Students, the Academic Establishment and a Fruitful Discussion

From pictorial vandalism in public spaces to Feminist Asian cinema – the range of topics discussed in the blogs students created for ANTH 378 is extensive. Assessing one's fellow students work, however, is often difficult. Not only does it at times seem pretentious to rate and thus somehow mark other students' work, but it also confronts you with your own work. Involuntarily, then, we are put in a situation of comparing ourselves and our achievements with our classmates' contributions. Despite the fact that this task might trigger professional or peer envy it is a useful and in the end rather rewarding thing to do, for it sheds light on how capable in fact students are when it comes to participating in the academic discourse.

In her blog on bathroom graffiti Larissa Dziubenko thinks about ideas of anonymity and identity in an environment as particular as the public washroom and how the nature of this relationship influences people when choosing which type of graffiti to mark this very special territory with – a transitory place, an Augean non-place that is usually not really paid attention to (Augé 2008). First of all identifying the bathroom 'masterpieces', those "convoluted conversations, social commentaries and insults we often find scribbled on the walls of bathroom stalls or study cubicles" (Dziubenko 2011) as a special kind of graffiti, she then goes on to investigating the special nature of the washroom ambience: There is no doubt that this is a public space. At the same time, however, it is a highly private, at times even vulnerable, moment in which people get to see and read these scribbles and thus be impacted upon by other people's thoughts. This intervention in one's private sphere, this reaching into another person by virtue of words, is what Larissa Dziubenko is concerned with. From her own elaborations she infers that "graffiti writings are anonymous statements of an individual’s identity and presence in the world” (2011). But more importantly, I think, these graffiti works hint at the anonymity of our contemporary world, the fact that 'real' presence does not exist anymore. It has become nothing but an illusion, one might argue. This would also tie into another idea put forward by Larissa, namely that the more anonymous a setting is, the braver people get: If people view the public washroom as a last resort to express themselves, then they are in fact erasing their own identities, for it is place that denies identity and eventually hides presence.

Discussing graffiti as signs that provide an insight into the nature of society, Larissa raises a lot of interesting questions as for instance whether the feeling of one's identity is more at risk if one is the first person to write tag the interior of the bathroom stall. Also, it might be interesting to take a closer look at why people still respond to those 'washroom feeds' when they could just post something similar on Facebook.

Jeff Hart equally contributes to the discussion that has evolved around new media. His blog on Hayao Miyazaki’s anime film Laputa: Castle in the Sky (1986) analyzes the movie's main characters and their relationships towards one another from a feminist point of view. Arguing that “as a self-proclaimed feminist, Miyazaki often centers the plot on many female characters, projected as independent and competent individuals that attempt to repress patriarchal systems” (Hart 2011) Jeff does indeed, and rightly so, highlight the number of females as well as the variety of portrayals of women in the movie. In addition to the protagonist, Sheet, a young female, “Miyazaki also challenges traditional representation in creating the character of Dola, a matriarch heading a pirate family of sons” (Hart 2011). But apart from looking at who is being portrayed and as well as from calling for more appropriate and less clichéd media depictions of women, feminists are also concerned with who does these representations and who is benefiting from them (Gray 2010: 59). 'Benefiting' in this context might refer to how accurate the depictions are and thus regard whether women benefit from certain images that are being evoked; something that Jeff tries to argue for and that he sees realized in Miyazaki's movie. It might, however, also allude to what Laura Mulvey calls scopophilia, the pleasure of looking and her concept of the gaze conceptualized as follows: “Male pleasure is created in mainstream cinema is created in three ways: identification, voyeurism and fetishism” (Gray 2010: 59). One might argue that being a man Miyazaki cannot help but employ a certain male-centric point of view and that even in portraying mainly female characters and supposedly reversing traditional gender roles – “Miyazaki gives Sheeta the characteristics that traditionally fall to the male, in both Hollywood and Japanese films” (Hart 2011) – he is still catering to a dominantly male audience.

No matter whether it is questions of identity negotiated in graffiti or gender stereotypes called into question by Asian anime movies, the blogs created by ANTH 378 students provide insightful analyses of contemporary media phenomena that invite the readers to think more about issues discussed among anthropology of media theorists and how these might relate to their own lives.

