Talk:Culture jamming/Archive 1

Borat? Really?
Borat is a parody in the vein of Amos and Andy, culture references are no more 'culture jamming' than is a Carrot Top one-liner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.60.197 (talk • contribs)
 * I'd be the first to agree that he isn't funny, but the character fits the "transforming mass media to produce commentary about itself" description of culture jamming - part of Baron-Cohen's act is the real-life media reactions to the character, not just the parody itself. --McGeddon 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of "The Prisoner?"
In the episode of the prisoner that featured Jammers, they were not targeting popular culture but instead the surveillance apparatus of the government. I tend to think that this distinction is significant because targeting abusive intelligence gathering is harder, more dangerous and arguably more valuable to the society.

From Mark Dery, author of CULTURE JAMMING (1993): More to the point, I've interviewed Negativland, who coined the term. They took the term from CB radio culture. It has absolutely nothing to do with THE PRISONER.

Integrating Articles
Seems like we should be able to integrate these two articles, Culture jam and Culture jamming. My experience with Culture Jamming is based mostly on European forms of Communications Guerrilla, which was the basis for the article on Culture jam.

From Mark Dery: The Communications Guerrillas, who approached me in 1996 at a conference in Amsterdam, postdate my popularization of the term by several years. The imputation that jamming sprang from their brow is a gross distortion of historical fact.

Google bombs listed not culture jams
The definition given is that a culture jam is targeted at the media, using the media being targeted. Most of the examples given don't meet this definition, so either the examples aren't all good ones, or the definition needs to be broadened.

A google bomb that does meet the existing definition is this one: http://www.google.com/search?q=out-of-touch+management which target's Google's executive management. IT was perpetrated by the authors of google-watch, and is decribed here: (Taken out due to it being blacklisted by Wikipedia.)

Bias
Part of the perceived bias, is that 'culture jamming' is a relatively new term and inherently carries some ambiguities. I suggest it staying as an umbrella-type term until it becomes more established (more scholarly literature addresses it). -Ivan Cash April, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shwizle (talk • contribs) 04:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is too POV. More of the article is dedicated to an obscure book's unabashed criticisms of the concept then the actual act itself.

Ageed. I found the review insightful, and would like to see it stay. It does seem there should be something added about Culture Jamming's effectivenss, or biased in favor of it. Any jammers out there have any effective stories of change brought about by CJ? It seems to be a goal-oriented thing.


 * The book's claim seems suspect. Mass production and individuality aren't very compatible. Advertising plays to people's desires to individualism, but doesn't often deliver.--RLent 16:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

From Mark Dery: Agree that this page is biased and, worse by far, historically inaccurate. I've amended it to re-situate the Communications Guerrillas in the proper historical perspective. They're hardly the major historical landmark the article implied they were. As well, subordinating my contributions to ADBUSTERS' simply shreds historical fact. I introduced editor Kalle Lasn to the term and wrote several early ADBUSTERS articles on it. His frequent attempts, in the media, to imply that jamming sprang from his own brow notwithstanding, he would never have known of it had I not introduced him to it. The historical record speaks for itself.

Debates about who said what when in ADBUSTERS are of limited interest to anyone not directly involved. Thats just one small corner of the activities that fall under the aegis of culture jamming - and in fact many feel that by the time any given activity reaches the pages of a magazine - *any* printed magazine - thats a clear indication that its already become part of mainstream culture and is thus, by definition, not culture jamming. Set the record straight if you must, but don't spend too much culture jamming article space on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Would self-parodies (and other parodies that use the same medium) fall under culture jamming?
The first sentence state that culture jamming, or sniggling, is the act of using existing mass media to comment on those very media themselves, using the original medium's communication method. So would self-parodies count? And would the various photoshopped pictures found at Something Awful all count as culture jamming? --Bash 05:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

also see, external links, culture jammers
some of the names in "culture jammers" are external links, and happytown inc and Margin Released are culture jammers or culture jamming movements. how can i distinguish between the two. the "See Also" list is also messy, adbusters appears twice, but both places seem right. --Pointyfingers 03:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Evangelism is NOT culture jamming!
the appropriation of corporate imagery for the purpose of christian evangelism is not culture jamming, because the dominant mode of western culture is christianity. it may not be explicit in either media or corporate culture, but it is the basis of their cultures. if culture jamming is countercultural, then evangelism is not culture jamming. appropriation of popular imagery is not the ONLY criterion for culture jamming.


