"Don't worry. We'll fix it in post..."

I'm curious about how the ways in which a cultural moment in history somehow determine of influence the reception of a cultural product.  The passionate, left-leaning politics of Guy Debord, for example seem almost quaint in a nostalgic, fight-the-power kind of way.  I certainly don't mean to imply that his exploration of the ideas behind detournement are not insightful and novel.  It is important that one is aware of the impact a cultural artifact has upon him/her.  But the idea that it all is and should be propaganda - Debord explicitly says in "Methods of Detournement" that "The literary and artistic heritage of humanity should be used for partisan propaganda purposes" -  in a sense, misses the point - at least in the current cultural climate.  

If one takes a piece of propaganda and turns it into a piece of propaganda, nothing has happened.  If one, however, takes a piece of propaganda and re-presents it in such a way that we can now realize it is propaganda, then we are in a position to think about and make decisions about the subject from a more objective place.

What I see happening a lot today is stuff like this:

and

I'll call this kind of work a product of the "Adbuster Skool of Political Activism," or ASPA for short.  Members of ASPA tend to really hate the government.  But they really hate corporations.  And god bless 'em for hatin'.  I don't know what the world they envision looks like, but I'm sure I'd like to live there.  

But, ironically, here's how I think the work of ASPA members functions in society:  

     1. The work is created, and the creator shows it to his friend.  His friend laughs knowingly and says, "Dude, that's freakin' awesome.  You totally stuck it to that corporation/government program!"

     2. Then the creator posts his work on the internet, on a brick wall somewhere, or (if he's really lucky) gets it published in a magazine.

     3. People see the work.  There response is either a) Have you downloaded the latest Jay Z single? or b) I'd really like a Coke right now.

They, in effect, are promoting the corporations whose imagery/branding they are appropriating.  They are not changing anyone's politics.  In fact, Naomi Klein points out in her anti-corporate book No Logo that several corporations have commissioned work from culture jammers so their ad campaigns will be more "edgy."

I want to point out that I admire what these artists are doing.  I just don't think they're very effective.

In Nicholas Bourriaud's Postproduction: Culture as Screenplay: How Art Reprograms the world, there are numerous examples of appropriations of cultural artifacts that are used as media to create new art works. I love this.  Gordon's 24 Hour Psycho, Geers' TV Shoot, Kelley and McCarthy's Fresh Acconci - these are fascinating, thought-provoking works of art.
Here's an interview with clips from some of McCarthy's work:

and here's some work by Kendell Geers which utilizes existing works and objects in a really (I think)effective way: