#hipcat

BRUH.

but not psychedelics that have proven therapeudic qualities and also are soooooooo great for getting in touch wiht art n the universe

fuck this fuck this fuck this

grass will be our drug of choice

sweet sweet reefah

zootin zaza

hashish n shrumz

ㄖꏁㄖ (*☻-☻*)

hepcats and hippies

In one of the most bare-bones way of thinking about the world, when it comes to “changing the system”, people often have two modes of thought: change within or change from out. Change within strategies come with people who feel that it’s necessary to speak the “language” of the system, to work from a mindset of the system, and then use that expertise to break down the system from within. Only by knowing something from the inside can you really find its weak points. The other idea that true change comes from outside the system which is based in the belief that working within the system results in being co-opted by the system.

For this reading, it seems like one of the issues with Blackspot is that it has “sold out” and deploys rhetoric that ultimately reinforces the same thing that they try to critique. This would fall into line with the idea that working within the system, in this case advertising (and hence, Baclkspot’s subvertising), results in co-options. Though Blackspot is a parody of other brands (Nike) its use of the language counters the work they do to appeal for fair wages, green consciousness, etc.

As Harold points out, Heath and Potter’s analysis is very black and white. You’re either in the system or out of it. There’s culture and counter culture and it’s either all or nothing. If this is the approach we must take, it seems tiresome because we’re always put back into the question of how to change consumerism truly. If the latter will result in backlash and the former can’t bring about thorough enough change, what kind of strategy should we be endorsing?

The analysis Harold brings up about boycotting pointed out an interesting idea, which is that with corporate entities you must “hit them where it counts”: profit. If something is thwarting their goal, they must confront what that thing is, and if the boycott points out that it is the fact that the company must bend to consumer want the boycott is successful. This idea is interesting, because Harold also mentions that strategies that appropriate power rather than trying to directly dismantle it are both complex and fertile. Corporate entities are indeed huge entities of power; instead of fighting against the power, why not use it to destroy the very thing it comes from?

One historical parallel to this kind of strategy is the emergence of jazz. The idea of being “hip” and “cool” is deeply associated with black America and jazz emerged from exclusion of black Americans from traditional music scenes. Rather than fighting against the music scene, jazz emerged and played off what was established. The music style twisted and reshaped the established norms of music and also brought in original ideas, such as new instruments, percussion, etc.

Another example of the re-appropriative strategy is the Buzzfeed video that has Asian identifying people re-creating well known magazine covers. The power in doing so is that it doesn’t challenge the status quo outright, but instead parodies the original covers. There isn’t as much anger and bitterness in the video, which might prompt anger with people who don’t realize that representation is an important issue, and instead pokes fun of the issue that engages internet audiences (particularly young audiences). As Harold phrases it, they “jam” with the culture to challenge power rather than directly fighting it and being silenced.