User:Adrianfaziooo/sandbox

Subvertising
Subvertising (a portmanteau of subvert and advertising) is a cultural guerilla movement - a kind of culture jamming through which artists and photographers create spoof or parody advertisements, many of which are corporate and political. The goal of a subvert is to evoke strong responses from the public - whether it be to shock or to be funny. Subvertising can be viewed as an interactive and inclusive practice, as anyone with an idea can essentially create one and challenge the ideologies perpetuated by societal norms, politics and capitalism. As reported by Eeva Kemppainen and Anna Ylä-Anttila, authors of a guide to “Teaching media literacy and geographies of consumption”, "[subvertisements] are critical of the ways that advertising both entices us to buy things we may not need and hides their commodities’ problematic backstories.

The act of subvertising is a visible retaliation of the current framework, which advertisements are presented, thus acting as an antithesis to advertising in many respects. The Independent, a British online newspaper, details the role of subvertisements, “The name of the game is anti-consumerism. Its mission is to persuade us of the ultimate futility, waste and inequality wrought by over-consumption in Western countries at the expense of the developing world.” Subvertising sees advertising, especially television advertising as “both the conduit and the culprit, constantly creating new ‘wants’ rather than serving real ‘needs’.

In conjunction with being a cultural movement, subvertising is also an art form. Noted as radical street art, one of its functions is to take back public spaces - aiming to give it back to those who are not in the advertising business. It favours the expression of freedom and culture in the public realm over logos and billboards. As a whole, subvertising is fighting against and trying to strip away the control, which traditional forms of advertising have maintained for decades.

Origins/History
As a relatively new movement, subvertising has found its origins evolving from other, similar forms of culture-jamming or hi-jacking. The term 'subvertising' can be traced back to Kalle Lasn, co-founder of the Adbusters Media Foundation. Adbusters was the first to put this idea and movement into practice in the world, as a call to action, trying to hold brands and advertisers accountable for their mistrustful behvaiours. Advertising's role in a capitalistic world is incomparable, as it is able to fuel the whole system by creating false senses of need for products in consumers; as Banu Önal states, "One of the most important factors in the development of consumer culture was the interdependent growth of capitalism and advertising. Capitalism, while providing endless products, triggered the building process of the consumer culture". To tear down, or try to strip away some of the overwhelming control, which the advertising industry seemingly has, acts like subvertising were introduced as combatants. The practice of détournement, was the "central theoretical inspiration upon which the project was built, as Lasn [stated]...Rather than using that term, however, Adbusters renarrated it as 'subvertising,' or the 'subversive' restructuring and reinflection of corporate capitalist advertisements and related images". One of the main objectives of subvertising is to make the viewer think critically about what is being restructured. Subvertisements' close resemblance to the actual advertisement in which is being subverted, can make it easier to digest and understand what is trying to be decoded, or reimagined. The disruptiveness subvertisements are able to unfurl within societies is no mistake. The occupy movements across the world can be traced back to Adbusters' introduction of subvertising. The idea of the occupy movements came from an email of Lasn's, and snowballed far out of their control, as Jason Adams states, "Adbusters' loss of control over the aesthetic practices they popularized over the course of several decades cannot be separated from Lasn's inability to conclude the street-based actions he helped mobilize". Subvertising's ability to be a core aspect of global movements, such as Occupy, demonstrates its power and potential simultaneously. Being able to "turn the capitalist system against itself" is, and always will be a key principle, which subvertiser's all over must maintain.

Subvertising as a Form of Resistance
As the act of subvertising is considerably accessible to everyone, the goal of subvertising must be relatable to all as well - and it seems to be. Kalle Lasn (author and editor of Adbusters magazine) describes the process of subvertising as “uncooling brands”, through the act of “unselling the consumer society; turning the incredible power of marketing against itself. Subverts take place within this as a form of ‘social hacking’ or ‘meme hacking’. Memes can have the potential to reach millions of people, which is exemplary of the accessibility of subverts. According to Bell and Goodwin, “[memes] provide a space where visual representations of conflicting agendas, ideologies and brands evolve and compete at an accelerated pace. As advertising strategies and communication medias develop, memes reproduce with increasing sophistication. A good meme hack will successfully subvert this memetic code and will go viral with the aid of a photograph, and email or word of mouth”. Accessibility, in turn, can result in power, which one can wield through the widespread utilisation and the spread of subvertisements in relation to the ‘meme hack’. Renee Delcambre of Utah State University notes, “[subvertisements] can be an effective mode for confronting those in power and resisting unhealthy social norms... the rhetorical force in exposing something normally hidden can be enlightening and useful in making changes within society.” Subvertisements are being used to combat negative aspects of society, corporations and politics - tackling these topics in an eye-catching and hard-hitting way. Being able to manipulate advertisements, to work against their initial message, is providing all who view it a sense of how advertising works and how one can resist it.

