THE MAGNIFIED LIFE // 2011
“DISCONNECTED”
a video self portrait
ORANGE AND BLUE // 2011
I CANNOT FINISH // 2011
SWEAT OUT THE STRESS // 2011
The critique for the performance pieces went really well. I received a lot of helpful feedback, whether it be about the technical issues or the overall piece. The class talked a lot about the conversation being very relatable, even interchangeable. This opened my eyes and helped me look at the piece differently.
I also created a silent version of the piece, which I will upload soon.
The rest of the class had some great pieces and provided some great discussion. Once again, Nicole’s piece had us discussing gender roles and the idea of “artist as narcissist,” a discussion I would like to continue. Tiffany’s piece, although dangerous, was also a conversation starter and a very interesting social intervention. In fact, everyone’s piece brought a different discussion to the table, whether it be about the documentation or the aftermath. Rachel’s piece with the dreamcatcher and Richard’s piece come to mind with this idea. Overall, I enjoyed everyone’s pieces and, similar to the video self portraits, each piece brought thought-provoking conversation to the table.
The first thing I noticed about the Yes Men speaking at Vanderbilt on March 16th is that only one-half of the duo was present. The lecture was held at 103 Wilson Hall, a nice lecture room with dim lighting and theater seating. The crowd trickled in, most of them college-aged and above. A few minutes after seven, a woman walked to the front of the room and began introducing Mike Bonanno, the yes man who did show up. She started off with an anecdote of how she met Mike, telling the audience about Mike sitting in a cardboard box, speaking to her through a hole the size of a mail slot (it was a performance piece) and leading her to a party. She delivered the anecdote easily and affectively, and she also integrated hand and body movements. Once she started introducing Bonanno, she heavily relied on a sheet of paper with his biographical information on it. Even though it showed she was unprepared, it’s typical for events like this so I did not hold it against her.
Once Mike was introduced, he stepped to the front of the room amidst applause. He waited as someone from Vanderbilt tried plugging in the microphone correctly. At this point, Mike told the guy to not worry about it, he would just speak louder. He projected his voice, making sure those all over the room could hear him. His speech began describing what the Yes Men do- this mix of political activism and satire. He discusses how hard it is to define what they do, proposing the word “veracitire.” He also compares their work to Jonathon Swift, and spends much time describing his pamphlet A Modest Proposal and how it relates to their work.
Mike soon moved over to his laptop, hooked it up to a projector, and began showing scenes from both of the Yes Men movies. One clip involves them posing as the World Trade Organization at a conference and introducing a golden bodysuit. The suit allows managers to oversee workers on a screen that protrudes from the pelvic area of the suit. It’s very silly, but no one at the conference reacted. Mike Bonnano discussed their dissatisfaction at no one reacting, so they decided to change their approach. The next clip he played displayed this new approach. The clip involved the other yes man, Andy Bichlbaum, pretending to be a Dow spokesman on the BBC offering reparations for a chemical disaster that occurred years ago. The clip was very interesting and showed how powerful the Yes Men are (The BBC clip aired on BBC World News, the most popular news source in the world, Bonnano claims). After these clips, Mike speaks a little more about other stunts, how they do it, etc.
Mike was a decent speaker. I barely noticed any verbal ticks, and he was good at getting the audience interested. The only problem is that Bonnano was very passionate about the issues he spoke about. Which led him to ramble on quite a bit, loosing some of the audience’s attention.
Near the end of the event, Bonnano started taking questions. The first few were safe, asking him to further explain certain stunts. Then, the discussion turned. The rest of the questions were people debating the Yes Men’s practices. One person asked how effective their practices were even though they were essentially “committing fraud.” Bonnano defended himself well against some of these questions. A few were discussing political and environmental options. These were a bit harder for him to answer. Even though he was confident in his statements, he had no scientific facts or statistics. He answered passionately, but it wasn’t entirely convincing.
Overall, the speech was intresting. Bonnano mixed informative and persuasive styles in an accessible manner. Even though it was not perfect, he was a confident speaker, delivering most of his messages effectively.
I really enjoyed this critique because, for the first time, I felt like we were analyzing these projects and really getting to the bottom of something. It’s hard to explain what that something is, but it was refreshing. With Nicole’s piece, Richard brought up the idea of the end quote and her piece passing judgment. I kept pushing to continue this discussion because I found it valid, and something to always consider when making your work. You have to step back, show it to some different people, and rule if its offensive (accidentally or purposefully) and then decide if you’d like to welcome that controversy, or you’d rather change your message / style so people focus on your original idea, and not the offending characteristics. Neither way is wrong; you just need to be prepared to discuss your decision.
Last semester, in photo III, my final project dealt with southern stereotypes. When I originally presented it, my teacher and a few others found it offensive. I was caught off-guard, I felt bombarded because I had never considered the qualms they raised. In the end, though, it was a great learning experience. It taught me to objectively look at my project, preparing to discuss the offensive qualities. (In the end, I decided to tweak the idea a bit to make it non-offensive and, instead of questioning southern culture, i questioned photographic truth.)
Natalie’s piece was another that came with a great discussion. Of course, there is the initial reaction to the heavily sarcastic piece. We also have the idea of audience come to play. Dry humor is hard to pull off, and it’s hard to convince people sometimes that it’s a joke. It was great, I thought it was a really strong idea, a great way to remark on our consumer culture, but at the same time, we really have to think about how it’ll come across to different audiences. Whether they be regionally and culturally different, a different age, or even….I don’t know how to say this, except “an audience comprised of people who do not know Natalie.” The voiceover was great, sounding outrageous and believable at the same time (like dry humor should). It was easy for me to laugh at the first viewing because I knew it was a joke. But, that was mostly because Natalie gave me a heavy disclaimer. Which is an interesting aspect in itself; If she feels like she HAS to give a disclaimer, is the piece too believable? Is that a flaw?
In conclusion, I enjoyed this critique. The points I brought up in this post were discussed, and even though we reached tiny conclusions, we could still talk about these videos and their implications. I think that’s great.
“DISCONNECTED”
a video self portrait
