This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Culture jamming was split to List of culture jamming organizations and people on the 22nd of July 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
What is it? A quick google search yielded nothing, and certainly nothing in terms of culture jamming.
Skooma2112 ( talk) 23:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an essay written in first person language. Keep the "list of culture jamming organizations" and drop the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnavarro ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The article defines "culture jamming" this way.
First, "Culture jamming is an individualistic turning away from all forms of herd mentality – including that of social movements – and by that definition, culture jamming is generally not treated as a movement" as a definition, is too broad and may not even be accurate. Activists employ culture jamming techniques all the time, and common causes can be viewed as a sort of herd mentality. If we use that definition, then a hermit who lives alone in the woods is a culture jammer: he has turned away from all forms of herd mentality, hasn't he? And I don't think anybody would think "culture jamming" is a movement. It's a technique and a tactic, not an end unto itself.
A couple of paragraphs down comes closer to every definition of culture jamming I've heard: "Culture jamming sometimes entails transforming mass media to produce ironic or satirical commentary about itself, using the original medium's communication method." Like how radio jamming subverts the medium of radio, culture jamming has to subvert cultural media (the point of the "jamming" metaphor), and it usually has a point. Otherwise, "culture jamming" has NO distinguishable features than from artistic appropriation, vandalism, or just messing around. Purifiedwater ( talk) 17:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
@ M.P. Landau: Sometimes it's hard to draw bright lines of history and distinction. What Wikipedia cares about is that "culture jamming" appears and is defined in a number of reliable publications sufficient to make itself notable as a concept ( notability is kind of a technical term on Wikipedia). The existence of an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's absolutely unlike other things or that it's totally original -- just that it got the press coverage necessary, more or less. Regardless, the research and writing on culture jamming, given its necessarily political-artistic-popular nature, has led to the development of magazines, books, how-to guides, and of course art. While it's general methods of execution and fundamental aspects of its politics aren't new per se, other terms don't typically capture or focus on the pointedly anti-consumerism, anti-mass media culture nature of "culture jamming" or its self-consciousness and self-awareness in its strategies of using mass media and mass media's messages/images against itself. Did the stuff exist before the term was coined? Sure. But it's certainly an intelligible phenomenon sufficient to have a Wikipedia article. Perhaps you'd want to develop/add to the "Origins and preceding influences" or "criticism" sections, though? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Rhododendrites: That is a fair enough statement. I understand the parameters of Wikipedia. But one must understand that Wikipedia is a venue unto itself today, and is used, or rather manipulated, for the betterment and/or personal gain to either themselves or others or both. The legitimacy of the thing is critical to it's allowance. 'Culture jamming' has indeed risen to a level where the thing itself is not necessarily authentic but claims of its authenticity are. And that is the critical distinction here. Take note that anyone involved in its promotion has a personal stake in it's legitimacy because all of them in one fashion or another tie their careers to it. It's manipulation and in fact propaganda by definition. So no, I am sorry but can not go along with your reasoning. There are two clear and separate subjects here; there is the matter of culture jam as a real and bonafide entity, but there is also the question of its claims of legitimacy, the motives behind it and who stands to benefit. I do not believe it has earned status thus far as "an intelligible phenomenon". In fact the opposite ; what I see is appropriation (in plain terms 'theft') and lack of originality. Let's remember, the proponents of 'culture jamming' call this a movement. A movement!. Please. 76.117.94.61 ( talk) 21:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
After reading the discussions on the definition above (loved the story about Ms Mason '09), I've re-written the opening paragraphs of the article. I was mainly attempting to tighten things up a bit, and to remove some of what I thought were the more glaring NPOV violations. I also removed the section on types of culture jammers; although it was entertaining, it was biased, written in the wrong tone, and stolen entirely from another source.
I've removed the dispute tag, since it's clear that the incorrect passage is gone and nobody wants to put it back. I've left the citation tag there, because after all, I didn't add any citations either. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 11:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Worth pointing out The Prisoner episode It's Your Funeral referred to jamming in a political context back in the mid 1960s. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Those emotions are pretty grim. I wonder where that idea came from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jago25 98 ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The introduction includes the sentence: "Many culture jams are simply aimed at exposing questionable political assumptions behind commercial culture so that people can momentarily consider the branded environment in which they live."
I am concerned that labeling the assumptions behind the consumerist status quo as "questionable" may not be neutral. I thought about changing it to something like "that are perceived to be questionable", but by that point, the sentence would be getting rather unwieldy. Thoughts? Kansan ( talk) 05:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The interesting thing in this article is that it only cites the relation between “culture jamming” and plain VANDALISM with only one line of text. But many people knows that the relation goes much more deep…-- 177.32.130.81 ( talk) 09:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What's he doing in this list? Nothing in the linked article...someone's joke? 2fs ( talk) 04:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the list should be split off from the rest of the article for
content reasons. This list breaks the flow of the article, which can then refocus on the topic at hand. Incidentally, I believe the proper name should be "List of culture jamming organizations or and people." --
Andrewaskew (
talk)
06:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's unclear to me what the "References" section is. If these are used as sources for the article then they are General references and the section should be re-named, and ideally inline citations should be added to them. If they are not used as sources, then they should be merged in to the "Further reading" section. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Culture jamming was split to List of culture jamming organizations and people on the 22nd of July 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
What is it? A quick google search yielded nothing, and certainly nothing in terms of culture jamming.
