critical.org

Last week Yoko Ono posted on YouTube a documentary she made with John Lennon in 1969 called Peace Bed. Digging deeper into the film’s personalities, I came across a phrase that defined the attitude of much of that generation: ‘turn on, tune in, drop out’.  To me it is the antithesis of all corporate slogans. In his 1983 autobiography Flashbacks, Timothy Leary explains this powerful phrase, originally given to him by communication theorist Marshall McLuhan:

‘Turn on’ meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers that engage them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end. ‘Tune in’ meant interact harmoniously with the world around you – externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives. Drop out suggested an elective, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments. ‘Drop Out’ meant self-reliance, a discovery of one’s singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change. Unhappily my explanations of this sequence of personal development were often misinterpreted to mean ‘Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity.

I don’t read the New York Times seeking any valuable content, but I will look at it once in a while just to see what the paper is up to. How it is functioning in its totality as pure media.

The last article I actually read in its entirety is “Tamil Parties Make Strong Showing in Sri Lanka” by Lydia Polgreen. Under the guise of giving the readers context for the elections in Sri Lanka, amongst other things, the author writes ”Sri Lanka’s government has come under harsh scrutiny for its handling of the war against the Tamil Tigers, a ruthless insurgency that pioneered tactics like using children as soldiers and women as suicide bombers.”

Yes it actually says that the Tigers pioneered the use of child soldiers.  My goal here is not to defend the Tigers or the use of children as soldiers, but anyone with an internet connection can see how ridiculously untrue this statement is. Children have been forced to fight as soldiers for thousands of years by virtually all armies from the ancient Egyptians to the Greeks, to the Romans to the Chinese to the Nazis. The American civil war had children fighting as did the Polish resistance in World War II.

The New York Times’ lie of the Tigers as the first to use children as soldiers has an ideological purpose here:  non-western entities from far away places are capable of coming up with horrible things like child soldiers. Projecting everything evil onto societies different to the ones the readers belong to strengthens the force and enjoyability of the article. The article’s discussed event of elections in Sri Lanka is neither the subject nor the actual message – it is the medium by which the New York Times delivers us the actual message: be assured on the validity and relevance of this article and the authority of this newspaper.

The New York Times embeds its ideology deep enough for most of its readers not to really notice it as ideology. It easily glosses over historical realities in the defense and promotion of Western liberal values. Its possible to create an anatomy of any New York Times article and expose its underlying rhetorical devices deployed at the service of keeping the world as a matter of us versus them.

Also see: “How the US media marginalises dissent” by Ted Rall, Al Jazeera

This is a large topic I would like to write more on later, but will start here. I just spent a week interviewing locals in Minami Sanriku – one of the many towns on the east coast of Japan severely affected by the recent March 11 earthquake and tsunami. The town is nearly all destroyed and half of its population is either missing or dead. The crises is on going and the town is struggling to build again from what looks like Armageddon.

When a disaster such as this has been squeezed dry of everything sensational, media reporting recedes very quickly and soon stops in its entirety. Because of the trust we have established with our favorite news sources to always convey everything relevant, once reporting stops, we are made to feel the crises itself has also receded. This is the paradox of keeping up with the media – while it brings us an awareness of some new events, in the long term it creates an unawareness of most events. Traditional media has no interest in the majority of conflicts and crises occurring throughout the world. At least not over more sensational events. Why for example report more on Strauss-Kahn’s sex case than on Saudi Arabia’s on-going exploitation of migrant workers? Wouldn’t an actual crises be addressed if the latter received the same space dedicated to trivial stories such as that of Strauss-Khan’s?

Papers like the New York Times and the Economist present us with an illusion that they know everything important going on around the world, but because of limited time and space, they can only curate a fraction of things. The truth is the opposite – they only have an awareness of a fraction of things. These papers and other media maintain loyalty through an appearance of possessing worldly knowledge – not actual knowledge of the world.

