Culture Jamming Questions

Culture Jamming Questions

Technical Perspective

-An ad by Salvation Army, wanting people to donate there unused belongings to charity.

-Makes the people look like ghosts on the street as if they do not exist. Salvation army is basically saying that they want to help these people exists, by giving them a chance to be seen.

-It functions as an image over an image. An image that is political/economy. Politically there are many debates whether or not homeless people should have the right to stay at a certain public space/ find funding for homeless people.

-Taken by a digital camera.

-Carefully photoshopped, organized and constructed.

-Posted on billboards and bus stops. Clearly trying to reach out to a lot of people.

-Out of focus people, blurred and seems to have a spot light on the people. Gloomy in the background, maybe suggesting that everyone and everything around it is gloomy.

- Shows garbage above them, perhaps they are there to give the viewer an idea of white these two people have to go through, no blankets, no food, no anything.

-It has small print and the Salvation Army's logo, perhaps the small print is too have viewers look closely at the situation.

Cultural Perspective

- The image is particularly targeted towards western culture, though it seems that the two people that are ghost figures seem to be white, though I guess you can't really say it is neither black or white. Most likely it pertains to all races.

- Shown a place where people are often coming in and out of a building. In an urban area, which might suggest that it is in the city. Which could give it a better reason to say that it wants to target these people, who may be in an apartment or business area.

-Shows a negative/ positive image. The negative part of the image would by that they are see through, cannot be seen with a ghostly sort of focus, a mother and child holding each other, perhaps cold and hopeless. The positive part of the image could by the spotlight that is on the two people, shedding light on the situation.

-The Salvation Army is a big figure in the world of helping homeless people, when looking at the image and seeing the Salvation Army's picture you can connect the two, the homeless people and the charity. I think that if the Salvation Army's Logo wasn't there to begin with I believe that people may have a harder time trying to figure out what the picture is all about.

Political Perspective

-The Salvation Army's quote, We See What Most Don't could mean that people and the government alike do not spend enough time trying to help homeless people and people in need

-Debates have been questioned all around north america on what and how to deal with these types of situations, leaving it to Salvation Army to stand up and fight for it themselves.

-Strictly segregating themselves from the government and acting is they are there own type of government, by saying that we see what most don't.

-Questions about how the Country and the government can do its part. Because of the way that Salvation Army's acts so independent makes you ask the question, "What is everyone else doing about it?"

Questions

1. Does putting pictures up on an advertisement with people less fortunate have a great effect in influencing you to do what they want to or does it steer you away?
2. Does technology have a big effect in culture jamming in a way that could give humanity the illusion of whats really happening in the world?
3. Does Culture Jamming still occur today and if so, do the ways in which is does still have a greater or lesser impact on the observers?
4. Advertising makes a stand, and sometimes claims some people to be naïve and ignorant. Is declaring what some advertisers see in the world relate to what we as people see the world? Why do companies insist on thinking that they know what is truly happening?
5. What aspect of culture jamming has a negative effect within pictures?
6. Is there a clear context distinction between a photo that has been photoshoped compared to a picture that has not been photoshoped?
7. Is this photo political art or art made politically? Does this picture address the concerns of homelessness?
8. Could this picture be defined as a commercial, social or political stance of culture jamming?
9. Are personal ways of culture jamming any different than that from the Salvation armies way or depicting culture jamming and how?
10. Since culture jamming confuses the contexts of the truths and justices in reality should there be a time we culture jamming should stop?