Skooma2112 ( talk) 23:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an essay written in first person language. Keep the "list of culture jamming organizations" and drop the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnavarro ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The article defines "culture jamming" this way.
First, "Culture jamming is an individualistic turning away from all forms of herd mentality – including that of social movements – and by that definition, culture jamming is generally not treated as a movement" as a definition, is too broad and may not even be accurate. Activists employ culture jamming techniques all the time, and common causes can be viewed as a sort of herd mentality. If we use that definition, then a hermit who lives alone in the woods is a culture jammer: he has turned away from all forms of herd mentality, hasn't he? And I don't think anybody would think "culture jamming" is a movement. It's a technique and a tactic, not an end unto itself.
A couple of paragraphs down comes closer to every definition of culture jamming I've heard: "Culture jamming sometimes entails transforming mass media to produce ironic or satirical commentary about itself, using the original medium's communication method." Like how radio jamming subverts the medium of radio, culture jamming has to subvert cultural media (the point of the "jamming" metaphor), and it usually has a point. Otherwise, "culture jamming" has NO distinguishable features than from artistic appropriation, vandalism, or just messing around. Purifiedwater ( talk) 17:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
@ M.P. Landau: Sometimes it's hard to draw bright lines of history and distinction. What Wikipedia cares about is that "culture jamming" appears and is defined in a number of reliable publications sufficient to make itself notable as a concept ( notability is kind of a technical term on Wikipedia). The existence of an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's absolutely unlike other things or that it's totally original -- just that it got the press coverage necessary, more or less. Regardless, the research and writing on culture jamming, given its necessarily political-artistic-popular nature, has led to the development of magazines, books, how-to guides, and of course art. While it's general methods of execution and fundamental aspects of its politics aren't new per se, other terms don't typically capture or focus on the pointedly anti-consumerism, anti-mass media culture nature of "culture jamming" or its self-consciousness and self-awareness in its strategies of using mass media and mass media's messages/images against itself. Did the stuff exist before the term was coined? Sure. But it's certainly an intelligible phenomenon sufficient to have a Wikipedia article. Perhaps you'd want to develop/add to the "Origins and preceding influences" or "criticism" sections, though? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Rhododendrites: That is a fair enough statement. I understand the parameters of Wikipedia. But one must understand that Wikipedia is a venue unto itself today, and is used, or rather manipulated, for the betterment and/or personal gain to either themselves or others or both. The legitimacy of the thing is critical to it's allowance. 'Culture jamming' has indeed risen to a level where the thing itself is not necessarily authentic but claims of its authenticity are. And that is the critical distinction here. Take note that anyone involved in its promotion has a personal stake in it's legitimacy because all of them in one fashion or another tie their careers to it. It's manipulation and in fact propaganda by definition. So no, I am sorry but can not go along with your reasoning. There are two clear and separate subjects here; there is the matter of culture jam as a real and bonafide entity, but there is also the question of its claims of legitimacy, the motives behind it and who stands to benefit. I do not believe it has earned status thus far as "an intelligible phenomenon". In fact the opposite ; what I see is appropriation (in plain terms 'theft') and lack of originality. Let's remember, the proponents of 'culture jamming' call this a movement. A movement!. Please. 76.117.94.61 ( talk) 21:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
After reading the discussions on the definition above (loved the story about Ms Mason '09), I've re-written the opening paragraphs of the article. I was mainly attempting to tighten things up a bit, and to remove some of what I thought were the more glaring NPOV violations. I also removed the section on types of culture jammers; although it was entertaining, it was biased, written in the wrong tone, and stolen entirely from another source.
I've removed the dispute tag, since it's clear that the incorrect passage is gone and nobody wants to put it back. I've left the citation tag there, because after all, I didn't add any citations either. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 11:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Worth pointing out The Prisoner episode It's Your Funeral referred to jamming in a political context back in the mid 1960s. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Those emotions are pretty grim. I wonder where that idea came from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jago25 98 ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The introduction includes the sentence: "Many culture jams are simply aimed at exposing questionable political assumptions behind commercial culture so that people can momentarily consider the branded environment in which they live."
I am concerned that labeling the assumptions behind the consumerist status quo as "questionable" may not be neutral. I thought about changing it to something like "that are perceived to be questionable", but by that point, the sentence would be getting rather unwieldy. Thoughts? Kansan ( talk) 05:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The interesting thing in this article is that it only cites the relation between “culture jamming” and plain VANDALISM with only one line of text. But many people knows that the relation goes much more deep…-- 177.32.130.81 ( talk) 09:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What's he doing in this list? Nothing in the linked article...someone's joke? 2fs ( talk) 04:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the list should be split off from the rest of the article for
content reasons. This list breaks the flow of the article, which can then refocus on the topic at hand. Incidentally, I believe the proper name should be "List of culture jamming organizations or and people." --
Andrewaskew (
talk)
06:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's unclear to me what the "References" section is. If these are used as sources for the article then they are General references and the section should be re-named, and ideally inline citations should be added to them. If they are not used as sources, then they should be merged in to the "Further reading" section. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 23:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)