The observation and deconstruction of subvertisements is not only useful, but important, according to Daria Kempka of Marquette University, “the visual devices [subvertisements] use to respond to advertisements reveal many of the tactics used by the advertising industry and the ideologies that brands promote with the goal of selling products and services. Analyzing them helps us understand more about how advertising images communicate, giving us the skills and tools needed to think critically about the ideologies they advance and to articulate an opposing position.” Subvertising is placing a sense of control back into the consumer’s hand. The practice of subverting advertisements is providing a lesson, or informing those who may not know, the intricacies and harsh realities that many traditional advertisements bear. A conference paper by Alparslan Nas, of Marmara University, notes the link that subvertising has to culture jamming stating, “Subvertising have been an important tool for culture jammers to incite a critical distance in consumers towards products and the messages that come along with them. In this regard, culture jamming has been analyzed as a consciousness-raising activity, which paved the way for consumers to observe the realities behind the brands that are systematically being concealed.” Using subvertisements as a method to expose the supposed hidden truths of the advertising world is placing more power in the consumer's hand rather than taking it away.

Creative Resistance
Creative resistance "begins when we start to imagine what our world – our communities, our friendships, our networks – could be like when we start living by our own rules outside of the logic of progress and profit", as Brandalism details. City streets and social media sites alike are littered with advertisements. There is an overwhelming amount of advertising that is polluting consumers' brains on a daily basis, which is becoming a more imminent problem. David Darts of the University of Arizona calls visual culture-jams (like subvertisements) a site of creative resistance. The influx of visual media, visible in public spaces, to sift through is "linked to ongoing social, political, psychological and cultural struggles". Resisting seemingly problematic industries, like the advertising industry, through creative methods like visual art is helpful. It provides an easy to comprehend relief for the struggles that Darts highlights. The human experience is extremely visual, Darts explains, "visual culture is not just part of our everyday lives, it is our everyday lives... the everyday aesthetic experience [is] an often overlooked but important location where many of our attitudes, knowledge and beliefs are shaped... where ideological struggles occur, often without our conscious knowing". Sites of resistance are evidently important when looked at in this lens, posing the notion that advertising is dictating what consumers believe or know, without their knowledge. One of the only ways to counteract these types of tactful behaviours by the advertising industry is with art. London based, Italian artist HOGRE, author of 'Subvertising, The Piracy of Outdoor Advertising' states that "Subvertising works better if you can’t tell straight away if it is subvertising or not. It has to be illegal, of course, but it also has to be sneaky". . Admittedly illegal, the subvertising practice is an artistic endeavour with ambitious goals, making it a powerful way to resist capitalism or consumerism, HOGRE outlines.

Brandalism
The act of subvertising umbrellas other forms of rebellious organizations rejecting the current state of advertising. Brandalism is an organization doing just that - mobilizing artists to enter the traditional public ad space of a main street billboard or subway station to vandalize it with their own art. This act is eye-catching and typically uses abrasive imagery, which is challenging of modern advertising and is purposefully difficult to ignore - using subverted imagery to comment on topics ranging from consumerism, to politics and issues in between. On their website, the organization details why they target advertising, "Alongside corporate lobbying, it is one arm of multinational corporate power fuelling the distractive and destructive forces of consumerism... We exist to agitate, educate, and facilitate those who want to reclaim public space from corporate control." The organization is inclusive to all who feel the desire to participate, especially artists. As an extension of subvertising, Brandalism aims to keep big brands and corporations in-check by using their signature tactic - being loud and in-your-face. Public participation is key in allowing this organization's success and notoriety, and they are definitely not alone.

In France
During the COP 21 in Paris, the organization took over "600 outdoor ad spaces in the city, replacing them with climate change-related art… and what, at first glance, look like ordinary ads for brands like Total, Air France, Dow Chemicals, GDF Suez and Volkswagen". Many world leaders were gathered together for the very hyped conference, and all around the city where the negotiations were taking place, faux advertisements were plastered slandering said green brands and politicians. All of the brands being mocked that had their logos and slogans used, were used without their permission. The politicians and brands targeted in the project were being called out by the artists on their hypocrisy for supporting the climate talks, yet at the same time, contributing to the problem of climate change. These fake ads act in an expository manner to highlight counterintuitive and hypocritical nature of corporations and politicians, which is what Brandalism is best at - involving the public as much as possible in the discourse regarding revealing the truths of politicians and the advertising industry.