-By Julian Bachlow

Bachfire Manifesto

Sitting back and watching your government frolic into doing whatever they want causes problems for many people because they may be oppressive, violent, out-dated, unjust and don’t tend to the real needs of the people. Protests occur all around the world to create social change and are a tool for progress within social movements. They address issues like violence, oppression, slavery, civil rights, woman's rights, race, labor laws, anti-war, and Environmentalism. It doesn’t always start with a mob or a riot. Artists such as musicians are the ones with the creativity to describe these problems and to call upon the people to act on the issues affecting them. They can be activists to create change in society for the better. Culture in general is highly affected by popular views and opinions. Popular culture is the mainstream, the accepted and loved arts and ideas by the people. Popular Culture’s appeal and major consumption to the general population can also be its downfall as a tool for activists. Listeners expect a certain message, if the musician strays too far from the accepted pop styles they will lose their listeners. Music becomes the same, monotonous just to make a buck by musicians and distributors alike. Musicians need to use their creativity and bravery to perform and spread new ideas instead of falling in the trap of the mainstream déjà-heard tunes. It is a target that can be influenced by the words and sounds of musicians, artists, record labels, and the audience. Being weary of how you approach social movements within music has been a controversial subject. A problem that can occur is being poisoned, absorbed and neutralized by the market into doing something unethical to you as an artist. The markets psychological power can be detrimental to an artist and their career by causing you to do things you would not agree with or have no interest in standing up for, though if you find the right ways to do it, it could be very effective for you instead of causing problems in the long run. Before we can look ahead into protesting within music, we must look into the past to see success and failures of activist music. Bob Dylan, a Folk singer started the Broadside movement with other musicians to support civil rights and other causes, while the years went by Bob Dylan lost touch with what he believed in and felt the pressure of his fans engaged in his protest music. Once Bob Dylan started playing more mainstream events, and lost his edge, people thought that he was just becoming another mainstream artist, someone who was being controlled by the markets and labels. Phil Ochs, A Folk singer involved in the civil rights movement in the 60’s witnessed the violence in the Chicago convention and thought it was far worse than Ochs could imagine and claimed that he was there as the witness of the death of America and as an American, he presented it as his own death. He demanded so much change using his aggressive lyrics and raw sound that it might have been too aggressive which caused too much chaos even for his label A&E which dropped him from the label by 1969. In the 1970’s, A UK band called “The Clash” protested against monarchy and aristocracy. However, unlike many of their peers, The Clash rejected nihilism (Morality does not exist). They stood up to the mainstream politics of the public as well as standing up to their musical peers. They found solidarity with a number of contemporary liberation movements and were involved with such groups as the Anti-Nazi League which raised issues about race and class. The band's political sentiments were reflected in their resistance to the music industry's usual profit motivations; even at their peak, tickets to shows and souvenirs were reasonably priced. The group insisted that CBS sell their double and triple album sets London Calling and Sandinista! For the price of a single album. This Heat were a British experimental music group formed in early 1976, with one of the most noted songs “Ace of spades”. They named one of their albums Health and Efficiency which is. the name of a British nudist magazine, notorious as one of the only places that British men could sneak a peak at woman’s naked body parts in the repressive atmosphere of the fifties and early sixties. They took this name to try to be unconventional but it backfired and made them look like brutes and ultimately caused there downfall by trying to be unconventional and trying to hard. This Heat were over-confident that they were going to be huge, but they embodied the social and political landscape of their Britain too well and weren’t successful. Bands like Rage Against the Machine, Rise Against, Public Enemy, Green Day and Arcade Fire address recent situations that are happening in the world today, authoritative figures, religion, race superpowers, environmental issues, anti-war, animal issues and political situations. These bands use videos and lyrics to support their causes and do this in such a direct and sometimes extreme way that they create demographics of different kinds and sometimes even grasp new audiences. These musicians had to conquer some obstacles, the messages that they wanted to get across though was a success in some way shape or form. This is what I want from my musicians,

1. We want to make sure we’re genuine.
2. We want to sell our albums at a low cost to appeal to audiences and reach out further.
3. We want to give musicians a voice.
4. We want to give the people something worthwhile and meaningful to listen to.
5. We want to stand up for what is right and stick to what we believe in, be direct and follow through what we were fighting for from the beginning.
6. We want to try and give support to our causes by acting in protests, creating lyrics and songs and being involved with the right groups.
7. We want to have to guts to step out of boundaries and face the music.
8. We want to enlighten popular culture.
9. We want to support fellow musicians, artists and activists who share their causes.
10. We want to spread our causes to as many countries as humanly possible to make a difference.
11. We want to be unique, have an appealing sound, sound fresh and confident.

Live long and prosper young musician

By Julian Bachlow

10 Questions and Image Analysis

I chose to write about this photograph of young pop star Miley Cyrus from the June 2008 edition of Vanity Fair Magazine. This photo was printed along side an article entitled "Miley Knows Best" by Bruce Handy. The photograph was taken by Annie Leibowitz and styled by Michael Roberts. I would guess the demographic for this magazine to be 20-40 year-old men and women. This isn't a teen magazine and not a celebrity tabloid.