Minami Sanriku four months after an earthquake and tsunami:

Its not often that I hate anything. ‘Hate’ is a strong word with very little room for understanding and good critique, but we do reserve it for some things in life and I have for a long time reserved it for the New York Times. Without getting into the lower end of criticism of main stream media – along the lines of conspiracy theorists – or the higher end –  along the lines of Chomsky’s propaganda model – one can dismiss the New York Times for its arrogance. A newspaper arrogant enough that it no longer needs to convey what actually matters in the long term, but what it deems matters in the short term. This is arrogance. More than anything, the publication is not about what it publishes but what it doesn’t publish. This is how it retains its stronghold. Anything else is pure castration.

Julian Assange recently revealed that the New York Times had over a thousand pages of the Pentagon Papers, well before Daniel Ellsberg handed over his copy to them. The New York Times never intended to publish the papers, until the realization that they were going to be published by Ellsberg anyway. More recently, we also know that the paper sought clearance from the State Department before publishing any stories of consequence based on the Wikileaks cables. It can only publish what will not make a difference to the way things already are – essentially everything worthless.

In January 2010, I for the first time read the travel section of the the New York Times, because it was related to a country I’ve been following for a long time: Sri Lanka. Out of 31 places to visit in 2010, Sri Lanka was at the top of the list at #1. What matters to the New York Times here is that Sri Lanka’s civil war ended seven months ago in May 2009 and what doesn’t matter is that a humanatrian disaster with tens of thousands of war ravaged people living in the north-east of the island were under an existential threat of physical and cultural annihilation.

The New York Times of course knew this and also of the war crimes allegations against the government of Sri Lanka.  So how is it that it can suggest we  must absolutely visit the beaches of a nation with people in pure agony and a brutal government? Because putting together a list of beautiful countries that we in the West can visit to fill the travel section, is actually is more important than not encouraging a politically failed state such as Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan example is obscure, since it is only after thirty years of conflict the world  is slowly becoming aware of the politics of what has happened on the island and continuing to happen. But imagine for a moment that Israel declared war-on-terror, completely took over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank killing tens of thousands of civilians with international silence, ended all voilence and months later the New York Times declares Israel and the Palestinian territories to be the number one tourist destination for that year; because it is “rich in natural beauty and cultural splendors.” And then imagine this number one designation being proudly presented on the Israel Defense Forces website. This is exactly what happened in Sri Lanka.

At the most thoughtful level, The New York Times and papers modeled after it are really entertainment, with little regard for conveying the reality as confronted by most people in the the world.

Two videos related to this post:

Sarah Witt is a close friend of mine.  She recently received an email from someone speaking on behalf of Levi’s,  asking her to be interviewed and profiled on a website called Shape What’s to Come, supposely an iniative to  mentor and empower young women. Sarah considered it because she is generous with her time and as a female artist that understand the world’s inqualities, she of course wants to help empower young woman as much as she can.

But after having thought about her own practice as an artist, where her life, opinions, knowledget etc. are not separate from the process of her art, she asked the Levi’s representative if she woud be compensated for her participation. She was told she wouldn’t be. Already having assumed this, she prepared the following letter:

Dear Levi’s Representative Name Hidden,

Thanks for your emails. I checked out the Shape What’s To Come website; I’m impressed with Levi’s’ enterprise to mentor youth by delivering a diverse spectrum of optimistic and inspirational messages on this site.  It’s refreshing to see the arts included, and I’m flattered that you’ve invited me to share my perspective.  Will I be financially compensated for this interview?  I don’t like to assume, but considering that this hasn’t been mentioned in any of the requests for my time, I’ve guessed that the answer is “no.”  If my assumption is correct, I’m afraid that my participation in this initiative would be a violation of my own principles; not only because I firmly believe that artistic labor deserves to be recognized with the same economic equality that other professions enjoy, but because I would then have to dispense my own experience dishonestly; I would hate to further disillusion the youth of this country by encouraging them to pursue a career in an undervalued field where its practitioners are expected to subsist on social/cultural capital and the sheer love of their endeavors.  So, if financial compensation isn’t a possibility but you’d still like me to share my encouragement, allow me to dispatch some realistic advice:

