Artists & Vandals

            Like any large city, Vancouver is covered in graffiti, from the small ornate signatures or “tags” in varying degrees of detail, to the larger pieces done by stencil or freehand that often add beauty to the city rather than defile it. What I find most intriguing about the city’s heavily graffiti-covered landscape are the train yards, particularly the one nearest to where I live in New Westminster along the Fraser River. While some pieces are explosions of colour and pattern, others are simpler, and call to mind vandalism before art. Interestingly, not all of these pieces originate here, and it is impossible to tell where exactly they came from. The pieces on trains provide an interesting contrast in that the vast majority are tags (though considerably more elaborate than a signature scribbled on a bus stop bench with a permanent marker) identifying the artist, and yet because they’re continually moving across the continent, the effect of anonymity remains. Kan quotes the artist Claes Oldenburg on trains, "You're standing there in the station, everything is gray and gloomy and all of a sudden one of those graffiti trains slides in and brightens the place like a big bouquet from Latin America” (2001:21).

            As one author notes, “Graffiti has crossed the boundaries of street culture, youth culture, and the art community, and while this may be attractive to many artists it also places them in contradictory relationships. For the most part, they may see themselves as outsiders to conventional social structures” (Bowen 1999:22). The debate whether graffiti is defacement or art is ongoing, but for some, it is their primary method of self-expression. The graffiti on the trains is unusual because it never becomes part of a community and the artists will always retain a degree of anonymity even after identifying themselves. Even in a cityscape, tagging serves more to identify the artist to other artists rather than to the general public: “The audience for graffiti is a random sampling of the general public who happen to see it in passing. Often, the participants considered other graffiti artists to be their primary audience and viewed the public as a secondary audience” (Bowen 1999:33). Beyond the local graffiti community, a lot of street art is community-based in one sense or another. Recently, along West Broadway, an anonymous artist has been tagging “False Creek” in a formal script, making reference to one Vancouver neighbourhood in another. A piece of graffiti commonly found in bathroom stalls and the sides of buildings is “native pride,” a notion that had been extended to a more formal setting, a legal mural on the side of another West Broadway building. The artists (or vandals, depending on how everything is interpreted, though Bowens contests that “defining graffiti as either art or vandalism is too simple” [1999:35]) either identify themselves as just that, artists, or else identify themselves in a more general sense, as part of a community, as was just described.

            An issue of Discorder, UBC’s music magazine, included an interview with a well-known street artist who only submitted to being interviewed if he could remain anonymous (unfortunately, I cannot track down the exact issue). Thus, even though he uses his name in tagging or includes it in his other art, he was virtually unknown by name in mainstream society, but notable in the street art community. A tag doesn’t truly serve as identification to someone outside that community, as they’re often similar to a performer’s stage name; while these two spheres overlap, the artist has separate identities in each.

            Through conducting interviews with several Toronto graffiti artists, Bowen found that “for many young artists, self-expression is highly valued as a right, much the same as freedom of speech” (1999:26). Unfortunately, their chosen means of expression is illegal and there are many people who don’t appreciate it, but condemn it. Through their artistic expression, the artists have a limited ability for truly identifying themselves for fear of coming into contact with the law. The colourful trains that pass through B.C. bypass this to an extent because identity becomes less obvious when the canvas is always traveling; however, their nature causes the artists to forgo a local community and extend the reach of their art to communities across the country, and perhaps continent.

Authenticity & Reproduction

            The two versions of the music video “Jai Ho” I will be discussing are the original Hindi version written for the film Slumdog Millionaire and the subsequent version recorded in English by the Pussycat Dolls. As was mentioned in class, the original version was created specifically for the film, one that takes place and was filmed in India, but is largely British-produced (including the director, Danny Boyle, and Dev Patel, the actor who plays the lead character, previously known for his role as a pill-popping religiously conflicted teenager on the television series Skins), and so Walter Benjamin’s article, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” is difficult to apply to the two videos in full. While Benjamin states, “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition,” (1936:3) the original “Jai Ho” video is already outside the domain of tradition before having been reproduced and remixed by the Pussycat Dolls. Slumdog Millionaire is not what would typically be considered a Bollywood film, as the dance scene takes place at the end of the film rather than being incorporated throughout, as is the norm in Bollywood cinema; the scene is spliced together with clips from the film to form the video.