This image reflects the politics of the image maker by showing a young actress in an artistic and provocative pose. This was an artistic choice made by Leibowitz and Roberts to create a beautiful image while causing attention. The actress herself liked the photoshoot, and in the interview she said that it was "artsy" and the Leibowitz was very talented.

This image represents a shared understanding because it glamourizes youth, beauty, fame, and sexuality. It falls into the Western habit of hypersexualizing young female celebrities. This picture was meant to highlight her maturity. The way this picture was recieved by the media was very different from the intended effect. There was widespread shock and anger across America. Many people were upset by the sexual content of the picture, since she is employed by Disney and is a big role model for young girls. The outrage was so much that Miley had to appologize for the picture, saying she was now "embarassed" of it. Ironically, because of the all of the media attention this photograph got, it was actually shown to a lot more people younger than the intended demographic.

This picture was lifted from the Vanity Fair website at

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley200806

10 Questions

1 In your opinion has the influence of culture jamming weakened now a days, or is the medium still alive and well?

2 Your work is all about free speech and public use, but do you believe that there can never be any ownership to something intangible? Does your contempt for copyright laws only include media? Or do you see everything as belonging to everyone?

3 How do you think the advent of the internet and file sharing has affected the way we view copyrights as a society?

4 Do you see culture jamming as an acceptable media artform or is it somewhat marginalized?

5 Do you think that your work is comparable to audio samplers like DJ Girltalk and Plunderphonics creator John Oswald? How do you see the similarities/differences?

6 Since we live in an increasingly electronic world, do you think that culture jamming has become more accesable and/or less of a challenge than it used to be?

7 Do you ever listen to U2? Or have they hurt you too badly?

8 If media copyright laws were thrown out, do you believe that culture jamming would become more prevelent? Would that be a good thing for the medium if everything were accessable and non taboo? What would the long-term affects be from total lack of consequence for using the intellectual/artistic property of artists? Would they lose too much money from it, or do you believe they are overpaid in the first place?

9 What advice would you give to someone looking to be involved with culture jamming?

10 Have your opinions expressed in the documentary changed since the film was released? In what way?

Culture Jamming Questions

1. Is technology the most important tool in current culture jamming practices?
2. If technology is the form of the message and the thing being criticized in the message, how effective could this approach be?
3. Is culture jamming limited to only those with access to the technology?
4. If the access to technology is essential in effective culture jamming, has it become an elitest practice?
5. Who decides how effective a culture jamming project is? What is the end goal?
6. Various culture jamming practices (sampling, rearranging advertisements) have become separate art practices in themselves. Do they become art in their own right, or are they still culture jamming practices?
7. What's the difference between art and culture jamming? Is culture jamming an art form?
8. Does copyright interject in the creative process? Does it prevent the creative process to occur?
9. Can culture jamming be a viable profession? Are the members of Negativeland musicians or culture jammers? Can you be both and be paid for it? Does that become a problematic pairing?
10. Do you have to possess certain qualities to be a culture jammer? Or do you have to not possess certain qualities...such as not being a part of a corporate institution who practices the very thing you might address in your works.

Image Interrogation

Out of a landfill of images (Google Images) the one that struck me the most was the following:

link here

These images of the event (statuette thrown at Italian Prime Minister) drew parallels in my mind with the show throwing of George Bush. The image was generated by the French Press (AFP) and was found on the BBC website.

Technical Perspective:
-appears to be carefully constructed/ composed/ positioned.
-probably taken by digital camera
-although it holds similar characteristics of creative photo libraries such as Getty images, used by various news sources for manipulation into an editorial context, the image I think is in fact an editorial image, which was taken with a specific context/ news event in minds. This I think is primarily done with the cultural figurine of the PM which was created out of a cultural/social context.
-created out of Christian context (in this case, a "highly" Christian Italy)
-taken by photo journalist, by a photo journalism agency, the Agence France-Presse
-it functions on many layers as it acts as an image of an image. An image of a cultural and political setting (politics vs. religion).
-the figure has obviously been placed out of context as the out-of-focus background shows that there are not other figures like him, that it is in fact originally a shop of nativity figures.

Political Perspective
-its comedic nature reflects a negative parody-like perspective of the Italian PM, as he is put in the same context of a laughable toy or a cartoon.
-reveals a Christian background of the story. Putting the PM's actions in direct contrast with "Italian" Christian ideologies. Is Italy and its "rulers" truly Christian?
-the producer paints a controversial image and implied statement as they present the news worthy figure in place of baby Jesus who is suppose to be the central figure and focus of the current time of the event, the time in which lent and Christmas are celebrate. But the image seems to highlight cultural phenomenon of other figures replacing Jesus' spotlight.