In the United Kingdom
Over a five day span in August of 2011, the Brandalism organization was able to garner thousands of Britons' support in stealing or destroying consumer goods across the United Kingdom, costing around £100 million in damages. Continuing to empower others with realistic impacts is key to its success. Costing the government millions of pounds in damages allows for Brandalism's momentum to keep a good pace. The organization claims that "the strict enforcement of branding regulations for the London 2012 Olympics for commercial interests has been a strong part of provoking their reaction". Public suppression caused by advertisers and government restrictions alike, is a motivating factor for members of the public to get involved, as well as having the organization remain intact.

In Canada
In September of 2015, the #YouDontNeedThis campaign started in Toronto, which defaced advertisements on the city's subway that were promoting that women should receive cosmetic surgeries, like breast augmentation, with the slogan "#YouDontNeedThis". In an interview with the Toronto Star, Torontonian Jennifer Dawson stated that after being forced to stare at these ads angrily for quite some time, she "was elated to see that someone had scrawled 'you don’t need this' over one of them. Inspired, she added to the protest by reaching into her briefcase for a dry-erase marker", ultimately defacing one herself. After Dawson had posted a picture of the vandalized subway advert to her Twitter and Instagram, the action began to trend, with more and more people participating in the activistic vandalism. #YouDontNeedThis started to get scribbled in permanent marker all over advertisements similar to the one Dawson marked up - invigorating many others to help out in the mutually believed in cause.

This subvertisement stirred up many different opinions regarding whether it was successful or not. In an article posted to the University of Toronto's newspaper The Varsity, critiqued the un-vandalized subway ads calling for women to go under cosmetic procedures for their objectification of women's bodies and backwards thinking. Calling subvertising a "legitimate form of advertising", author Malone Mullin, with a friend by his side, states, "we paid our fare and hopped between trains and stations, ignoring the shocked stares of passengers as we alternated between tearing the posters from their designated frames and scribbling our dissent on those we left intact". Despite the praise of the campaign, Manisha Krishnan of Vice states that when she sees "campaigns like the #youdontneedthis hashtag telling women they 'don't need' cosmetic surgery, [she] can't help but think they're misguided". Krishnan makes it clear that she believes that Dawson is a beautiful and confident woman, however she cannot necessarily dictate what women 'need' "when it comes to how they feel about their bodies", in that this hashtag is kind of dictating that women should view any procedure that augments their bodies as negative or forceful.

In New Zealand
Greenpeace launched a subvertising campaign in New Zealand, in August of 2011 against Sealord, which is a canned tuna producer, for their process of catching tuna. In an article by Nick Young, for Greenpeace, he states that Sealord Tuna is unsustainably caught "using massive purse seines and fish aggregation devices. It's a method that indiscriminately kills all manner of other sealife". In light of the tuna producer creating a new logo for the brand, Greenpeace tainted the city of Auckland, with posters displaying Sealord's new logo, in between "Nice Logo" and "Bad Tuna". Greenpeace inflated a large "can" of tuna with a shark fin protruding out of the top in Auckland to represent "just one of the endangered ocean species at risk from destructive tuna fishing methods" and flew a banner across the city reading the same message that was on the posters.

In the United Kingdom
In September of 2016, the Citizens Advertising Takeover Service (stylized as C.A.T.S.), was able to replace every single advertisement in the Clapham Common tube station in London with images of cats for two weeks, raising over ₤23,000 on their Kickstarter to do so. In a Medium post by James Turner, the founder of Glimpse (the collective responsible for C.A.T.S.), he states the purpose of this takeover detailing the group's dissatisfaction of advertising, "we asked ourselves to 'imagine a world where friends and experiences were more valuable than stuff you can buy...We wanted this to become famous, so we needed something the internet would love. Frame it that way and the answer’s obvious. Cats." The main differentiating factors between this and many other subvertising campaigns, is that that it was an organized and paid-for project, and it lasted for two weeks, undisrupted. Replacing all traditional advertisements, in one of the most advertisement-dense settings imaginable, with images of (adoptable) cats can be seen to help prove subvertising's power to disrupt. In an interview with CNN, James Turner states, "Instead of asking you to buy something, we're asking you to think about what's really valuable in your life. It might not be cats, but it's probably something you can't find in the shops". Although this act is considered to be an advertising takeover, its ability to relax the public by removing images of mass consumption and consumerism contribute's to message subvertising aims to send out, which is turning consumerism and capitalism against itself.