References Cited

Augé, Marc

2008 Non-Places: An Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London; New York: Verso.

Dziubenko, Larissa

2011 The Writing on the Stall: Identity and Anonymity in Bathroom Graffiti (Blog #4). Culture and Media: http://cultureandmedia378.blogspot.com/2011/02/writing-on-stall- identity-and-anonymity.html .

Gray, Gordon

2010 Cinema: A Visual Anthropology. Oxford, UK; New York: Berg Publishers.

Hart, Jeff

2011 Miyazaki's Laputa: Castle in the Sky and Feminist Theory (Blog #7). Jeff Hart's Blog: http://jeffalexanderhart.blogspot.com/2011/04/miyazakis-laputa-castle-in-sky-and.html.

Caravaggio and the Mechanical Calculator: A Semiotic Reading of Derek Jarman's 'Caravaggio'

Italy in the early 1600s: Waiting for his friend and lover Ranuccio to be released from jail, the Italian early Baroque painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio is leaning against an old truck. Shortly before, two of the artist's most important patrons and advocates meet to discuss Caravaggio's latest works. Over an extravagant feast, they also talk about his expenses using a golden mechanical calculator to help add up the different sums. Elsewhere in town, an art critic is typing away on a Royal typewriter and flipping through a magazine featuring an article on Caravaggio and some of this works.

In his 1986 movie Caravaggio British director Derek Jarman depicts the (in)famous painter's life, love and artistic practice thereby completely throwing the timeline out of sync. I am arguing that by means of the infiltration of 20^th century technology into a 16^th/17^th century setting, Jarman attempts to depict the contemporariness of Caravaggio as a painter. Admittedly, the myth surrounding Caravaggio itself is rather sensationalist and one might therefore very well say that by virtue of a very different and challenging visual language Jarman is trying to capitalize on this already existing narrative: Caravaggio, the rebel. But in my opinion, there is more to Jarman's portrayal than this; his style should not be dismissed as merely trying to spark attention.

Being derived from structuralism, “semiotics is the study of the 'language' of signs and symbols” (Gray 2010:55). One of the basic ideas of semiotics – “different elements in a film mean things – they signify something” (Gray 2010:56) – is particularly useful when talking about Jarman's filmic practice. Injecting for example the setting with coloured electric light bulbs that light up the interior of a local bar, Jarman challenges the audience's viewing habits. Since these kinds of items are totally out of place, they are signs that need to be analyzed. With C. S. Pierce we might argue that these modern-day objects are indices – signs that either point to something else, something distant in space or time, or call attention to themselves (Walker and Chaplin 1997:138-139). They point to themselves qua the mere fact that they are striking in the way they distinguish themselves from the rest of the setting, i.e. by means of opposition. Once having drawn attention to themselves, then, they direct our attention to another place in time, a future reality that is the 20^th century. We might also see them as symbols of our own contemporary Western world, for it is only in the particular context of the film that they do not solely stand for themselves but for a certain kind of society (Walker and Chaplin 1997:139). In any other movie we would not even pay attention to them, let alone bother looking for some kind of hidden meaning.

When talking about the different units and elemental building blocks that make up the movie and trying to interpret the use of modern-day technology, one should also look at the way Jarman integrates Caravaggio's works with the filmic reality: By virtue of split screens, the pairing of shots of paintings and Caravaggio himself, or fast cutting to create a rapid-fire stream of images, Jarman blurs the boundaries between the filmic reality, film as a medium and painting. Thus he is capable of creating a continuum that suggests a close connection between Caravaggio's painterly practice and the reality depicted in the movie, that is a world in which 1980s-style clothing and cigarettes exist.

That is exactly where the potential of the movie and Jarman's argument resides. Combining film and painting – two highly iconic mediums – Jarman creates a distinct point of view that intrigues the spectator and draws them into the movie itself. Once being drawn into the cinematic reality, the viewer is confronted with all kinds of anachronisms that disrupt their expectations. Still, the master antinomy of Caravaggio – i.e. 20^th century design and traditional Italian ambience – only appears to exist as well as function on a formal or compositional level. Semantically, however, these modern items seem to fit perfectly into the world portrayed by the director.