————————————————————————————-

Dear Potential Levi’s Customer—

I am a visual artist, completing a Master of Science in Visual Studies in the Art, Culture and Technology Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  My artistic practice is research-based, occupying a discursive and subjective field of knowledge, and operates as a contemporary, poetic response to shifting social and political environments.  I am unemployed, so I have time to offer you some advice based on the cynical wisdom that’s unfortunately accumulated throughout my willful struggle to be an artist.  If you are hoping to defy your parents and follow your dream of wearing a beret while you pontificate on politics in a Paris café with other liberally minded people, or more succinctly you want to be an artist, I write to you today with disappointing news.

The aforementioned social and political circumstances in our capitalist society are not welcoming to you.  And if they seem to be, perhaps it’s because you’re still in middle school where they convince you that no matter what you want to be when you grow up, your choice will bring you happiness, a sense of self-worth and an income.  This last mention, an income, is the tricky part.  Right now, you probably don’t have to think much about where your lunch comes from, or question whether or not you’ll have a place to sleep tonight.  But eventually, you will need to consider the means of obtaining these basic human needs: food and shelter.  If you live in a country where monetary currency is used to purchase these essentials, you will need to have an income.  And according to the hierarchy of fundamental human needs, if you do not have one, you will not be able to successfully acquire the other fulfilling career rewards promised to you (happiness, a sense of self-worth and other emotional necessities.)  Don’t get me wrong, it’s certainly possible to be successful in this field, if you’re lucky enough to be within the 2% of artistic professionals who are actually paid the adequate means to survive solely by selling their artwork.^[1]

If you’re not yet disenchanted, closely examine the practical conditions under which the other 98% present their work.  We are charmed and lured by the honors of social capital, a benefit that increases our agency through relationships or affiliation, and should theoretically advance our careers by increasing the number of future (paid) opportunities that will be introduced to us through this expanded social network.  However, the institution has learned that this system is fully functional as an empty promise, so that “potential advancement” needn’t involve financial compensation to tempt us.  So again, we participate in an unequal exchange, one that you too will experience:  you will offer your artistic services to an institution or corporation, and in turn will receive a verbal handshake fueled by utter appreciation for volunteering your altruistic input.  “How nice!” you’ll think, as you return to wait tables or answer phones at one of your multiple other jobs.

Like the rest of us, it’s very likely that you’ll be exploited by institutions whose opaque (but certainly immense) budgets have been designed without you in mind.  You’ll learn that funds are rarely allocated to you in the expenses category—you’re just an in-kind donation.  Let me say this again, because this is a red flag for those who already have low self-esteem: you will be asked to render your services as an artist without compensation, frequently. Perhaps you will, because you deeply care about your practice as an artist.  Or because you want to network and heard that schmoozing is lucrative.  But be wary eager beavers. Over time, your infinite enthusiasm, dedication and self-respect will erode. Not only because you will struggle to make payments towards the severe debt accrued through student loans, or because you will have to live on friends’ couches for month-long stretches while you search for a paying job that has nothing to do with your intellectual interests, but because you will begin to realize that you are replaceable; the passion you fervently release into your work, your individualistic voice you render in visual language, your tireless vocation to make a spirited contribution to culture….as perceived by the capitalistic machine, are not all that important.  If you don’t do it for free, someone else will.  Your talents are void of meaning if you request ethical treatment.

