1. I think artists who utilize Nazi symbolism go too far in exercising their right to freedom of speech. David Bowie spent a period of time in the 1970's dressing similarly to a Nazi and embracing white nationalism, his "Thin White Duke" period.
While he has the right to make such statements, I think there's something troubling about defending "freedom of speech" when that speech is advocating a loss of freedom and outright oppression of others. Bowie later disavowed his previous statements and blamed them on cocaine but I, for one, don't think that's a valid excuse for being a white nationalist.
2. I think people should be shunned and lose their careers for embracing and perpetuating such ideals. I am completely opposed to Nazi sympathy. I find it extremely alarming that once Bowie died, it was seen as wrong to acknowledge that he was a supporter of fascism (and a sexual predator.) It really goes to show people with fame have far too much tolerance from society for being genuinely bad people at times.
3. I find myself conflicted on the overall message of the film. As a person who plays instruments and writes music, I do think someone should give me credit if they repurpose my content. However, I have no problem if they do so and declare it as such. When Girl Talk was trying to equate taking a chord progression from a popular song, rearranging it and playing it with a different guitar tone, with making mashups, I have to draw the line. That's how most songs are written, but those artists are actually making that music, rather than repurposing it. With that being said, Lars Ulrich should shut up because he's made plenty from his music and downloading music for free is not the same as taking someone else's work and profiting from it as your own, as he claims it is. Girl Talk is essentially doing that at times, but if it's unrecognizable, then who really gives a shit. If Girl Talk takes a Queen riff and makes millions from it, then yes, Brian May and Co. should get a cut, but having to pay millions to produce a mashup album is insane when most mashup artists make next to no money. I do believe the current copyright laws limit creativity, however. Also, I love the idea of culture jamming and I was glad the phrase made an appearance, specifically about reconstituting ads and commercial property that is involuntarily injected into culture.
Topic 2: Media Ethics
1. The media often seems to get "black bloc" wrong, they label it as a branch of anarchist philosophy and it's really a protest tactic widely used by different branches of radical thought. I'm not sure if it's ignorance or just an attempt to disavow anarchism because a simple "google" would explain that it is a tactic. Also the media makes the mistake of sensationalizing the property destruction rather than acknowledging the reasons people feel so upset that they are breaking things. Dr. King said "A riot is the language of the unheard," and continuing not to hear those people only perpetuates their anger.
2. The media reports for November 10th in Portland were clearly biased against property destruction, which isn't necessarily wrong or unexpected. However, even when radical activists refrain from damaging property or becoming violent, the media is biased against their ideas. Most articles also associated property destruction with anarchism or insinuated that the two go hand-in-hand with no recognition of the broader meaning of anarchism, and invalidated the anger of those who committed property destruction in the process. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/11/anti-trump_protests_held_for_f.html
3. I think certain independent media do a good job of distinguishing between protest tactics, philosophies, etc. Democracy Now has offered pretty informative coverage of a lot of riots, as in they actually pay attention to why the groups were rioting.
No comments:
Post a Comment