Having said that, we can very well infer that Jarman would position Caravaggio among the painters of the 20^th century. This resonates with most scholarly accounts on Caravaggio – especially those written on the occasion of the 400^th anniversary of his death in 2010. In addition to that, just looking at Caravaggio's oeuvre proves his very modern style. From an art historical perspective, one might identify another layer of meaning in Jarman's film: The use of 20^th century imagery also hints at anachronisms in Caravaggio's own pieces and at the fact that he himself often depicted Biblical scenes in contemporary settings, for example transposing the action from an ancient locale into an early 17^th century taverna – as is the case in his famous The Calling of St. Matthew.

“Why did you paint the flesh so green?” – “I've been ill all summer, Excellency. It is true to life.” – “And art?” – “It isn't art!”

It is not art. Just like Caravaggio who pushed the boundaries between art and life, between different versions of reality, Jarman plays with the idea of reality itself by making use of signs that conjure up disbelief, and suspicion as to what is real, what is not, and eventually as to the very nature of these categories that we impose on all sorts of things in an attempt to make sense out of the world we live in.

References Cited

Gray, Gordon

2010 Cinema: A Visual Anthropology. Oxford, UK; New York: Berg Publishers.

Walker, John A. and Sarah Chaplin

1997 Visual Culture: An Introduction. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press; New York: St. Martin's Press.

A Jingle For 'Women's Time'

The space created through radio is also a contested space. Some have to struggle and fight to maintain this platform, whereas others can readily access it. Depending on whether it is run by the government or a small group of people pursuing a particular aim and also depending on whom it is meant to serve, radio can either serve alternative causes or be employed towards national, mainstream ends. At any rate, it reacts to already existing structures thus being largely influenced by as well as reflecting the very nature of the community it is indebted to. But does it in return also (re)create this community? How does it affect and effect the communal sense of belonging?

In The Songs of the Siren: Engineering National Time on Israeli Radio, Danny Kaplan explains how Israeli radio stations “generat[e] collective rhythms of daily schedules and annual and special events through which a sense of national belonging is sustained” (2009:315). In a country that introduced radio in 1936, i.e. twelve years before it actually became a state in 1948, the broadcast medium has always been key in educating the public (2009:316). Through this involvement in the organization and production of the everyday present, the radio reiterates and reaffirms the very repository of traditional ways of life it drew its inspiration from in the first place. Although there was an initiative in the 1990s to set up local radio stations that focus on regional and communal issues and content, most of these eventually emulated the program of the national radio broadcasting companies; something which is testimonial to the significance of radio for the nation as a whole (2009:317-318). One of the most striking examples of how the radio manages and impacts people's lives for Kaplan is the news jingle: “This pulse generates a singular moment where people bring their individual activities to a momentary standstill and participate in a collective ritual of reflection on current events” (2009:316). The jingle is seen as the tangible effect of what Benedict Anderson calls simultaneity-in-time – in contrast to simultaneity-along-time, a cyclic understanding of history that prompts people to relate themselves to their ancestors or historic past in general rather than their fellow citizens (2009:314). Due to a changed understanding of the nature of time itself – measurements of time are arbitrarily assigned; something that allows for a multitude of interpretations of different moments in time – as well as because of advances in technology, especially print, simultaneity-in-time allows people to “imagine themselves living their lives in parallel to fellow readers, sharing a strong sense of common identity and destiny” (2009:314).

Interestingly enough, it is exactly the idea of “assigning new meaning to an otherwise homogenous-empty time” (Kaplan 2009:314) characteristic of the concept of simultaneity-in-time and thus crucial in shaping a national identity that, so I would argue, can also be used as a means to subvert the status quo. Feminist radio programs in Guatemala try and use the fact that radio is capable of imposing on the public a “uniform pace to collectively engage with the unfolding of events” (2009:316) to their own advantage.

By means of the medium radio, feminists try to create alternative spaces within the public space that is mainstream radio in order to infiltrate and thus subvert the patriarchal structures that govern Guatemalan society. Programs such as Women's Time that are broadcast around noon and that address issues such as particular notions of femininity, domestic violence, but also the recent economic crisis (Nitsan 2011: in-class talk) bear witness to that: To a certain extent these educational shows reflect the community they serve, namely the Guatemalan society, insofar as they make use of the aforementioned preexisting structure – it is no coincidence that Women's Time goes on air around 12 PM. Their aim is to motivate and empower those housewives listening while doing their laundry or preparing lunch and in this way to get them out of their daily routine (Nitsan 2011). Just like the Israeli news jingle, then, Women's Time “generates a singular moment where [women] [...] bring their individual activities to a momentary standstill and participate in a collective ritual of reflection on current events” (2009:316). In this way, the program does, indeed, become part of the listener's daily routine. But instead of affirming this order it questions its very nature thus raising awareness for certain issues in everyday life and slowly undermining traditional gender roles. In case of the Guatemalan feminist programs, then, the radio hosts disrupt an already existing collective identity; they highjack the shared, but nonetheless ideologically loaded space that is mainstream radio. Interestingly enough, feminist programs first of all follow this daily routine imposed by the national identity, for it is only via this detour that they can in fact impact on society itself. Eventually, then, these radio shows may trigger the creation of a new community: an informed female public and a changed Guatemalan society.

