Spontaniety Keeps the World Going Round

Culture Jam! Yum!

Culture Jamming refers to the interruption of social norms that been created by culture. Individual artists and even large groups have made it their priority to cause culture jams in public spaces - activities or art - that are strange and abnormal to the average passersby.

One such group is Improv Everywhere, a large core group of actors that plan out-of-the-ordinary scenes. Their goal is to “create chaos and joy” with their spontaneous activities in the city. 

The Lunchtime Musical was nothing out of the ordinary. It was on an ordinary day in an ordinary food court, until a man (one of Improv Everywhere’s actors) started to sing about his love of lunch. Eventually several others joined him in song and dance to the disbelief of other food court users. Their harmless prank created many laugh

Some of their missions include thousands of people who saw Improv Everywhere’s mission and wanted to participate. Some of these large missions included the Invisible Dog, where two thousand participants walked their “invisible dogs” out on the streets of Brooklyn, making thousands of unsuspecting people stare in awe of the cultural “abnormality.”

Improv Everywhere’s spontaneous events prove that we live in a society full of social ideologies - all leashes should have dogs attached, and musicals don’t happen anywhere except at the theatre. Their success in recruiting participants show that there are people who strive to step out of that social norm and create something interesting out of the lives that have become repetitive, daily bores. The reactions that Improv Everywhere receives by those caught in their spontaneity are all of surprise and laughter. Their goodnatured reactions also show that many people in our society would like to see more harmless surprises in their otherwise boring routines of riding the subway, eating lunch and buying groceries (all of which are probably a daily pain for many). A quote from their blog fabulously explains their goal of enriching daily life:

“With our Subway Series, Improv Everywhere attempts to shatter the mundane and bring excitement and happiness to the underground. To us, the subway is a place where long lost brothers can meet, men can exchange outfits, and pants can be sold for $1.”

How eccentrically heartwarming is that for spicing up city life?

All their events are intertextually entwined with popular parts of our life, such as the Big Bad Wolf, the coming of the Olympic Games, and even creates humour out of the stress of city life that pushes people to suicide. Instead of relying on television as the main mode of relief, Improv Everywhere promotes interaction, giving the participants a well balanced dose of media. Doctor Innis no longer needs to fear our culture overdosing on societal norms and specific mediums (Postman). They turn things that normally doesn’t belong into a joyous parade of creativity and humour. 

What’s even better is that their missions, like the Subway Series ‘“Surprise!” birthday party’ bring huge crowds of strangers together, who never ever would have thought of interacting so warmly with each other. This unanticipated event of a birthday party in a subway car created a happy, multicultural party full of laughter out of an ordinary, boring subway ride. Their “Surprise!” birthday party on the subway created lasting, heartwarming impressions on those living and visiting the city. Individual strangers became friends for that small period of time, celebrating a birthday of someone they have never met before. 

Improv Everywhere even threw a free wedding reception for a randomly-picked, unsuspecting, newly-wed couple! How much sweeter can they get?

This is the kind of hospitality and kindness humans should have, as well as having the freedom of expression to harmlessly liven up their lives as displayed by Improv Everywhere. This is a beautiful example of rehumanizing the world in making our cities (which tend to be cold and heartless) a better place to live. I am so proud of their work, and if they ever do anything in Toronto, I’ll make it my business to join!

Embedded videos of their hilarious ingeniousness is provided after the Works Cited.

Works Cited

Chandler, Daniel. “Encoding/Decoding.” Semiotics for Beginners. 3, April 2005. 10 November 2009. Web.

Improv Everywhere. "Improv Everywhere." . 2009. 10 November 2009. 

Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” 2000. 10 November 2009. Web.

Tweet Tweet Tweet and Away We Go!

Participatory Culture

I’m not really a gamer. I can’t for my life play RPG (I’m still not totally sure what that means exactly) games like Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft, or Zelda. Maybe because of my incapability, I don’t particularly like them. Or maybe it’s because my parents never spoiled me with those shiny expensive gaming consoles, and so my definition of fun didn’t revolve around gaming. I think that gaming is a rather solitary and lonely hobby; especially for kids who are an only-child, and whose obsession of gaming prevents them from socializing. Yes, it’s interactive and participatory, but only with the game console.

With social networking a huge success in the digital era, it really emphasizes our desire to be connected to everyone (I don’t know if gamers are too, but they probably are). You can find a huge list of popular social networking sites, and it grows longer everyday. Social networking sites allow users to chat with other users and publish comments, photos, videos and other personalized content for the each other to see. I’m sure I don’t need to list any examples.

The most popular social site of all time has got to be Facebook - your friends have an account, your entire family (yes, unfortunately for the young ones, the oldies are in too) has their own accounts, teachers are on it, and of course, I’m on it too. It is the very definition of social networking - there is not a single application on Facebook that is made for your eyes only. Every application on the site, even if it is a one player game, involves participation or the indirect inclusion of others. You may play Word Challenge (my one and only favourite game on Facebook) on your own, but you will be compared to your friends’ scores and indirectly interact with them when you try and beat their score. Boy, do my friends make me feel stupid. To make myself feel better, I keep playing and playing, trying to beat whoever is in front of me. What a great way to keep us on Facebook, eh?

Okay, so maybe I'm not a Twitter person either (sorry for the misleading intertextual reference in this post's title. It's actually a childhood hand game). Facebook is definitely a big part of my social participation. It connects me to almost all my friends, allowing me to keep in touch with ones that are too far to see. I can check up on and message faraway friends and have them reply at their convenience. It demolished the time difference barrier, which allowed me to connect with travel buddies that otherwise I would never be able to talk to. MSN is not popular in their countries, and time differences between Asia and North America only allowed my friends and I to talk on MSN only if one of us was staying up very, very late at night (which rarely happens)

Being a social shutterbug, I brought my first digital camera to school with me every single day (until it died a year later from excessive use) and took pictures of all my friends and everything that we did. What I loved about Facebook was the ability to upload infinite photo albums and could tag my friends faces in them. I hated taking pictures and not being able to show my friends, so the tagging and the many friends I had on Facebook gave me the chance to conveniently show all my photos. Getting comments on them were particularly enjoyable, and being able to get a broad readership from my friends was a great thing for me.

