic; The Yes
Men. I would first like to address
the question: “Exactly how do [The Yes Men] operate?” The film seems to go through their process
pretty thoroughly so I will sum up what I gleaned from the viewing. The Yes Men put on a fake façade and mimic a
certain corporation. Mimicry is
originally simply intended to call in viewers who would be looking for the
actual website and get them to read whatever is on the fake website. The fake website may contain articles that
attack the original corporation but by making the article seem as if it is from
the original corporation. It is akin to
an animal in nature that may use camouflage to look like some other type of
animal which it will use to lure in its prey.
A side advantage to the website looking just like the original website
is that some people may get confused and ask the Yes Men to speak at a
conference. The Yes Men use these
situations to actually go to the conference and get some media attention. All this is the basic foundation for how the
Yes Men operate.
I got a complaint that I simply
skim the surface of a subject sometimes rather than going into more
detail. Let us go down a bit deeper and
look at the “hacktivism” that goes on with the Yes Men. Hacking at its core
usually takes something and uses it against itself. It doesn't always have to malicious and can
be quite useful for certain things. Hacking
a certain tool to be more effective would be a good example. In the case of
hacktivism, hacking is used to bring about change. The Yes Men use their targets own self
against them much like hacking in a digital space. Using a website that looks just like the
company’s, uses the company’s image and digital presence against them. As the
Yes Men take their message into the real world and into conferences they begin
to use the physical company and the media against it. In the conferences the Yes Men use the company
against itself in that they act like they are part of the company and they will
use real world events or ideology from the company in their presentations. They take everything that the company already
has and uses it against that company or corporation. What the Yes Men do may not being “hacking”
in the sense of hacking code or breaking through a backend hole online but it
mirrors the underlying method. Using the
company against itself is only the beginning.
The Yes Men will add upon what the company has already set down by
creating absurd situations, like the phallus suit and hamburgers. Some of these situations are accepted and
some are not. The Yes Men hack the
audience to make them believe what they are seeing is reality.
The
activism part of “hacktivism” then comes from the media response. The absurd situations and fake conferences
are presented as actual news across the globe and this puts pressure on the
company and its ideologies.
The question is asked “How does
their collective/collaborative and pseudonymous network practice challenge
standard/conventional notions of ‘the individual artist as genius’ model we
generally associate with a studio art practice?” In my opinion I do not think that these two
things can be compared. This is not
studio art and it has no relation to the artist of a studio piece. Some individual may argue that all art can be
studio art but I protest this. I do not
think that what the Yes Men do is studio art or can be related to it. Therefore the argument of challenging the
artist as a singular genius cannot be applied here. I like the idea of the post-modern “the death
of the author.” I do not argue that Yes
Men is art, I believe that it is but I also believe fundamentally it is quite
different than “traditional art.” By
trying to put all art into one space we are creating a situation in which one
work won’t stand out in a certain way.
There are different ways of presenting different art and in each
situation art will thrive in how it is presented. By lumping them together we do not allow the
art to present itself. What the Yes Men do
is inherently cooperative. They would
not be able to do all they do with one singular person. Yes Men presentations
are akin to mixed media, there are several components mixing into one and there
needs to be several people to add to these different parts. Studio art focuses on a singular medium and therefore
one artist is needed. I do not believe
that what the Yes Men do challenge the notion of an individual artist. On this note though I do think that digital
spaces and digital art do challenge the notion of the individual artist. As work becomes digital it is easier to
change it and manipulate it. It becomes
easier for two people to work together to create something in a space that can
be everywhere (physically) at once.
One last question to explore is “What
is tactical media art?” which I’m afraid is just not possible to go into depth
on. Tactical media art is exactly what
the Yes Men are doing; using the media to make a statement. Media has changed and evolved throughout the
years, from newspaper, to radio, to TV news, and then into the web. One thing that has stayed consistent is the
way in which the media is everywhere all the time. No one can get away from the media unless
they were to shut themselves away from the world. Media is the perfect way to get a mass idea
spread since it is so pervasive. The Yes
Men use this and so do several other activist groups in order to spread their
ideas quickly.
I did not know of any works that
were similar to Yes Men but since it seemed to be a requirement for this blog I
took it upon myself to find some.
One artist that I could think of
right away that is similar is Banksy.
Rather than hacking the internet and conferences he hacks wall and
public spaces. The paintings he does take
on the look of normal street art but they strive to make an argument against
certain norms and societal issues. Like
the Yes Men he uses satire and parody to makes a point. His art shows mirror
those of other artists but in their core he is using the shows to make an
argument against the people that go to the shows and the artists who make them.
Another hacktivist group is called “Anonymous”
which has becomes quite well known recently.
Similar to Yes Men they make arguments against government, religion and
mainly corporations. They use the victim’s
website or content against them much like Yes Men. The difference is that they do it
anonymously. Yes Men go on the news and
show themselves, people know who they are.
Anonymous is a loosely structured leaderless group that doesn’t allow
others to know who they are.
http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/