In Israel as well as in Guatemala, radio is crucial in creating and serving the community. The extent to which a genuinely 'informed' community is created, however, differs. While in Israel radio is used to perpetuate the status quo, it is meant to subvert the existing order in the Guatemalan example.

References Cited

Kaplan, Danny

2009 Songs of the Siren. Engineering National Time on Israeli Radio. Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 24, Issue 2: 313–345.

Nitsan, Tal

In-class talk, March 4^th 2011.

Reuses of Media and the Limits of Good Taste

When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of Mohammed caricatures in 2005 the outcry was huge. Understandably so. The caricatures not only used sacred imagery and words distorting them in meaning and look, they also did in fact attempt to picture Mohammed, something that is strictly forbidden in Islam. But the controversy does not stop there. The caricatures were not only featured in the newspaper itself. As a result of the discussion that ensued they were also printed in other magazines, published online, shown on TV and discussed by scholars for lectures and other educational purposes.

What characteristics determine whether the reuse of media is considered acceptable or unacceptable? Was the publishing of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten inappropriate, but their circulation within the media afterwards acceptable? One cannot legitimately generalize about this. There is no way, we can define 'objective' criteria that would help establish such thing as a 'degree of acceptability', a continuum – appropriate to unacceptable. Apart from legal issues one must consider the ethics involved in the process of repurposing media.

Brian Jungen combines Northwest Coast imagery as well as icons of Western pop culture such as Nike sneakers in his artistic practice, a mixture which is key to his hybrid, super-contemporary sculptures that are the tangible result of global, modern-day media circulation (Burnett 2006). Reusing the concept and evoking on the aesthetics of the Northwest coast mask, his works allude to Haida or Kwakwaka'wakw imagery and thus also to certain intangible values. However, his works hardly seem to raise controversy. Admittedly, Jungen is neither Haida or Kwakwaka'wakw, but he is of First Nations descent which seems to account for a somewhat 'authentic' approach. But why did Westerners not get offended by Jungen's use of Nike sneakers and his sharp comment on consumerism – the supposed religion of Western society? What would happen if it was the other way around? What if a Caucasian North American artist was to incorporate Northwest Coast imagery in his/ her work and combine it with popular culture?

Relative power relations as well as the nature of past and present relationships between the 'copier' and the 'copied' definitely do influence the way we perceive a reuse of media: T-shirts featuring Che Guevara can be found all over the place. Cover versions of pop songs are released on an almost daily basis. Youtube videos like Rebecca Black's Friday are responded to within hours of them being posted often with parodies being uploaded shortly after. Having said that, we must not forget the input of remediated images and experiences we receive on a daily basis. Every time we watch the news we are confronted with images, bits and pieces of media that have already been reproduced many times. This is hardly ever questioned, let alone is the reuse of media by the media ever truely contested: “As media simulations become ever more pervasive they gradually encroach upon our experience of 'first order' reality” (Walker and Chaplin 1997:23). Their reliability and authority is taken for granted precisely because they have come to be essential parts of our lives. In addition to that, things have become even more complicated since the onset of the contemporary digital age.

All of this might lead us to believe that it is the context in which media are reappropriated that determines whether cultural borrowing and the reuse of mediated images are acceptable or not. Does the remediation belong within the realm of art; is it meant to be aid in educating people as in the case of the lecture on the Mohammed caricatures: or is it the light-hearted copying of famous people's faces that end up on shirts and fashion accessories? But who, then, determines if something is light-hearted and meant in a playful manner like for example the responses to Friday? One might say that it is the intention with which certain imagery or media in general are treated? But what if this intention does coincide with people's perceptions of the act of reappropriation? And how could the sincerity of one's intention ever be determined?