Many people believe that online networks like Facebook and gaming sites deter people from socializing face-to-face. It all really depends on the theory of media ecology - whether you have a balance between your online and physical world, because too much of it will indeed be bad. To me, Facebook is a way to keep in touch when I can’t see my friends, not a substitute for seeing them - just like how Theuth says that writing is a receipt for recollection, but not for memory (Playboy). 

Works Cited

Playboy. “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Playboy Magazine. March 1969. 2 November 2009. Web.

Please, selling Violence & Sex is SO overrated

Decoding and Deconstructing Advertising


For this blog, I searched for interesting advertisements on Google as I was at a loss on what to analyze. After a few hours of searching, I found an advertisement for duncan quinn (a luxuriously high class clothier) that I would quite like to express my opinion on. 

First off, I’ll be blunt: to me, it’s revolting, dehumanizing and, in a way, insulting to women who have  the least bit of pride and decency. 

To begin, duncan quinn plays on our culture’s trend of male dominance over women. The actor is portrayed as having the idolized masculine strength to overpower and exploit things to his do his bidding. Note that I said things, as he is quite literally objectifying women, and once he is done with them, he can throw (or drag by the neck with his necktie) them away as if they are inanimate, useless objects that lack the ability to feel.

“Surely,” I thought, “this can’t be the only advertisement that duncan quinn has. There must be another ad by them that is less horrific...”

Nope. This one ad was the only image results of duncan quinn ads that had a woman in it. What was even better (no, not really) was the fact that almost every result on the first five pages turned out to be this ad. I was quite disappointed. I then decided to read up on Duncan Quinn’s company history on the official website. The About Duncan page revealed a shocking statement: “The year was 2003, and New York was still in the thrall of suits bearing a close resemblance to trash bags. The first duncan quinn store opened ... and was an immediate hit” (duncan quinn).

WOW, Egoistic much? 2003 was not too long ago, and the style of men’s suits have not changed radically, so it is a very deprecative, opinionated statement. Clearly the owner does not have much regard for anyone else but himself. Why am I not surprised then that this ad came from his company?

NY Magazine has also stated that it is “The most disturbing ad found in December 2008 fashion magazines” (Ivaskiv). 

Every webpage I found in my searches have given very negative comments regarding this advertisement. With this being said, why would duncan quinn even make an ad that is so offensive to so many people? The meaning of the ad is obvious, but the decoding of it by the audience is of an oppositional view, because who do not agree with this misogynistic ad (Chandler, Daniel). This obviously would not do well for business.

In the twenty-first century, women, for the most part, are now seen and treated as equals of men. Yet in these fashion magazines, we are still seeing the exploitation of women’s sexuality and objectification, to be manipulated by men as they please.

However, let’s not get overboard with the emotions and really analyze this ad. This advertisement shows that sex sells, a ridiculously dominant element in thousands of ads. The model is very seductive in her translucent bra and panties, lying bare and open as if she’s only there for you to look at and devour. Her face is hardly seen, making her a faceless person that you cannot sympathize with. Her lack of facial appearance also gives a generality, stating that this is what all women should be and are like. The ad also shows that if you wear Duncan Quinn’s (minimum) $4000 custom suits, you will be able to get desirable women, and you can even do whatever you want with them, killing included (duncan quinn). 

Better yet, you won’t feel any shame, because you’re wearing a possibly $15,000-or-up suit (if it's custom tailored with textural fabric that only your suit and your suit only will have!) that gives you unimaginable power to do as you please. I mean, look at the guy in the ad! He still looks fresh and having a great time in this dire situation. He’s leading by example, holding her like a dog on a leash. The poor girl is suffering from male hegemony.

Great, now I’m worried about when I grow older and have to attend these high class, fancy, business parties. I see no advantage of putting violence in their ad.

Once again, I have to stress Innis’ theory. He believes that too much exposure to a certain medium will have harmful effects (Postman). This duncan ad is not the only one that displays such dehumanizing acts, as our media constantly promotes violent films and stories. 

A good example of the negative impact of such violent displays is Ted Bundy, the serial killer. He became obsessed with violent pornography, stating that the consumption of it helped shape and mold his horrifically violent behaviour(Cline).

Bundy believed that “sexualized violence” led boys “down the road to being Ted Bundys” (Cline). This ad is clearly violent, with many sexual connotations and denotations. Is this not a form of violent pornography then? Why are we letting it run loose in our media mainstreams, where children can see it?

Like I said before, our society is sadly desensitized and dehumanized. Please help rehumanize our culture so this world is a better place for all of us to live in. No one wants to be like the girl in this ad, or suffer the pain or heartache caused by murderers like Ted Bundy simply because of his exposure to violent pornography.

Works Cited

Chandler, Daniel. “Encoding/Decoding.” Semiotics for Beginners. 3, April 2005. 15 November 2009. Web.

Cline, Victor. “Sex Offenders’ Use of Pornography.” Pornography’s Effect on Adults and Children. New York. Morality Media. Print.

duncan quinn. “About duncan.” duncan quinn. 2008. 15 November 2009. Web.

Justin Ivaskiv. “Sexy violence.” Media Dissemination. 14, July 2009. Web. 15 November 2009.

Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” 2000. 15 November 2009. Web.