Cultural Perspective
-the image requires a specific cultural understanding of its context in order to understand the meaning. Hence this image seems to be made for an Italian audience, and maybe as far as a western audience
-a place not driven by western media and culture may not identify the Christian nativity scene. Also, without the knowledge of the news event, someone may not understand the subversive commentary that is possibly being made
-it appears that the image reflects a shared negative view of the Italian PM
-taken from the BBC, it likewise seems to put forth the idea that Britain too sides with the ideas and attitude presented in the image.

--Thomas Zukowski

FINAL SKETCH & Sonic Outlaw Questions

With the Olympics coming soon. This image allowed me to reflect on the previous Olympics in Beijing. Before the start of the Olympics Interpol warned of possible terrorist threats at the Olympic Games. People wonder how a communist and military operated country can host something such as the Olympics. The Olympics are supposed to bring the world together for sport and spectacle. During this time athletes and officials were on high alert because of the fear of attack on China from outside terrorist groups and pro-Tibet protesters. This image is a great representation of how the host country cannot allow any signs of weakness for a couple of weeks for sport and fun, yet it will continue to instill fear in visitors and athletes that visit. To show control and strength.

SONIC OUTLAWS “NEGATIVELAND” (1995)

1. Would today’s music industry be classified under the same category as the case in Sonic Outlaw, with many so-called musicians using previously created material?

2. Could culture jamming still be successful in these modern times with the advent of technology and various tools to create what we want and how we want?

3. With today’s culture, is there more freedom to do what we want or more restriction due to the large corporations keeping watch and control so that they do not lose anything?

4. As an artist in today’s society, are there more restrictions put on oneself due to all the legal issues and the effects ones work will have on society?

5. Can mixing also be seen as sampling, if one samples and creates a narrative piece, is one still committing a crime or is it considered a new form of art?

6. If culture jamming still exists or elements of it, can it be carried out through any of the mediums artists use today? If so, how is it successful?

7. Are copyrights implemented to protect the work of the artists or the financial gain of the corporations involved?

8. Can what people are able to achieve today, be considered art, and does art have limitations or are the limitations put on by the art itself?

9. Does asking permission to use previous work cancel out the copyright law that one must strictly follow?

10. Is online activism the end for today’s culture jamming or just a catalyst?

How do you sum up something which has helped to open your mind?

"So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?” Pink Floyd said it best in their song titled, “Wish you were here.” It’s not that you can’t tell Heaven from hell or blue skies from pain, but life itself is deceiving in the facts that anything bad can happen at the most wonderful moments in time as to anything amazing can happen at the worst of times since life has no direction. With the idea of that comes the understanding, “Life is what you make it” and there is no other way of looking at life then through that single saying. Things happens everyday in life which allow good or bad to come into our lives day after day, hour after hour but life isn’t as easy as it sometimes makes itself out to be and with that is the understanding that life really is what you make of it and how you deal with it. For example, someone who loses a loved one can look at it from two different positions, one being self sorrow, not wanting anything from anyone and not allowing anyone into their lives which causes a disruption in a person’s regular life. This can be seen through drug addiction as well as other forms of a person’s downfall (depression, etc) but then again there is always the opposite. The person who uses all the bad in life to gain and to do well, where more and more bad is more of a push for this type of person to better themselves in life. Whereas an example of this would be someone who loses a loved one but uses the pain and sorrow for better to achieve greater goals and to do things which one might have thought was not possible at one point. The harsh reality in life is that anything is possible, anything is achievable and anything can be done. Where there’s a will, there’s a way and where there is a way there is something that can be achieved based on a persons mind set and life being lived. The same is said for artists anyone who is on this earth for that matter. Some of the best artists of all time showed there true colours during the hardest times of their lives, these are the artists well known to us today whether it be through any medium such as photography, music, film etc.

With that being said, let’s have a cigar, sit back and enjoy what life has coming for us because life is something we have to do and if anyone was to do the impossible, it was a group which people did not want to see achieve anything.

They did not do the impossible, they achieved the impossible.

Which is exactly what everyone needs to start doing.

