...major website vandalizing the Consumer Electronics Show by turning off TV monitors using a remote control. They took down entire walls of monitors and interrupted presentations.Sorry, guys, but this is just like shoplifting or spam or breaking windows. It's not 'no big deal', it's a very big deal. Here's why:
First, in a society where we make concepts, services and ideas as opposed to stuff, breaking that process is identical to breaking the stuff was back then. In other words, it's vandalism.
Worse, what happens when everyone does it? I remember getting my first piece of spam in 1995 or so. Back then, one piece a day was no big deal. But 500 people at CES would be enough to bring the entire show down. Can I protect my monitor with a piece of black electrical tape? Sure. But why should I have to give up using my (authorized) remote in order to put on a public display that people are actually paying to see? When there's two or three or five people at every movie with a laser pointer, the movie is no longer fun to watch.
Speaking as someone whose job used to include going into the theatres to track down the yahoos with laser pointers and kick 'em out (or, sometimes, just shoot them after they'd been treed by my team of ever-vigilant, highly-trained, teen-aged attack-ushers), I couldn't possibly agree more.Tolerating vandalism doesn't seem to have a lot of upside for the community, imho.On the other hand, I've always been a big fan of performance art.
Where to draw the line? Did the message justify the medium? In the examples sited, I'd say "no"...
...but I hate that the solution to so many problems is always "restrict even those who are smart enough to avoid doing harm." I just wish I was optimistic enough about human nature (and freedom) to be an anarchist like Jake.
7 comments:
I don't think anarchism is so much a case of trusting human nature with freedom as not trusting human nature with authority.
Interestingly, I disagreed with Seth's post. Quite strongly, even.
I can certainly see your example of laser pointers in movie theaters being a bad thing. Amoral, even, if I made allude to an earlier post.
But the "vandalism" Seth was referring to was shutting off TVs using a TV-B-Gone. ...Perhaps it's less cool in a trade show, where people have come specifically to see what marketers are offering... sure, that's mean. I wouldn't call it vandalism, though.
What's more, I think this is an acceptable revolt against the over-marketing of our world... It's become nearly impossible to look in any given direction in an urban setting without seeing a half-dozen advertisements. If the trend moves toward televisions in public places playing advertisements: fuck 'em. I'd shut the damn things off. Heck, I even considered buying a TV-B-Gone when I first heard of it.
I admire Seth's emphasis on permission marketing... but I add to that the exclusion of all the noise we currently get. It's big corporations lording their power over our attention. And I don't care to stand for it.
It's amoral.
You need only ask my wife: she will confirm that I complain about advertisement on at least a daily basis. I fucking hate it. They don't have the right.
And, yeah, yeah, I know the whole argument about if-we-didn't-have-advertisements-TV-would-cost-a-fuckload.
Personally, I think that's bullshit propaganda.
Oooh, lookie here. My buttons done been pushed! ;)
The first time I saw an ad for TV-be-gone, I thought it sounded awesome. I wanted to buy one, and planned to use it at restaurants.
Then I noticed that some people go to such bars and restaurants and actively watch the screens. They choose to take part in this brainlessness! They pick the bar they do because it has the type of entertainment they want.
If I tv-be-gone at such a place, it leaves a negative impression on the regulars. I'm potentially driving away their best customers, the very people they installed that TV to service. Am I going to spend enough here to replace them, or am I just hurting this business?
Further, the staff will get angry at the anonymous jerk (aka me) who keeps shutting their tv off. Rather than making a point, I'm causing them to become adversarial versus that point.
If I'd like to protest the TV and it's all-pervasive marketing, wouldn't it be better to talk to the manager? I could tell him he's got a nice place, but I can't carry on a conversation with that TV blaring, so I'll be much less likely to come back. Take your business somewhere that doesn't have a TV - you have that power.
At a tradeshow it's even worse. Companies spend thousands for a booth at a tradeshow, because it's a powerful opportunity to focus their message on those who've opted in and want to hear it. If the tradeshow fails to work, then they may feel their next best option is the sort of painful mass advertising that pisses people like you and me off.
Anyhow, sorry to push your buttons, but I've enjoyed the debate thus far.
I just popped over and read Gizmodo's response to having been banned from CES for life.
Instead of explaining why he did it, or trying to clarify the meaning of his actions and artwork, he just launched in to an ad-hominem attack on his detractors. "They didn't get the joke because they're just corporate shills."
He follows this with rationalizations that no tech guys got fired because any AV guy worth his salt would know to search the net for video footage of the tradeshow to convince their boss it wasn't their fault. Of course, this assumes your boss listens to your counter-arguments as he's firing you.
Frankly, I just don't buy it. The prankster's words sound to me like the inelegant attempts of a child trying to escape guilt. "Billy did something worse!"
I'm reminded of my bachelor's party a few years back. They had a stage with a pole, and to the right of it a TV with a game. Despite the nearby T&A, there were guys watching football.
Such folks deserve what they prioritize.
Another factor in my hatred of public advertisement is my inability to ignore it. If a TV is on in the room, I'm looking at it. I'm sure the same is true for a lot of those people you see watching things in restaurants. Not all: I agree, some people choose those places for what they show. But, by and large, it's compulsory, not desirable.
That said, I don't avoid such places. For example, I eat at Saggio's regularly, often in the room that's lined with big-screen TVs.
[shrug]
I'm left with an image of Zoe (in Serenity) saying, "I don't disagree on any particular point, sir... It's just..."
I agree that shutting off TVs would often be going overboard. I still couldn't call it "vandalism". To me, it's a social faux pas, not a crime.
And I stick by the statement that it has gone way overboard. My feelings simply aren't hurt when corporations have trouble at a trade show. ...I admit, however, that I didn't read any further into the story, so I don't know who did it, to what extent they did it, or why. I don't care enough to look into it. ;)
While I am not familiar with any research on the topic and don't really care to go looking for any to support my claims here (at least at this time) I feel confident in stating that the human eye is naturally drawn towards the area of vision with the most activity. It's a survival mechanism. Concentrate on the movement to avoid getting attacked by a predator. I mention this as one of those people who if there is a television on in the room, I have a hell of a time looking away from it. Doesn't matter if there is sound or not. Friends have been kind enough to offer to trade seats with me so that the screen is at my back. It's to their benefit so I can engage in conversation with them at the bar instead of going into zombie stare mode.
But I can't call turning off a television by any means 'vandalism'. There is no permanent physical damage done. The potential 'damage' of lost revenue is bullshit. In a bar setting, people are there to drink and be social. They may also be there to watch TV, but they could have done that at home. For some reason the social aspect won out, took priority, apparently television wasn't the all important factor. Even at a trade show I see no 'damages' from lost revenue. As a former ad man I maintain that advertising is a lie. If you have something worthwhile or something that people need, you don't really need to advertise. If you are advertising, you are trying to bait suckers. (Or you have been suckered into the advertising culture and think you can't survive without it.) So having the screens on is more damaging than turning them off. They are preying on the animal instinct that draws us to the rapid movements. Is it really opting in if under trance you volunteer to donate blood to vampires?
2.3 cents
Post a Comment