These things largely rely on assumptions: It is the assumed intention, the assumed message and meaning as well as what is deemed 'appropriate' regarding the right to copy that determine whether the use of media is acceptable. A consensus is hardly ever reached. “[A]ppropriation is a creative act” (Novak 2010:42) Although this may ring true, in certain contexts it is a rather cynic statement. The Mohammed caricatures very well fall into the category of 'art' or 'artistic freedom', 'freedom of press', but they also touch on contemporary cultural and religious issues and this is exactly where their controversial potential stems from.

References Cited

Black, Rebecca – Friday (Official Video). Youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0 .

Black, Rebecca – Saturday! Friday Parody. Youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qJW5qVhYsE .

Burnett, Craig

2006 Owls, Inuits and Cultural Collision: Museums, Marketing and Clichés. Frieze Magazine 98 (April): http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/brian_jungen/.

Novak, David

2010 Cosmopolitanism, Remediation, and the Ghost World of Bollywood. Cultural Anthropology 25(1):40 –72.

Walker, John A. and Sarah Chaplin

1997 Visual Culture: An Introduction. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press; New York: St. Martin's Press.

The Insurrection of Signs? Graffiti, Marc Emery and The Culture of the (Non-)Deviant.

Nowadays stencil graffiti can be found anywhere throughout the urban landscape. Made popular by graffiti artists such as Shepard Fairey who is the face behind OBEY stencils are not only our constant companion on our walks through the city, but they have come to be considered 'chic', with Hollywood stars not hesitating a minute to get their hands on 'a Banksy'. The use of spray paint, the claim of public space through subversive imagery and the not unusual rhetoric of violence clearly identify the stencil as part of the countermovement that is graffiti, as a tangible marker of subcultural activity. Yet, the fact that it has been somewhat 'domesticated' and thus become 'mainstream' leads me to question the subversive potential of stencil graffiti and to ask what distinguishes them from as well as what has happened to Jean Baudrillard's idea of graffiti as 'empty signifiers' as laid out in his 1975 essay 'Kool Killer, or the Insurrection of Signs' which was published in his seminal work 'Symbolic Exchange and Death' (1975:79).

I came across the 'Free Marc Emery' stencil on West Hastings Street. It is sprayed onto the sidewalk right in front Vancouver's Scientology Headquarters. The fist in the centre of the image alludes to an inherent violent potential, as do the broken bars. The accompanying marijuana leaf not only hints at Emery himself and the political as well as social agenda he represents – he is the leader of the BC Marijuana Party, a strong cannabis policy reform advocate and currently imprisoned in the United States – but it implies that the entire marijuana subculture is willing to resist and fight for Emery's release as well as figuring itself capable of being victorious in the end. Hence, it is a blatantly political message that is to be conveyed by the stencil. Yet, after having investigated further into the topic, I discovered that this particular stencil was not the creation of an inspired and angry individual, but the result of what might in fact be called a 'marketing campaign'.

Admittedly, Baudrillard had a specific kind of graffiti in mind when writing his essay in 1975, namely graphics made up entirely of names evocative of underground comics, pseudonyms negating any notion of individuality that would derive their subversive power exactly from this anonymity (1975:76). These 'empty signifiers' refused to conform to the urban semiotic overload and countered with semiotic void. They constituted “a new type of intervention in the city, no longer as a site of economic and political power, but as a space-time of the terrorist power of the media, signs and the dominant culture” (1975:76). Since in a world in which meaning is key the idea of meaninglessness seems unbearable, such empty signifiers are likely to cause distress and irritation. How does the 'Free Marc' stencil conform to the idea of graffiti as the tangible marker of emotional outburst as well as uncontrollable and juvenile, so to speak, expressiveness?

The 'Free Marc' graffiti is obviously no such 'empty signifier'. It does have a message. Yet, that alone does not necessarily denies it its subversive character. As Baudrillard notices: “There are also frescoes and murals in the ghettos (...) Moreover, they all focus on political themes, on a revolutionary message (...) In any case, it is a matter of a counter-culture” (1975:82–83). What is much more interesting and significant in the context of my analysis is the fact that the stencil was created by the same group of people that operates the 'Free Marc' website and that started the repatriation campaign. It is meant to provide Emery's supporters with an 'authentic' method of protesting. Rather than thinking for themselves, his fans and advocates are being told how to appropriately voice their opinions. Since graffiti as a medium is believed to express a person's individuality while at the same time questioning the very notion of the individual – “When you step into this subculture, you are expected to leave all traces of 'real-life' on its doorstep” (Macdonald 2005:312) – as well as to subvert any kind of structure, one might ask if the 'Free Marc Emery' stencil and the 'industry' that has evolved around it, can still be considered 'graffiti'. Can we call this campaign a form of 'protest'? 

Personally, I sense an inherent contradiction between the medium's very own character, the group's agenda and its way of going about getting its message across, insofar as the organization behind 'Free Marc' makes use of graffiti's subversive character in a way that is deliberate taking advantage of its scope and using a type of graffiti that is almost aesthetically pleasing. Consequently, it loses some of its rebellious potential, for the aestheticization of the urban landscape does not really seem to be part of graffiti's agenda if it intends to be subversive. Furthermore making us, as potential graffiti artists, aware of the fact that we might face a fine for spray painting the stencil – there is a list '75 Fun Things You Can Do To Help Free Marc' on the group's website that not only provides people with a variety of ideas like for example 'Writing and performing a song on Youtube', but that also assesses these different 'forms of protest' on 'risk', 'effectiveness' and 'cost' – the group operates within the realm of today's consumer culture and lets itself be guided by economic considerations. Interestingly enough, the 'Free Marc' stencil also by virtue of its very locality reaches out instead of trying to create some kind of sub- and counter-cultural, exclusive discourse. It does not remain within a 'graffiti-prone' area, but being close to such localities it hints at the acceptance of, or in other words the increasing 'obliviousness' to graffiti. Hence, the fact that it is right in front of the Scientology HQ – something that might actually be seen as particularly offensive – only underlines this widespread 'failure to recognize the graffiti as potentially dangerous'. At the same time this stresses the increasing appropriation and thus 'taming' of graffiti.

Surely, the stencil draws on a dynamic and robust visual language largely identified with graffiti (Macdonald 2005:317–318). Yes, by creating points of encounter the stencil and the group behind it, do confront the general public. And, indeed, the person who actually spray paints the stencil does remain invisible: Due to the fact that the stencil itself can be used by anyone who accesses the website it is impossible to ascribe the actual graffiti to a particular person. Nevertheless, it is not this 'reclaiming of public space by the individual' that led the initiators to launch this campaign. This particular stencil participates actively in the public discourse; it creates it in fact for Marc Emery by taking advantage of the public's general acceptance for stencils.

The graffiti in this case is no longer Baudrillard's 'empty signifier', but a tamed and socially acceptable version of it. Unlike 'traditional' graffiti such as tags or large murals, stencils are a practice that combines technology and art, ingenuity and structure, expressiveness and self-restriction. So if this lack of subversive power can be attributed to the stencil in general – as the tag's well-behaved sibling – or to the way it is being used here, we cannot tell. It is, however, striking that a subculture making use of another subculture's visual language – the graffiti scene – in front of a third 'fringe group', does not create any controversy whatsoever. On the contrary, it prompted me to write an essay about the lack of today's graffiti's undermining potential. Maybe that is due to the stencil's aesthetic quality or because we have become used to the signs – subversive or not – surrounding us. Language and signs are part of our physical environment (Pennycook 2009:304). 

Graffiti, then, is not only the marker of a certain activity and a medium to express oneself, but something that guides us in the way we perceive and navigate the urban space; something we have become accustomed to; a medium readily available to everyone who feels the need to make use of it.

References Cited

Baudrillard, Jean

1993 Symbolic Exchange and Death. Iain Hamilton Grant, trans. London: Sage.

'Free Marc Emery' Website, accessed February 5, 2011, http://freemarc.ca.

Macdonald, Nancy

2005 The Graffiti Subculture: Making a World of Difference. In The Subcultures Reader. 2nd edition. Ken Gelder, ed. Pp. 312–325. New York: Routledge.

Pennycook, Alastair

2009 Linguistic Landscape and the Transgressive Semiotics of Graffiti. In Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. Elana Shohamy and Durk Gorter, eds. Pp. 302–312. New York: Routledge.