            From the perspective of Appadurai, the Pussycat Dolls’ re-envisioning of the music video could be considered deterritorialization, which he describes as something that “creates new markets for film companies, impresarios, and travel agencies, which thrive on the need of the relocated population for contact with its homeland” (1996:49). The people to whom this movie is legitimately relatable, on a more tangible level than simply the love story, are displaced all over the world and perhaps form the sort of relocated population Appadurai speaks of. The film reached a number of audiences worldwide due to its success with both critics (it won several Oscars) and the public, but it is arguable the Pussycat Dolls envisioning of the video furthered this in that it expanded the impact of the film to non-viewers. Appadurai later asserts that “one of the principle shifts in the global cultural order, created by cinema, television, and video technology (and the ways in which they frame and energize other, older media) has to do with the role of the imagination in social life,” (1996:53) which could easily be applied to the Pussycat Dolls’ version insofar as it adapts the original version produced for the film for another, even broader audience. Perhaps the original version cannot quite yet be considered “older” media, but the film clips and dance scene in it have been exchanged for a group of American girls dancing in revealing clothing. The dance in the train station in the original video is perfectly mimicked in the Pussycat Dolls’ version, but it has been updated with product placements (cell phones and mp3 players) and has been injected with the sex appeal it was formerly lacking. “The new power of the imagination,” notes Appadurai, “in the fabrication of social lives is inescapably tied up with images, ideas, and opportunities that come from elsewhere, often moved around by the vehicles of mass media” (1996:54). The Pussycat Dolls’ “Jai Ho” does exactly this, in that it infuses new imagination and ideas into a previously established piece of media.

            Of the updated version of the music video, a relevant thought from Benjamin is, “mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses towards art” (1936:8). The video, I would argue, changes the art and so does not directly reproduce it. Indian culture is prevalent in Vancouver, but I imagine for someone living in another area, the Pussycat Dolls’ remaking of “Jai Ho” would provide exposure to an unfamiliar culture.

Social Media & Globalization

Through William Mazzarella’s article “Culture, Globalization, Mediation,” he demonstrates a particular interest in the media of radio, video, and the Internet. These forms of media intrigue him because they are “social technologies” (2007:353) and can be influenced by individuals rather than originating from one source. Of radio, he says it is “intimate and amenable to disguise,” (Mazzarella 2007:359), which allows it to be used anonymously. The Internet allows the use of usernames and thus is a domain in which the same anonymity is possible. Even when formal media content is posted on online newspapers’ websites, it is often possible for anonymous commentators to contribute their thoughts and reactions. Video is also mentioned because like the others, it “offers opportunities to address very specialized audiences,” (Mazzarella 2007:358) and it plays a significant role in contemporary interactive media. Not everyone can sit down and watch the evening news, but many still find the time to browse YouTube. Because media can be social, individuals can respond to one another’s ideas and create a discussion forum in which people can reflect on their own cultures as well as those of others.

            Globalization impacts our understanding of other cultures (and of our own) in that it significantly reduces the idea of the foreign. Rather than mystifying people of other cultures, media involves what Mazzarella (2007:357) refers to as a dual relation – mediation includes both “self-distancing” and “self-recognition”. Media seem to reduce the ever-troubling concept of the “other” and instead show us what is happening in other parts of the world and make similarities between cultures clearer. Mazzarella (2007:354) calls this “cultural proximity” and discusses how mediation increases our self-awareness in addition to our awareness of other cultures. The author notes that we understand media through “notions such as harmonization and the resolution of differences, often through the intervention of an apparently neutral third term,” (Mazzarella 2007:356), which is important in that it means media ideally cannot be swayed in one direction or another by a certain bias. Also, because media such as the Internet allow for feedback, mass media is more easily held to these standards of neutrality.

