Marshal McLuhan and Media Subversion

[Bu🤠ns]

In a Playboy interview (and elsewhere) Marshal McLuhan mentions an idea that space satellites, directed toward our planet, turn our attention toward ecology and creates an art form of nature.

Through radio, TV and the computer, we are already entering a global theater in which the entire world is a Happening. Our whole cultural habitat, which we once viewed as a mere container of people, is being transformed by these media and by space satellites into a living organism, itself contained within a new macrocosm or connubium of a supraterrestrial nature.

I wonder if the inclination of people directing cameras on life, i.e. YouTube, Big Brother's public cameras, satellites, Reality TV and so on, isn't exclusively an invasion of privacy but an inclination toward self/ecological awareness.  I want to be necessarily vague about these terms since I'm not really sure if they're the best ones to use.

McLuhan has also said that...

I am curious to know what would happen if art were suddenly seen for what it is, namely, exact information of how to rearrange one's psyche in order to anticipate the next blow from our own extended faculties...

Could this be where we're naturally headed?  In what ways might it be possible to use the existing media structures (ads, memes, internet, tv etc...) to subvert their intended purposes (sales, money, agendas etc...) into a way to rearrange one's psyche in order to anticipate the next blow from our own extended faculities?  Is it even possible? 

These were just some ideas floating in my head and I'm curious if i'm possibly overlooking some things...I don't really have a set view on this sort of thing and was hoping to get a discussion going about different ways of subverting established media or possibly even transcending it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The way consciousness and it's counterpart, society, are evolving it seems to be toward ever increasing levels of abstraction. There could be some truth in this.

[Bu🤠ns]

McLuhan, in another interview, also discusses space.  The idea that the concept of space changed with literacy and a growth toward a more predominantly visual awareness.

Could emphasizing the tactile, the audible and/or the olfactory senses over the visual be a key to understanding this preliterate awareness. 

I don't want to say "point of view" since that phrase seems to emphasize a point in space where the remaining senses don't seem to have a fixed placement.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

In a Playboy interview (and elsewhere) Marshal McLuhan mentions an idea that space satellites, directed toward our planet, turn our attention toward ecology and creates an art form of nature.

Through radio, TV and the computer, we are already entering a global theater in which the entire world is a Happening. Our whole cultural habitat, which we once viewed as a mere container of people, is being transformed by these media and by space satellites into a living organism, itself contained within a new macrocosm or connubium of a supraterrestrial nature.

I wonder if the inclination of people directing cameras on life, i.e. YouTube, Big Brother's public cameras, satellites, Reality TV and so on, isn't exclusively an invasion of privacy but an inclination toward self/ecological awareness.  I want to be necessarily vague about these terms since I'm not really sure if they're the best ones to use.

This article claims that /b/ is the future of humanity because it turns our focus onto our own shadows -- specifically the Chronzon 333 type element of a constantly chattering overmind with nothing to say.

McLuhan has also said that...

I am curious to know what would happen if art were suddenly seen for what it is, namely, exact information of how to rearrange one's psyche in order to anticipate the next blow from our own extended faculties...

Could this be where we're naturally headed?  In what ways might it be possible to use the existing media structures (ads, memes, internet, tv etc...) to subvert their intended purposes (sales, money, agendas etc...) into a way to rearrange one's psyche in order to anticipate the next blow from our own extended faculities?  Is it even possible? 

These were just some ideas floating in my head and I'm curious if i'm possibly overlooking some things...I don't really have a set view on this sort of thing and was hoping to get a discussion going about different ways of subverting established media or possibly even transcending it.

McLuhan also said that the artist is a sensitive who lives in the present, while non-artists all live in the past (willfully, because they fear the present which to them is the future) -- that's a bit like redefining artist as neophile and non-artist as neophobe, except that it gives more credit to people's capacity for self-delusion, but I think that might be specifically what he's referencing in this quote: rearrange your psyche to that of an artist and the future is no longer scary but a playground.

That said, your argument is sound, and McLuhan was big on media subversion himself. "Shakespeare was so obviously speaking of television when he wrote, 'What light through yonder window break?'" (paraphrased because I don't own a copy of Understanding Media). McLuhan also claimed to be firmly agnostic about the morality of any movement or action, and said he was merely analyzing, which puts him firmly in line with a lot of discordian thought.

[Brotep]

Hm.  I would have to read some McLuhan, but I disagree with the stark distinction between artists and non-artists, at least when the former aren't creating something.

[Bu🤠ns]

I don't think that it's so much a focus of creationat this point, but more of a focus on what drives the artist.  There is a sort of dynamic understanding of the environment that lies outside the smoggy cloud of popular media.  An example of this is the idea of Art as mere entertainment vs. Art as consciousness transformation.

I think the distinction is more clearly emphasized with a quote from comic writer Alan Moore...

It is not the job of artists to give the audience what the audience want. If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn't be the audience. They would be the artists.  It is the job of the artists to give the audience what they need.

McLuhan also said that...

The poet, the artist, the sleuth – whoever sharpens our perception tends to be anti-social; rarely "well-adjusted", he cannot go along with currents and trends. A strange bond often exists among anti-social types in their power to see environments as they really are.

and his re-quoting of...

