Jan 31, 2007 - the 3rd Aniversary

[cos]

Sunday was the 3rd aniversary of the largest terrorist attack in Boston in our lifetimes.

Okay, the terrorists were cartoon characters, and the attack was a fantastical illusion in the minds of the authorities, but it shut down buildings and highways, struck fear in possibly millions of people and hysteria in the media for a while, and Boston hasn't seen a real terrorist attack to top it yet.

My reactions on that day included incredulous hysterical laughter, and mounting annoyance and dismay which, over the next few days, turned more and more into anger at the city of Boston and the state of Massachusetts (and in particular, Mayor Menino and Attorney General Martha Coakley). A week after the craziness, I put my thoughts together and posted this:

What Does Random Panic Protect Us From?

Some of you probably read that back then, or when I re-posed the link on the first aniversary. If you missed it, or if you don't remember, please re-read it... and send a copy to your representatives? Because we're still overreacting to "terrorism" in absurd and nutty ways, and many people in government do it because they assume that all of us expect and demand it, and that if they don't do it they'll lose our support.

Comments

[carik.livejournal.com]

Thanks for re-posting this. I read it the first time around, but had forgotten it.

[ceo]

That's an excellent essay.

My thoughts on the actual incident are slightly contrarian, in that while the overreaction on the part of the city and media was beyond ludicrous, if it helps this sort of corporate-sponsored faux-guerilla advertising die the quick death it deserves, at least some good will have come of it.

[cos]

Unfortunately the collateral damage is that anyone who wants to do guerilla art of any sort, corporate connections or not, will be afraid to do it here. Although I didn't use the phrase in that post, I could have: If Sidewalk Sam were just starting out now, we'd call him a terrorist.

[ceo]

Point.

[pseydtonne.livejournal.com]

Man, that is a bummer.

By the way: excellent analysis and presentation. The concrete example from Israel is very useful for conveying the scale.

[lil-brown-bat.livejournal.com]

Please. "Guerilla[sic] art". What the hell is that? Appropriating a public space (or someone's private property) to serve as the forum of your self-expression? Anyone who feels that the world is their canvas deserves to be dope-slapped, and I for one am not sorry if they're "afraid to do it".

[cos]

I would very much hate to live in a world following your maxims. Unfortunately, this world partly does.

[lil-brown-bat.livejournal.com]

So you're cool with it if I create some "guerilla[sic] art" on your car or the side of your house? You're okay with it if I "decorate" a parking sign so that it can no longer be read? You've got no problem with it if I decide that I know better than anyone what aesthetics should prevail in the public space, and impose my tastes on everyone else? You've got no problem with it if I place my "art" on a wall that other people thought was just fine the way it was? How about if I decide to bonsai all the trees in the Public Garden?

[cos]

The way you seem to view things so starkly in absolutes renders any attempts to answer you pointless, IMO. However, I do find the above comment kind of funny, FWIW. Hopefully other readers will notice the ridiculousness.

[lil-brown-bat.livejournal.com]

It's easy to label it "ridiculousness" if you've never seen it in action; that way you can deny that it exists. From my POV, you seem to view things equally starkly. I'm not sure what else to call it when you won't even engage in a discussion about limits on the expression of "art".

[cos]

I don't think there's a point in engaging in a discussion with you when you leap from drawing in chalk on a sidewalk to "OMG you want people to vandalize my property to feed their egos and not even get slapped on the wrist for it!" Sorry. You are being so far beyond ridiculous as to have banished any thought of "engagement".

[lil-brown-bat.livejournal.com]

I wasn't the one who leaped, cos -- drawing in chalk on the sidewalk was your example, not mine. I never mentioned such, but instead was talking about much more permanent forms of "expression". My point is a simple one -- that when you don't own the medium, you should think damn hard about your right to express yourself on it...and the more permanent your form of expression, the harder you ought to think. I think this is a reasonable view, but you apparently consider it "so far beyond ridiculous", so it would seem we're at an impasse.

[cos]

That is a reasonable view. If only it bore any resemblance to your earlier comments.

[lil-brown-bat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, whatever. I say you leaped to a conclusion, but have it your way.

[catness.livejournal.com]

If Sidewalk Sam were just starting out now, we'd call him a terrorist.

Er, what? Oh, wait. This bit of speciousness brought to you by someone contemplating a career in political speech writing. ;) Certainly I agree about the overreaction to the cartoonish situation 3 years ago, but public painting looks a lot different than Something Weird that Jane Q. Public has never seen. And I'm with ceo on the faux-guerilla art/advertising tip, despite your contention that guerilla art will be lost as a result. Part of me believes that if you have Real Art and such a bent, you'll try anyway (and if you don't you don't want it bad enough), and another part of me doesn't think it's much of a loss.

I think I'd better step out of the cosiverse, though, before you try to fire up my masses with more rhetoric.

[annodomini.livejournal.com]

Great post, thanks for linking it, I don't think I saw it the last time around.