"Come in here, Dear boy, have a cigar.
You're gonna go far,
You're gonna fly high,
You're never gonna die,
You're gonna make it, if you try;
They're gonna love you.
Well I've always had a deep respect,
And I mean that most sincere.
The band is just fantastic,
that is really what I think.
Oh by the way, which one's Pink?"

- Pink Floyd - Have A Cigar

Paolo Macchiusi

10 Questions - Sonic Outlaws

1. Are there teachable techniques involved in mixing? How difficult are they to learn?

2. Do the dangers outweigh the ventures? How much do mix artists worry about getting sued?

3. Where are these guys now? Still remixing? What work are they doing now in remixing, if any?

4. Will their art and the controversy it stirs be used to actively change copyright laws, or just critique them?

5. Can there be clear legal distinction between parody and mix?

6. Is internet the best medium/technology to use/display mix art today?

7. Is this a form of 'cyber-hedonism'? What about the risk that the technique overshadows the message?

8. Plunderphonics - political art or art made politically?

9. Does remix art have a shelf life now that remix is becoming a popular, marketable form?

10. Is it even possible to reach an audience large enough to influence due to legal status of mixing? Does reaching a mass audience make the artform too dangerous, law-wise?

Final Project Slideshow

Final Sketch (Image)

If you're a regular reader of the National Post, you probably recognize this photo from recent news. Published December 7th 2009, this photo is of two young entrepreneurs who are changing the way in which investors do business. Essentially they're offering real-time stock quotes for free and profiting from selling advertising space. Initially this photograph probably doesn't catch your eye as something important or even meaningful. To be honest, it didn't even catch me eye until I decided to take a deeper understanding of what it could represent.

Technically this image was captured and perhaps even constructed. It is of two young men in business suits looking out. At first it looks as if these men have been photographed without their knowing. It looks almost as if they have been photographed while walking. A closer look at it, we can see what it looks as if they have been photographed from another space completely. We can see the reflection off the glass that seems to indicate these men were photographed while looking out to the busy city.

Culturally this image could represent many things. Things that have become so normalized into our thinking. The obvious fact that we think: Serious men, who do business, wear suits. Secondly: Serious men, who do business are caucasian. While I do understand that the two men in charge of this business are in fact

caucasian, would it have meant anything different if it were two oriental men? Are two men in casual

clothing?

I think culturally this photograph provides nothing different then what is the normal. It does not stand out and

probably doesn't stand out to you either. But why is that? Perhaps because it is a photograph of what we

have collectively understood to be the normal for Business in Western Society?

-------

10 questions regarding Sonic Outlaws is posted earlier.

Final Sketch

The picture I have chosen is taken from a Danish newspaper called Politiken. It shows a hooded person lying on the ground cowering, while another dark dressed person is about to kick the lying person in the stomach. The room behind the two persons are bare, raw and discomforting, and in the top of the image you can see a homemade sign that says: " Police - politi". The image has been distributed as a part of the large media storm around the climate summit in Copenhagen happening right now, and Politiken has a whole page just for climate matters.

The image is followed by an article about how activists are training to meet the confrontations with police, and how to protect themselves from police violence. The person kicking is actually an American activist who shares her knowledge from previous actions to Danish activists. Much of the writing concerning the summit evolves around the expected confrontations between activists and police and the participants of the summit.
Politically I think it is interesting, because it is a set-up image showing a play, but with strong iconic reference to the reality of police violence - which is big in Denmark for some reason... As a Danish person I have seen numbers of image and audiovisual material documenting police brutality towards peaceful (and not so peaceful) activists and demonstrants, and It's interesting to see that on the header of the story the homemade sign, signifying that this is a staged image, has been cut off. It is not until later that you see the whole picture that you realize its context.

Culturally the staging and reconstructive nature of the image is also interesting. Again it is because this image of authoritative power and abuse of hierarchical structures within a society relies upon our prior knowledge of similar situations. The message of this picture would easily be recognized by anyone who have faced struggle against a ruling power, but without the context of the text, it is impossible to know that this is actually just a precaution, a way of anticipate the violence that might occur later on.

Taken from: http://politiken.dk/klima/Topmode_i_Kobenhavn/article855207.ece

Questions for film:
1. In a present world where there is a mental pollution of pictures and statements as never before, is culture jamming valid? Or is it just another effect of pictoral confusion that hinders the human brain from coming up with an alternative to the present order of the world? (Quote from adbusters blog: "Mental pollution is not just an annoyance; it is a tool in our oppression".)

