Author Archives: lara minami

During the episode “Saudi Arabia” of the Netflix show Patriot Act, the Indian-American hoster, Hasan Minhaj, ironically and comedically narrates a series of events surrounding the current Saudi Arabia diplomatic crisis. He starts his performance by explaining what was the last straw, the main reason for the diplomatic conflict in Saudi Arabia – the brutal murder of the Washington post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. There was a general refusal of the American authorities, including Trump, and the public in general to believe that the killing was premeditated by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad Bin Salman, also popularly known as MBS. Previous from the occurrence, MBS was portrayed and encoded by a lot of the major media as a reformative figure due to some of his actions. MBS was responsible for lifting the ban that prohibited women from driving and the famous project vision 2030, a plan to diversify Saudi Arabia’s economy. However, even though a lot of western people saw him as a reformative, most of the population in Saudi Arabia already knew that it is not true.

In Saudi Arabia one giant family controls majorly everything, moreover, it is a country with the net worth of more than one trillion dollars, according to The New York Times. For that reason, western countries including the United States of America tries to maintain a good relationship with it. This is one of the reasons why so many media outlets constantly tried to protect MBS trying to maintain the connection with Saudi Arabia. However, the murder of the journalist is not something as unexpected or surprising as the media portrays. In 2016, MBS put his own mother in under house arrest so she couldn’t stop him from achieving the power.

The way Minhaj narrates the events it’s in a very funny and tragicomedy style, it makes you laugh, but it also makes you question. What is encoded by the media is not always what is decoded by the public. Minhaj beautifully explains that as a Muslim he access God through Saudi Arabia, so it is devastating to see those kinds of things from the authorities of the country. It does not represent his and other Muslims values, as he stated. He also explains that the main problem with the encoded/decoded messages is that Saudi Arabia is the representation of Muslims, as a result, whenever they do something wrong, it creates a stereotype for all the others. In the end, America will keep having a good relationship with Saudi Arabia due to the money, even though MBS is not a great representative. As Minhaj states in the end, “MBS is not modernizing Saudi Arabia, it is modernizing Saudi dictatorship”.

Citations

“Saudi Vision 2030.” En.wikipedia.org. N. p., 2019. Web. 22 Mar. 2019.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-unlearned-lessons-of-jamal-khashoggis-murder/2018/12/23/8584328e-0220-11e9-b6a9-0aa5c2fcc9e4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7a6cc88fe7e6

“The Jamal Khashoggi Story So Far.” BBC News. N. p., 2019. Web. 22 Mar. 2019.

By no means, one could ignore the composition One Mind, One Heart by Ian Reid. Strategically located in the Multiversity Gallery of the Museum of Anthropology (MOA), it is one of those pieces that catch the attention of the viewer immediately, even if surrounded by many other remarkable artworks. It features a big mask in the centre, painted and carved precisely, surrounded by photos of the Heiltsuk community members and a declaration against the Enbridge Pipeline Project and the oil tanker traffic in their territory. The mask is a portrayal of the ancient sea spirit ’Yágis, which is represented protecting the sacred waters of the First Nations, swallowing a super tank. The exhibition also contains an interactive component: a tablet full of videos, documents, photos, and even letters from the people in the Heiltsuk community.

The entire art piece carries deep meaning and vigorous criticism, moreover, it is precisely calculated for western people to see it. The installation’s ambition is to protest against the pipeline and the oil tanks, but much more than that, it is a “no!” to the contemporary colonization and the abuse of the First Nation’s territory. In the Museum of Anthropology, the dominance is not in the hands of the indigenous peoples, it is a westernized place, controlled by non-native authorities with an essentially non-native public. As a result, First Nations artists, find themselves in a place of duality between vulnerability and power, being able to expose their pieces and forcing the audience to see through a different perspective, however, at the same time, still being categorized and controlled by outsiders. (Kramer, 173) Ian Reid, in this context, fits Robert Houle’s definition of an artist warrior. By meaningfully choosing to display his work in the MOA, he is teaching the western community by provoking “reaction and acknowledgement”, it is an action towards social change. When he shows the point of view of not only the Heiltsuk community but the whole aboriginal nations on the pipeline project and oil traffic, it is also a way to earn repatriation, so that messages of native control and ownership can be heard, seen and witnessed by non-native people. (Kramer, 164)

Last but not least, I believe that the audience should have some knowledge in order to deeply understand how the conflicts with pipelines and oil traffic have been affecting indigenous peoples throughout the years. On the other hand, especially because it is a current news topic, I expect people to know, even if little, about it. However, even to a complete layperson, the composition is very much explanatory and exquisitely built.