Jai Ho: A Tamil Community Event in Florida, a San Francisco Living Room and the Meaning of the Ritual

At the 2009 annual meeting of the Tamil community in Tampa, Florida, Karan Khokar and Divya Ikara together with a group of background dancers were performing a dance, more precisely they were doing a dance they themselves refer to as the Jai Ho. How come we know about it? The entire choreography is up on Youtube.

Jewish-German cultural theorist Walter Benjamin was one of the first to realize: The aura is dead. Due to the development as well as refinement of technologies such as photography and film at the turn of the 19^th century, the original – formerly the epitome of what is today known as the wobbly concept of 'authenticity' – ceased to exist. A large number of reproductions means no original. No original equals loss of tradition. These were Benjamin's simple and easily comprehensible equations laid out in his 1936 essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (2005:2–3). While it is certainly true that since 1936 artworks or objects of cultural and social significance (and the term 'objects' is not limited to material culture but used as in 'possible objects of enquiry' and thus comprising for example songs or dances as well) have been widely reproduced, it is definitely worth investigating further into the consequences anticipated by Benjamin as well as rethinking some of his main arguments.

The aura is dead. Or is it? According to Benjamin, the aura is the specific quality radiating from the work of art, or almost anything for that matter, as long as it is distant (2005:3). Furthermore, the existence of an aura is closely connected to the idea of the ritual (2005:4). Only if the object in question is unique and embedded in some sort of ritual, can we speak of it as 'possessing an aura'. Admittedly, modern-day technologies rather aggressively promote artworks, dances, songs, films, etc. instead of withdrawing them from the public in order to prevent their 'aura' from fleeting away. Thus modern mass media assure the viewer immediate access and a close, intimate, often almost physical relationship to these 'objects'. From this Benjamin deduces that while its traditional cult value decreases, the work's exhibition value is heightened (2005:4). Among the consequences are the emergence of what Guy Debord so aptly described as the Society of Spectacle, and cultural demise.

In a small San Francisco living room a Caucasian couple – Rachel and Mick Hagen – is dancing to a song. Jai Ho. It is the same song the Tamil dance ensemble performed to but it is not the same dance. There is a TV screen to the couple's right-hand side. Twenty seconds into the clip, we begin to notice that their movements resemble the ones done by the actors onscreen. Why are the Hagens as well as the Tamil musical ensemble doing the dance and how do the two YouTube videos relate to Benjamin's thoughts on aura and tradition?

Both groups, the Western couple and the Tamil dance ensemble, reference a song-and-dance sequence featured at the end of the Hollywood movie Slumdog Millionaire. The 2008 film draws on the Bollywood tradition of singing and dancing as an integral part of cinematic practice. Yet, it is also grounded in a very different tradition, namely Western Blockbuster cinema, and thus indeed a hybrid on a variety of levels. In Bollywood cinema it is rather common that song-and-dance sequences become popular after having been featured in films (Novak 2010:48). Taken out of their original contexts, reworked and made to fit new situations, these segments are referenced over and over again. While this practice used to be far less common in Western popular culture, it seems that the 'Bollywood way' has finally reached the other side of the world, thus providing us with an intriguing case study to start rethinking Western notions of originality and authorship. What exactly then do these clips tell us about the global flow of culture and the destiny of aura in this context? I am arguing that these videos develop a life and thus history of their own, for aura in this context is created anew.

Ironically, this aura is created by virtue of reproduction. That this is actually not as great a contradiction as one might think is shown by the fact that the original – and thus aura in the first place – only comes into being the very moment the replica is made, for without the reproduction there is no original. The original never exists on its own. Moreover, going back to the Jai Ho YouTube videos, we see that an entirely new ritual evolves. The ritual in this case is surely no longer performed by the 'originating community' or a specific religious group, i.e. by an exclusive circle of people, but by people all over the world, the consumers of popular culture imagery. Facilitated only by reproduction, it is the ritual of the constant reenactment of consumerism and self-stylization. So even if we follow Benjamin in saying that the authority of the original is degraded by the reproduction and that this implies a detachment from tradition, I do not see why we could not also say that at the same time a new history begins – starting precisely with the reproduction. One might argue then that it is YouTube as a medium or a media platform that not only initiates this ritual of 'putting oneself out there', but that maintains itself by the very ritual it created. Consequently, we might say that wherever there is a reproduction there must be an 'aura' of sorts. It is precisely due to the very character of modern-day technologies that aura is produced. In this context it is not about the original any longer, but about the new ritual and its contribution to and assistance in the process of meaning-giving. Due to the fact that repeatability and reproducibility are intrinsic to mediums such as film in general, photography and YouTube videos, their proliferation cannot rip the original off its aura: There hardly is an aura to begin with.