2. If, as McLuhan says, the media is the message, is the message then the most important thing in culture jamming? (Because I think the "aesthetics" or whatever was blurring the message of Sonic Outlaws quite a bit)

3. The biggest and most confusing source of information today is the Internet. How will online activism get their message through by using the same means as e.g. commercial interests? Is this a powerful enough tool or will it just drown in this stream?

4. The U2 guys spent a lot of time in the movie talking about their own private war against copyright. Would this form of "culture jamming" be irrelevant today when a vast majority of the population downloads? Would their fight have been more meaningful if it was addressing a bigger group of jammers/users (and not so much themselves as individuals), as we see pirates fight today in their struggle for free sharing? Or is this a matter of time period?

5. How can you prevent the practice of street art and culturejamming from being just another trend in the world of hipsterdom? More radical methods?

6. Is online activism a stone in the shoe for real-life activism? Is any activism useful or is the illusion of "doing a difference" sending an email to Amnesty or joining a group on facebook the very things that kill the involvement and development of activism in real life? (What Nick and Tom correctly called Cyber-activism vs. Cyber-hedonism!!)
7. To what extent can civil disobedience be justified? I went to a party in DK - a "taking back the streets of the dead inner city" party, which ended up in people crashing store-windows, vandalizing old listed buildings and steeling from "evil capitalists" of consumerism. No understanding from the public, obviously. Do you have an obligation to communicate your message clearly if you make a statement involving civil disobedience - or is that a part of the (anarchist) statement? (I don't dare to answer that...)

8. Is it possible to create some sorts of guidelines or structures in order to make online activism/culture jamming (when I write activism I mean tactical use of media and art and thereby also jamming - I just want to look at it in a broader perspective) more efficient? E.g. provide and develop searching engines that list relevant and critical information over crap and entertainment? (Also, I really liked the previously mentioned presenters "cyber activist manifesto"!)

9. A culture jammer like ZEVZ captivates a billboard model and claims a reward in order to "set her free". Abstractly, does this call for a captivation of the present advertising culture? What is more efficient: Jamming already existing "artworks" of advertising (AD's think their work is art, which it often also is..) or creating something new?

10. How can you foster a tighter collaboration between social movements of resistance in order to gain (ultimately) the same goal of changing the present state of the world?

RE: SONIC OUTLAWS

10 Questions:
1. Is it harder to culture jam in today's world of technology? Would culture jamming be as succesful in the vast cyber world of the internet?
2. Is culture jamming still a viable technique or is it a fatigue/exausted method?
3. Is art that holds intellectual property rights for it, truly a piece of art? (because I think it's safe to say that art and our entire culture is developed from the past?
4. If culture and art is off limits, how does that impact the quality and content of future art forms and culture?
5. Does culture jamming on the interent hold the same amount of power as for example disrupting the air waves of the radio or television?
6. with the immergence of the internet, is cuture more controlled or less controlled?
7. Is art off limits?
8. What happens to culture of the future when the public domain becomes privitized and limited by corporate copyright?
9. Is culture jamming of today (youtube) more effective than negativeland's culture jamming in radio broadcasted music?
10. Is culture jamming a proactive method to changing the culture and the power held by the corporations that 'own' that very culture? Does culture jamming have the power to draw enough attention to change the laws that lock up culture?

-Thomas Zukowski

Cyberactivism Presentation (Tom & Nick)

link here
-let me know if it works or not

RE: SONIC OUTLAWS

I wasn't too sure if this was still to be done or was expected to be done a couple weeks ago, but I decided to give it a shot anyway! The Question: Ask 10 questions which address the gap between this film (1995) and current jamming practices (i.e. online practices) in 2009.

1. What is the role that technology plays in culture jamming?

2. Has technology allowed for the expansion of who can participate in culture jamming?

3. Has this effected the way in which culture jamming can be critical?

4. Has culture jamming lost all meaning?

5. What is the role of that corporations and institutions play in culture jamming?

6. Can corporations and institutions now benefit from this?

7. What is the relationship between Copyright and Creativity?

8. Are Corporations just as accountable as individuals?

9. Who is now subject to witness culture jamming?

10. Are these witnesses connected with corporations and institutions?