Citations

Kramer, J. (2004). Figurative Repatriation: First Nations ‘Artist-Warriors’ Recover, Reclaim, and Return Cultural Property through Self-Definition. Journal of Material Culture, 9(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183504044370.

Bonar, Thane. “One Mind, One Heart exhibit at MOA” December 14, 2012 – April 28, 2013, Multiversity Galleries, Exhibit Case 23. Museum of Anthropology Web. 21 Jan. 2019.

Reid, Ian. “One Mind, One Heart”. 2012, Museum of Anthropology, Vancouver, BC.

Jodi Dean in the first chapter of his book Technology: The Promises of Communicative Capitalism makes an interesting, however, questionable appeal on how communicative capitalism and political activism through social media fail to succeed. My group, in the class debate, was designated to contradict his beliefs by arguing against Dean’s resolution “be it resolved that social media inhibits social-political change.” During our preparation, my group and investigated what would be the possible counterarguments of the other group, therefore, we would be able to provide the best rebutting. The more I researched about the topic, the more I was sure that social media is, in fact, an essential part of for a political change. We are currently living the technology revolution, a social media era, in which social platforms are not only places where one can communicate with friends and family or create networks of people, but it is also a place where people are free to start a movement, have the liberty to speak their minds, manifest their opinions to the world, be heard and debate.

Some of Dean’s arguments, however, were also very convincing and hard to argue against. He used a variety of examples to support his claims, and utilized quotes and citations from other authors to make his point persuasive. After reading his text, it is not fair to say that I entirely disagree with his arguments, however, my opinion that social media and social platforms helps democracy and political activism remain the same, even after hearing all the arguments of the other groups. Moreover, Castell’s text was helpful to my group as it provided a lot of counterarguments to Dean’s text. What’s a better example of a successful revolution that started online if not the Arab Spring? Listening to the other groups debating, as well as analyzing their reasoning and defences, lead me to think about additional explanations I didn’t think previously. For example, the assessment group for Castell’s debate stated that riots and protest online fail to provide variety, due to the fact that technology is usually restricted to those who have access to it. Nevertheless, not everyone has access to this technology, one a more specific group of economically privileged people. To sum up, the debate was very helpful and instructive on helping me mould my ideas around Dean’s and Castell’s resolutions. In the end, I stick and believe even more that technology and political changed are related and can make an effective change in the real world.

Rihanna’s and Chris Brown’s huge controversy back in 2009 was so infamous that it is considered basic pop culture knowledge. Every 00’s teen knows that the singer was violently attacked and abused by her boyfriend at the time. Photos of her disfigured face were all over the media. Chris Brown was arrested, plead guilty, and sentenced to community service. People talked about it everywhere. The polemic was so intense that the story was spoken for months, even years: In 2015, Rihanna gave an interview talking about the topic, in 2017 Chris Brown apologized in his documentary, and in March of this year the case had once again returned to the spotlight when Snapchat, a commonly used social media platform, made a dark and twisted joke about the situation.

In a “Would you rather” game-like style advert, they asked if the user would prefer to “slap Rihanna or punch Chris Brown”. Fans and people from all over the world from all kinds of social media immediately responded to the ad. They claimed that the platform wasn’t supposed to joke with that, once this subject could be delicate for people (like Rihanna) who suffered from domestic violence. The singer decided not to be quiet about it, instead, she replied to Snapchat on Instagram, stating: “Now SNAPCHAT I know you already know you ain’t my fav app out there! But I’m just trying to figure out what the point was with this mess. I’d love to call it ignorance but I know you ain’t that dumb. You spent money to animate something that would intentionally bring shame to DV victims and made a joke of it.”

As a result, Snapchat pulled the ad and put a brief apology for it, arguing that it indeed was against its violence conducts. They also claimed they would try to never make this same type of mistake again. After the scandal, the shares in the stock of the company dropped noticeably. In total, they lost approximately the possibility of making 1 billion dollars.

In this situation, the social media was not the platform that held a social dynamic, it was what incited the controversy. Due to a bad joke, Snapchat lost lots of users and potential money. Rihanna’s fans posted on twitter that they would delete the app in a way to boycott it. Snapchat making an apology and calling its own acts disgusting was not enough. In addition, once a big company like Snapchat make such mistake online, it can never be forgotten. Such experience also proves the power that digital influencers have on the mass.