For those not persuaded by this and still convinced that the Slumdog Millionaire version constitutes the original, one question remains: What about the actual 'content' of the video, its 'meaning'? Should not the author's 'intention' and the film's specific qualities not account for it being the original? Looking at the Tamil adaptation of Jai Ho, one might argue that the initial content is to a certain extent carried over and therefore important: The 'Indian' struggle for a decent living and life per se vividly depicted in the movie might be something the Tamil community in Tampa is still aware of. The fact that it is a Hollywood movie tackling these issues might then either arouse feelings of pride or disapproval in which case the 'tamilization' can be seen as an act of reappropriation. It is precisely this act of giving meaning and relevance to oneself which leads us back to the idea that it is not original which generates the ritual or that is important. It is the repetition that is significant, the formalist structure itself is what needs to be preserved for some reason or another; an idea that is also suggested and backed up by the performance of the San Francisco couple. While they may be copying the exact Jai Ho dance sequence, I would argue that it is just about the act of creating a video, for the sake of being youtubed. What if it is the specific characteristics of the medium that make it intriguing and attractive? The new ritual prompts the creation of a new aura, an aura that helps the medium maintain itself.

Following this one might say that YouTube videos are significant insofar as they provide support or guidance. They help establish some kind of temporary tradition one might inscribe oneself into. 75 years after Benjamin's essay people have become more and more mobile; our lives have become increasingly intertwined with the media – maybe in an attempt to find some sort of stability in the constant flux of information we call the 21^st century. However, we see deterritorialization, to introduce a term most prominently used by Arjun Appadurai (1996:49), not only with regards to people, also in terms of customs and knowledge. Accordingly, Benjamin's exhibition value has certainly become one of the leading paradigms of our times. We watch movies, TV series and news broadcasts over and over again; we get back to old photographs, edit and enhance them; constantly analyze ourselves and scrutinize the actions of those around us. What Benjamin saw as a process of self-alienation has therefore also brought us more together. It is an inclusive ritual that has come to govern our lives.

These developments also lead, as Appadurai argues, to an increase in imagination (1996:53). In times of rapid change people are confronted with a wider variety of role models they might choose from. Through the constant re-representation of a rich, ever-changing store of possible lives our imagination is stirred (1996:54). This 'ability to imagine' is a new and crucial social practice that has become necessary if one was to navigate successfully through the flood of images characterizing our times. Therefore we cannot tell what exactly these people are imagining when doing the Jai Ho dance. Why would Rachel and Mick Hagen picture themselves as the protagonists of Slumdog Millionaire? Maybe they are rather imagining the audience at the other side of the screen, i.e. us and how we might be reenacting their performance? Why does the Tamil community of Tampa, Florida take on and modify Jai Ho? Is it an expression of the close relationship still maintained to their mother country India? Is it an act of resistance by means of reappropriation? In any case, both videos reveal how the media exert influence by suggesting possibilities and connecting as disparate parts of the world as San Francisco and Mumbai.

Useful in this context is Appadurai's term 'ethnoscape' since it alludes to the fact that what is perceived as representation, projection and imagination always hinges on the perspective from which one looks at these things (1996:33). Hence, it does not really matter what exactly our YouTube celebrities are imagining or trying to get across, for there is a large number of possible perspectives, all equally valid. What does matter, however, is the very fact that they are doing it, that they are seeking publicity, thereby perpetuating the ritual. This leads us back to Benjamin. We have come full circle – but of course we have not come to an end, for the ritual never ends.

References Cited

Appadurai, Arjun

1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Benjamin, Walter

2005 [1998] The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Andy Blunden, trans. UCLA School of Theatre, Film and Television, http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm .

Karan Khokar and Divya Ikara – Jai Ho Dance, Tamil Sneham, Tampa, Florida. Youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqWkFMoLocM .

Novak, David

2010 Cosmopolitanism, Remediation, and the Ghost World of Bollywood. Cultural Anthropology 25(1):40 –72.

Slumdog Millionaire Dance – Jai Ho. Youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7AuQKFlhXI .