I don't know who discovered water, but it certainly wasn't the fish.

The artists stand outside the the realm of media and attempt to tell everyone that things might not quite be the way they appear to be.  Perhaps the neophile/neophobe perspective comes in AFTER experiencing the art but I don't think it necessarily precedes it.  The artist MAY live in the present but I think it's what is characteristic of the "Artist" is rather the ability to see things in a new way...much like the pun--basically, taking established meaning an changing it with something different. (McLuhan goes on about that too). 

In a way the artist works like the shaman.  Slightly insane, possibly anti-social, the artist goes out and brings forth information from the 'spirit world' or form a perspective that seems to be located beyond the normal and brings it to those who tend to follow the grain.

The artist is sort of a Promethean derelict.  I also happen (sometimes) to view the discordian movement in a similar way-which is sort of my motivation for posting this particular thread on this particular forum.

I like to think that it's the responsibility of guerrilla ontologists to use the current state of media as the artform that needs to be reshapen for the very reasons mentioned above.

[Brotep]

Yes, I see your point.  That sort is to be deeply respected/bought a drink at the bar.


Not all artists, however, employ their ability to see differently outside the context of their favored medium.

I don't generally meet artists who can really "talk shop" in this way.

[Bu🤠ns]

I think most artists aren't necessarily aware that they might be doing it.  Discordianism seems to give it that subversive framework. 

[Captain Utopia]

I don't think that it's so much a focus of creationat this point, but more of a focus on what drives the artist.  There is a sort of dynamic understanding of the environment that lies outside the smoggy cloud of popular media.  An example of this is the idea of Art as mere entertainment vs. Art as consciousness transformation.

I think the distinction is more clearly emphasized with a quote from comic writer Alan Moore...

It is not the job of artists to give the audience what the audience want. If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn't be the audience. They would be the artists.  It is the job of the artists to give the audience what they need.

McLuhan also said that...

The poet, the artist, the sleuth – whoever sharpens our perception tends to be anti-social; rarely "well-adjusted", he cannot go along with currents and trends. A strange bond often exists among anti-social types in their power to see environments as they really are.

I'm not sure I'm reading it right, but are they suggesting that art is a kind of memetic carrier, containing ideas which may be otherwise simply swept aside if not for the protective title/covering of 'art'? Reminds me a little of the 'democracy' thread earlier, where it was repeated (and I guess it can't be overstated) that our democratic politics are just a show to allow the same forces to continue in their existing circles of power.

It seems like an interesting comparison though, as it would mean that art is more pertinent and vital than it often portrays itself, and democracy less so than it always portrays itself. But that both their powers lie in their ability to maintain their respective illusions.

[Brotep]

I think most artists aren't necessarily aware that they might be doing it.  Discordianism seems to give it that subversive framework.  

Makes sense.  After all, just because you don't know how you do something, doesn't mean you can't do it.

I'm just biased toward the meta conversation.  

[Bu🤠ns]

I don't think that it's so much a focus of creationat this point, but more of a focus on what drives the artist.  There is a sort of dynamic understanding of the environment that lies outside the smoggy cloud of popular media.  An example of this is the idea of Art as mere entertainment vs. Art as consciousness transformation.

I think the distinction is more clearly emphasized with a quote from comic writer Alan Moore...

It is not the job of artists to give the audience what the audience want. If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn't be the audience. They would be the artists.  It is the job of the artists to give the audience what they need.

McLuhan also said that...

The poet, the artist, the sleuth – whoever sharpens our perception tends to be anti-social; rarely "well-adjusted", he cannot go along with currents and trends. A strange bond often exists among anti-social types in their power to see environments as they really are.

I'm not sure I'm reading it right, but are they suggesting that art is a kind of memetic carrier, containing ideas which may be otherwise simply swept aside if not for the protective title/covering of 'art'?'

I suppose if you're looking at the idea of how we perceive things as being 'significant' then sure, i think that makes sense.

Reminds me a little of the 'democracy' thread earlier, where it was repeated (and I guess it can't be overstated) that our democratic
politics are just a show to allow the same forces to continue in their existing circles of power.

It seems like an interesting comparison though, as it would mean that art is more pertinent and vital than it often portrays itself, and democracy less so than it always portrays itself. But that both their powers lie in their ability to maintain their respective illusions.

If considering that it's the artists' role to expose the forces themselves it would make sense that one would have to have a particular understanding of the background of things as it relates to the foreground of things.  

[Bu🤠ns]

I think most artists aren't necessarily aware that they might be doing it.  Discordianism seems to give it that subversive framework.  

Makes sense.  After all, just because you don't know how you do something, doesn't mean you can't do it.

I'm just biased toward the meta conversation.  

I think some people just can't help themselves.  There's a sense of humanity when you see an artist doing it because he or she has to just get the shit out.

When I was in a band in high school we had that same sort of drive to become known.  And the music sort of lost its mojo when the focus became more about The Goal™ than just jamming out.

[Brotep]

bump

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

So, I found that McLuhan audiobook

[LMNO]

I can't hear that right now... is that just the audio book, or is it the sound collage freakout?