If she tells me to delete snapchat I’ll do it @rihanna pic.twitter.com/yUW1UOzNc2

— Nicollette Williams (@nicollettemw) March 15, 2018

Rihanna said delete Snapchat so guess what I’m doing pic.twitter.com/XpSEry8PPY

— Agron (@Agronveliu97) March 16, 2018

Rihanna: Delete Snapchat
Me: Ok
Rihanna: And put this pound of Skittles into separate bowls by color
Me: Anything for you
Rihanna: Throw a brick through that Starbucks window
Me: Sure thing mom
Rihanna: Play me Pour It Up on the piano
Me: Will have to learn but coming right up

— Maryellen Stewart (@maryellen) March 15, 2018

Citations

“http://time.com/5201774/snapchat-stock-drops-after-rihanna-statement/,” Rihanna Called Snapchat Out For a Domestic Abuse Ad. Now Their Stock Is Dropping. Time. N. p., 2018. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

Levin, Sam, and Laura Snapes. “Rihanna Wipes $1Bn Off Snapchat After Criticising App For Making A ‘Joke’ Of Domestic Violence.” the Guardian. N. p., 2018. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

“Rihanna Controversy Costs Snapchat Big As Stock Value Immediately Drops.” HuffPost UK. N. p., 2018. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

Beaumont-Thomas, Ben. “Chris Brown Discusses Abuse Of Rihanna: ‘I Felt Like A Monster’.” the Guardian. N. p., 2017. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

“Rihanna Responds To Controversial Snapchat Advertisement: ‘Throw The Whole App-Oligy Away’.” Billboard. N. p., 2018. Web. 8 Nov. 2018.

Have you ever felt offended or uncomfortable while someone was telling you a joke? That’s not a rare feeling, right? It is widely known that comedians usually tend to discuss polemic and controversial subjects, such as obesity, mental illness, and religion. If they don’t want the public to make misconceptions, timing and context are extremely crucial. It is what separates a funny line from straight up aggression, for instance. Comedians are constantly walking on eggshells: one false step and their reputation and career can go down the drain.

Kathy Griffin went through an experience just like that in 2017. She is the living proof that a joke can be interpreted in the wrong way on social media and, as a result, change your life completely. The comedian alongside with the photographer Terry Shields posted a photo of her holding a mask with the face of Donald Trump covered in ketchup. After publishing it, she received a massive backlash. Some people thought she had joined the ISIS, others believed that it was a threat to the president. Some even believed it was an actual head covered in blood. Correspondingly, Griffin was fired from CNN’s annual New Year’s Eve coverage with Anderson Cooper, received several death threats and was even investigated by the United States Secret Service. Furthermore, the president himself responded to her on twitter claiming that she “should be ashamed of herself” and calling the image “sick”.

“Https://Ew.Com/.” EW.com. N. p., 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.

The comedian, who had performed before in Iraq and Afghanistan, never imagined that people would make that connection. She confessed that the photo was taken with the intent of provoking him. Griffin said that she “wanted to shame him for his acts against woman and the LGBT community”. She admitted she thought some people wouldn’t like the picture, as it portrays a touchy subject. However, she didn’t predict that people would take such a dark turn.

Art is subjected to the public’s interpretation. Stuart Hall, in his publication “Encoding, decoding”, claims that “what is called ‘distortions’ or ‘misunderstandings’ arise precisely from the lack of equivalence between the two sides in the communicative exchange.” Most of the times, what the author encodes in his artwork is not what the public decodes. Once you publish something on the internet it is forever there, open to new interpretations every day. Maybe Kathy Griffin was unreasonably audacious when publishing the photo. Or maybe the public was too harsh. Independently, all people should be careful when broadcasting something to the media. All three hypothetical positions must be considered: Some people may see eye to eye with your point of view, some may agree to some extent and disagree to other, and some may look at it and interpret it in a completely different way.

Citations

“Kathy Griffin Addresses The Severed Trump Head Photo Controversy.” YouTube. N. p., 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.

Chen, Joyce, and Joyce Chen. “Kathy Griffin On Trump Photo Scandal Fallout A ‘Double Standard’ – Rolling Stone.” Rollingstone.com. N. p., 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.

“Https://ew.com/news/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-apologizes-decapitated-trump-photo/.” EW.com. N. p., 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.

“Https://ew.com/news/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-trump-head-photo-tyler-shields/.” EW.com. N. p., 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.

“Https://ew.com/news/2017/05/31/donald-trump-blasts-kathy-griffin/.” EW.com. N. p., 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.

“Kathy Griffin Speaks Out One Year After Donald Trump Photo Controversy: He Didn’t Win In The Long Run.” E! News. N. p., 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.