I find myself disagreeing with Scott Vreeland on this issue - an uncommon occurrence. When I saw my first "obey," on the bike bridge over 35W up in Marcy Holmes, it made me think. As Conor was right to point out, this cannot be said for much of the visual clutter in our urban environment. In fact, the purpose of much of that clutter (advertising, most notably) is to convince you to stop thinking... and start consuming.
One of my favorite artists of all time is a woman by the name of Jenny Holzer. One of her most well-known works is a series of "truisms" such as "private property created crime," "a lot of professionals are crackpots," and "expiring for love is beautiful but stupid." (For a lot of mind-stimulatin' fun, go to: http:\\mfx.dasburo.com/art/truisms.html) She put these up in public space, allowing (and forcing) people to see art outside of a gallery. The media she used included theater marquees and Las Vegas light displays, but she was not above slapping small stickers on (gasp!) pieces of public property - without permission, I assume. I realize my reaction may not be universally shared, but I would be absolutely thrilled to see a sticker claiming "fake or real indifference is a powerful personal weapon" on a lamppost somewhere. I put up with a lot of crap I'd prefer not to see every day - billboards for products I will never buy featuring improper grammar and blatantly manipulative images, badly designed corporate logos, tasteless ugly storefronts. As far as I'm concerned, these are examples of people using public space in ways I would prefer they not, without my consent. (If you don't believe these are "public space," I have some questions for you: why could I not mow my front lawn [or my landlord's, to be precise] in the nude? Why could I not start a store called "a bunch of really f_cking cheap sh_t!" with the vowels still in place?) I grudgingly accept these visual intrusions because I have consented to live in this society, and that's just one of the membership fees. My question: why does McDonald's have a right to their slice of public space, while "obey" does not? (I do concede that spray painting someone's private property [which, remember, created crime - including graffiti] without their permission is not proper. However, every iteration of "obey" I've seen has been on a piece of public infrastructure - sidewalks, bike bridges, etc.) The easy answer, as far as I can tell, is that McDonald's paid someone for the privilege of assaulting my eyes and the "obey" kids did not. This points to another question: do we really want access to public space limited to those who can pay for it, or find someone to pay for it for them (such as a store owner who consents to a "graffiti" mural)? I believe that the orthodox answer - yes - leads us to a pretty dangerous place, where the control of the memes that enter our brains like viruses all lend unquestioning support to the dominant paradigm. "Obey," in my opinion, is a needed counter-meme (it's creators understand the necessity of repetition to formation of a successful meme, after all). A moment's pause before the next advertisement. A moment to wonder: obey whom? Should I really? Am I currently obeying someone or something without realizing it? Some of us out there agree with Anna. Kudos to Skyway for allowing her to express her appreciation. Robin Garwood Seward TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
