Culture jamming, according to Harold, is ‘an artful proliferation of messages…which challenges the ability of corporate discourses to make meaning in predictable ways.’ However, Harold distinguishes between parody and pranking.
Pranking, Harold’s preferred method, can be viewed as the adornment and folding of texts. The goal is not to create a new meaning, but to challenge the idea of meaning itself. A good example of this is the Biotic Baking Brigade, which threw pies into faces of famous people it considered to be promoting questionable values (such as capitalism). The act in itself did little to challenge norms, other than that of authority.
In contrast, parody aims to change things in the name of a presupposed value. A successful example would be Adbusters' 2003 campaign to sell the ‘ethical’ Blackspot sneaker as an alternative to Nike. Here, Adbusters drew on the presupposed value of fair labour to challenge Nike’s use of sweatshops. Parody can also be successful in ‘rebranding’ products. Brands aim to associate themselves with concepts: for Nike, these may be freedom, or discipline. Instead, Adbusters attempted to associate the Nike brand with unfair labour.
Harold criticises parody because it fails to challenge the hierarchy of language and all its binaries. However, I believe that this is a positive thing. All texts and authors (including culture jammers) are socially, economically and politically situated and thus have their own biases. Trying to pretend otherwise would be counter-productive. Presenting parody against corporate advertising, I believe, allows the audience to arrive at their own ‘truth.’ This works in a manner similar to our adversarial court system. Hearing binary arguments does not prevent the reader from choosing a middle ground.
Like advertisements, subvertisements rely on existing norms and values. The fashion industry associated the norm of beauty with its models and clothes. Retaliating, subvertisements used commercial rhetoric to associate the industry with unhealthy choices. Adbusters featured a model vomiting into a toilet. Recently, Dove launched its Campaign for Real Beauty, appropriating the norm of natural beauty from subvertisements in order to sell its beauty products. Should the norms of the advertisement be celebrated, or is it even more dangerous than other commercial advertisements? Unlike pranking, parody is open to challenge.
Another example of parody moving into the mainstream was ABC TV’s Gruen Transfer, which dissected various advertisements. It aired subvertisements (such as anti-tourism) and encouraged critical engagement with culture and advertising. For example, in ‘Consumer’s Revenge,’ users are invited to mix their own advertisements.
Do you believe that parody or pranking is the more successful method?
Does the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty make you uncomfortable, in that it is ‘hijacking’ parody for commercial purposes?
Can culture jamming make a real difference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In my eyes The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty was put together magnificently and did exactly what any good parody is supposed to do, cut through the glitz and focus on a what lies beneath... the truth. Although this is an advertisement and is created for a profit I believe that it is also incredibly effective and opens the viewers eyes to the backward and unrealistic way which women in this day and age are expected to look and the unachievable standards which are imposed upon them by the media. As the ad says, we are supposed to be 'younger, thinner, tighter, softer' and everything in between. As far as I'm concerned any parody (even if it is for commercial purposes) that sheds light upon this insane and unjust idea of what women should look like today should be celebrated and by no means makes me feel uncomfortable. I think that even if a parody is 'hijacked' for commercial purposes as long as it is used in a positive way and is still open to challenge than that is exactly what it is intended for.
In my opinion parody is a successful mode of drawing attention to the tools used by contemporary advertising companies. Harold comments that parody upholds rather than upsets the hierarchical forms. However I feel that rather than upsetting hierarchical forms, parody highlights the methods and techniques used by advertising agencies. Perhaps parody does reinscribe and reinforce binaries, however it does so in a manner which positions its viewers to question the pre existing binaries rather than accept them.
The 'Gruen Transfer' is a fantstic example of the power of parody. Any mix of humour, wit, truth and a panel of industry 'experts' will grab the attention of its viewers and make them think. The saddest thing is perhaps a passive viewer, taking in what society and the world believe to be the norm. Taking aside the fact that pranking has the ability to be seen as immature, it also has the ability to confuse its viewers or participants and the message in most cases becomes lost. (Unless of course it becomes so obvious, like detractions from fur on the run way by 'blood'/tomato sauce, that it looses impact). I do find The Barbie Liberation Organization's christmas prank amusing however. In conclusion I think that long term discussion is the ultimate measure for me personally. Pranking, whilst amusing, does not lay out its issues for proper debate, simply a last frustrated attempt to be noticed.
Parody definitely uncovers "truth" in advertising by exposing the lies. Many, many add campaigns have found worldwide success using humour and thusly stripping consumerism down to it’s bear bones i.e. YOU WANT THIS! On the other hand I do partly disagree with Harold’s notions that parody reinforces over challenges consumerist culture, in my opinion I think that in exposing the ideologies of materialism, namely drawing attention to the insecurity and greed that underpin consumerist culture, parody essentially makes life harder for marketers who must be on the cutting edge of consumer psychology. Another interesting question to ask however, is, if understanding the consumer psyche is so imperative to peddling goods in the market place then are we really just moving ever closer to Foucault’s model of consumer control through the very ‘pranks’ which undermine it? By using seemingly subversive practices, are marketers luring in pranksters by appealing to their lust for rebellion?
Of the two methods, I’d have to go with parody as more successful. Although pranking can raise awareness of an issue, I think parody has the power to make the consumer
(as it so often is) think more, and if its only gets through to a few people, then at least its something. Verity commented on parody allowing the audience to come to their own truth regarding certain issues. Maybe this is the case, but more often I think it would be that they arrive at the truth the parodyers want them to come to. (However in my opinion, especially concerning the Adbuster’s parodies, its still a pretty good truth)
While I think the Dove campaign is amazing, it does make me feel a little uncomfortable, or perhaps more just being “played”, if that makes sense; although they not advertising any product in particular, they are still encouraging us to buy their brand when we next need (or want) it.
I remember when they showed this on the Gruen Transfer, and one of the panelists commented on the fact that Dove, or the company that owns Dove, also owns Lynx. This is pretty interesting when you consider that the women in the Lynx campaigns symbolise everything the Dove ad is telling women they don’t have to be. Knowing this information makes me view the Dove ad a little more cynically.
However, I also agree with Karmela’s point that any challenge to media stereotypes is a good thing – if one part of the beauty industry is trying to do the right thing, they should be commended for it.
Post a Comment