            One example of globalization’s effects on processes of mediation is in the massive popularity of anime and manga in North America. This is similar to the example Mazzarella (2007:354) uses, “the Japanese TV series Oshin does well in Iran, of all places,” because of the similarities in the cultural codes of the two countries in that both value perseverance and long suffering. Even though, on the surface, one might not find much in common between the two countries and cultures, media has allowed their similarities to show. One cannot walk into a Chapters bookstore or turn on the television without being confronted by some sort of animated comic or show imported from Japan. These television shows are dubbed into English and become just as relatable for a child (or adult, for that matter, particularly in the case of certain printed manga) as a locally or nationally produced show.

Media's Role in Haiti's Cholera Crisis

Though the mass media undoubtedly has significant influence in various international conflicts, crises, and disasters, it cannot be blamed for creating the conditions that led to Haiti’s cholera epidemic. Of course, because the media has the potential to impact situations so significantly, it is natural that media-makers would want to use their sway to achieve certain results in terms of international support and humanitarian aid; however, I believe it is the media’s job to report objectively, for the purpose of conveying information and educating people, even though it seldom stops there.

            Unlike the amputations by the “cut-hands gangs” (Gourevitch 2010:102) discussed in the article “Alms Dealers”, cholera is not intentionally caused by other people, nor, because it so deadly, would anyone wish to contract it for the sake of media attention. At one point in the article, it is said that “rebels and government soldiers discussed their shared need for international attention,” and without a hint of subtlety, they used the power of the media to achieve their goals, deciding that amputations “drew more press coverage than any other feature of the war” (Gourevitch 2010:105). On the other hand, Haiti is still struggling despite the extensive press coverage, one author noting, “early in the epidemic, Haitians and journalists alike were frustrated by the government's refusal to acknowledge the scope of the problem” (Gaestel 2010). While the media obviously, judging by the reaction of these journalists, is not having the desired effect on the actions taken by the government, there are countless NGOs involved in Haiti, many of whom aim to help specific groups rather than the general population. However, the same article claims “less than 38 percent of the aid pledged to Haiti at a post-quake donors conference in March has been disbursed. Most of it has gone to these NGOs, rather than the state” (Gaestel 2010). Again, despite Haiti’s issues regularly being featured in international news media, the coverage can only help increase humanitarian groups’ attention, thus bringing in more money, but cannot dictate how (or if) that money is distributed.

            As for the conditions that led to the epidemic, I don’t see how a case can be made for the media having a hand in their causation. Although it has come to light that several different organizations have different stances on how the cholera epidemic came about, one article quotes an epidemiologist and the PAHO incident coordinator for the cholera crisis as having said, “″We think flooding (from the hurricane) likely accelerated the spreading and expanded the geographical range [of the outbreak]″” (Fraser 2010). Still yet another author quotes a veteran cholera scientist and former head of the U.S. National Science Foundation as having “put her money confidently on the environmental route” (Enserink 2010:738). However, the official reasoning provided by the Center for Disease Control contradicts the proposals by other scientists, stating that environmental factors had no effect on the outbreak.

            Anthropologist Charles Briggs, writing about the epidemic in Venezuela, calls cholera “the classic disease of social inequality. It is symbolically associated with dirt, ignorance, premodernity, and the racial Other” (2004:166). This portrayal of the disease has clearly evolved from media reports, and in this sense aids in the creation of conditions in which cholera is not taken as seriously as it should be, but is instead scorned because people are led to believe the victims somehow brought it upon themselves. Enserink says in his article that the bacteria that cause cholera are “present in coastal waters worldwide, even in countries where the disease is absent” (2010:739). What the media can do to have a positive impact on the outcome of Haiti’s current struggle with cholera is to provide the public with an accurate representation of the situation without skewing it with bias and misinformation.