 * Well, I would disagree, as I don't see that all evangelicals believe that they are part of 'the dominant mode of western culture', especially those who would risk a cease-and-desist letter from a major corporation. Religious groups are typically conservative; they will not break laws generally.  And they would not want to steal, even the likeness of an inanimate corporate logo.  Yours with wikilove, Two Halves, hey not logged in...

Not having seen the particular act being debated over, I'm not really qualified to have an opinion about it.

I'll throw in some conjecture anyway. IMHO, appropriating corporate imagery for a different purpose does sound a lot like like culture jamming, but very probably if its being done by a church, they're simply substituting one message for another, whereas culture jamming doesn't do that. culture jamming is just what it says in its name: jamming. white noise. Its NOT about delivering dogma, not about replacing somebody else's dogma with our own. Its simply scrambling the dominant messages -whatever they may be- cancelling them out, erasing them - to create space for us all to think our own thoughts. Jvol (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Up with People
I removed Up with People from the list of culture jamming people/organizations. Up with People seems to me to be the opposite of a culture jamming institution. --AStanhope 16:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
I removed this section as it was unsourced and spoke (without citing) of only one source. I'm sure a more well-rounded section could be constructed. - brenneman  {L} 08:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Whitehouse.org?
Would Whitehouse.org be a culture jamming site? It holds a similar function and layout to some of The Yes Men's sites. Galactor213 03:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

CONTEMPL8 T-SHIRTS is a culture jammer too
CONTEMPL8 T-SHIRTS is a culture jammer too, so why was it removed from links? Just read the essays about why t-shirts are made on the website and you'll see that the entire reason these t-shirts exist is to culture jam/counter the propaganda that exists in the mainstream. That link should be put back up.

Unamerican Activities (they do stickers, mainly) also has a culture-jamming philosophical bent - as do many others - but since there is also an element of profit involved with at least some products, that makes it a commercial/partially commercial site, so i have not added it. The purpose of wikipedia articles and links is not to help sell products. Better to err on the safe side and not link to sites that sell stuff, i think. (FWIW) Jvol (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Droplift Project
Anyone interested in adding info on The Droplift Project? I think it definitely qualifies Bmathew 06:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please rewrite this
This article reads like a book I read in college called "The Art of Semiotics". There are at least six examples of jargon in the lead sentence itself. Not that I'm advocating for the dumbing down of America, but do we really need "vectors of corporate image" here? I believe there's a recommended reading level for encyclopedia articles, and it's far below that of a college junior. I think Wikipedia may even have a requirement for articles to be written for the general public....

So please, somebody rewrite this so it can be understood by those outside the world of popular culture studies. Before my head explodes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.82.1.17 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

From Mark Dery: Agree that the use of academic jargon and dumbed-down critical theory, in the intro, does no one a service. Desperately needs a rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.93.96 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

have attempted rewrite. tried not to take out too much, just added broader perspective. Jvol (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Add The Chaser's War Against Everything
Their APEC infiltration stunt surely warrents entry into the hallowed hall of fame. more

01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That was hilarious--AveryG (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Would Not In Our Name's "got democracy?" Campaign Count?
Not In Our Name (or someone doing it for them) posted spoofs of Apple's iPod ads, using the famous prisoner on a box from Abu Ghraib image.

Here is a link to check them out. --AveryG (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Does "André the Giant Has a Posse" street art campaign Count?
While I have nothing against the 'André the Giant Has a Posse' thing, I wonder if its culture jamming. What cultural phenom is it jamming? is it making fun of street art campaigns? jamming skater culture? please post your opinions.. Jvol (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 'Andre the Giant Has a Posse' campaign does count as culture jamming. Less for its practicality and much more for its philosophy and the meaning behind it. Check out the Obey campaign's manifesto: http://obeygiant.com/main_new.php?page=articles&article=0 Shwizle (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

mixthemessage.com
I believe this link should be inserted, if it is not a pure example of culture jamming then I dont know what is: http://www.mixthemessage.com/epages/Store3_Shop2472.sf

It takes a swipe at: corporations, media & government. Altering the message from the usual you would expect to see to something similar but 'jammed'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'mvominit (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a site that only exists to sell stickers, it fails WP:LINKSTOAVOID. ("Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services".) And I'd hardly call a for-profit commercial sticker site a "pure example of culture jamming". --McGeddon (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Vorsprung durch Graffit - geograph.org.uk - 1670605.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Now replaced by File:Vorsprung durch Graffit cropped.jpg. Source for original (uncropped) version linked to in the, should it ever be appropriate in the future to use under WP:NFCC to illustrate a point detailed in the text (referred to in reliable sources). -- Trevj (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * NFUR copied from User:Trevj/Vorsprung durch Graffit, in case it's ever useful.


 * -- Trevj (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)