Have you ever wondered why so many artists are pictured wearing black clothing from head to toe?  No it’s not because they’re “Goth.”  Maybe it’s because they feel invisible.  Or more imaginatively, maybe it’s because they’re depressed over the futility of their efforts.  The artists’ relentless labor to create a poetic and critical culture is no doubt dismissed and destroyed by reigning corporate power.  Clearly, if artists aren’t paid for their contributions to culture, they have very little impact in decreasing the intensity of the technocratic, capitalist agenda.  If they do have impact, maybe you’ll hear a different story from me, one in which I proudly profess the position I take as an artist who gratefully earns her living through mutual respect from the institution.  Or second best, my brutally honest words will find you.  But in the event that they didn’t, good luck young artists.  You’d be better off getting a job in business so you can afford health insurance and get a therapist to help you cope with the abandonment of your dreams.

If all of this is just pessimistic jargon to you, and you do somehow find yourself in the creative field, you’ll hopefully be doing it fashionably.  In a pair of Levi’s.

Yours truly,

Sarah Witt

---

¹This fact was obtained from an interview with Nato Thompson and the artist/activist group W.A.G.E. in the March 2011 issue of Artforum.  W.A.G.E. cites this figure as derived from the Columbia University Research Center for Arts and Cultures’ “Information on Artists” report.

————————————————————————————-

I’ll conclude by saying that under no circumstances is this a display of disrespect or contempt for the three of you who have contacted me to do an interview.  I understand that you too are only trying to earn an honest living.  Hopefully, my words are taken as commentary within the context of global capitalism, not as a personal attack.  That said, I hope you can accept this response as institutional critique and understand why I’ve shared it with you.  Regardless of the mission statement of this Levi’s initiative, be it truly philanthropic or just a covert marketing strategy, I cannot compromise my own values. If Levi’s would able to negotiate a fee for myself and all the artists featured on the Shape What’s To Come site, I would be able to genuinely deliver a positive message endorsing the arts as a territory I fulfilling and successfully occupy.  But until then, I’m afraid my letter is the only message I have to hopeful young artists.  Thank you for taking the time to consider these words.

All the best and with respect,

Sarah Witt

<<<end of letter to Levi’s>>>

What is generally referred to as ‘energy’ today cannot merely be the material categories of wood, oil, plutonium, etcetera, but a network comprising also of people, cars, power plants – all objects of production, transmission and consumption are part of the processes of energy, and energy itself. As much as energy is the ability to do work, it is equally the ability to connect all things across space and time.

Energy plays a complex role in our social relations and also perhaps our most direct point of interaction with nature as well as the future. Decades ago, Buckminster Fuller evoked the concept of a global energy grid, where nations would be collectively responsible for the energy needs of all human beings. Into the 21st century, ways in which energy grids can play a significant role in re-organizing society in new and fundamental ways remains largely unexplored.

What if we stop seeing energy from industrial perspectives of work and scarcity and start seeing it as a network capable of connecting people, places and things in intimate ways? Could 21st century values of network culture such as participation, sharing, non-hierarchy, transparency and a general openness apply to how we use energy in our societies?

Democratically and collectively defining energy as a process rather than property, will free it from being owned or controlled. All people, at all times are born with a natural right to energy. We have yet to define energy from legal or constitutional frameworks so that its very process is a process of ethical relations. Within the 21st century, we could even begin to see ourselves as participants of energy, rather then consumers of it.

I just watched an episode of Al Jazeera’s Witness and realized something about Canada that most of the world, including Canadians, will never know and care about: the tar sands. The show titled “To the Last Drop?” presents us with Canada’s Athabasca oil sands – the biggest construction project, energy project, and capital investment project in the world. A project big enough to supply the United States with enough oil for the next 100 years.

I am also in the middle of reading Michel Foucualt’s History of Madness, and couldn’t resist putting these two things together, as I often do with old books and new situations.

Even if we seem to be progressing rationally, where there is need to extract and maintain a steady flow of global energy supplies and where economic and legal laws are followed, the actual history of Canada’s oil sands project -as a future observation on the grandest scale- will inevitably be perceived as a kind of madness. It has already been called hell on earth. Foucault tells us that a history of madness is also a madness of history – a madness where its impossible to immediately perceive and acknowledge the consequences of events as they are unfolding.

>Also see “New Pipeline to Challenge Obama’s Promises”