For my blog post, I’m focusing on an episode of a television show which depicts this same sort of commercialization and incorporation of art: “Fifteen million merits”. The television show depicts a dystopian society where people ride bikes all day to earn money, which they spend on various forms of entertainment. The protagonist meets a girl and falls in love with her singing voice. He uses his entire life’s savings to purchase her a ticket to a spot on a futuristic equivalent to “America’s got talent”, hoping that she will get discovered and turned into a celebrity, and is distraught when she is offered, and accepts, a job making pornographic videos instead. Upset at the system, the man goes back to the bikes and earns enough merits for another audition on the same show. On live television, he draws out a sharpened shard of glass, and, threatening to commit suicide, demands that the audience listen to an impassioned rant against the system, urging the audience to reconsider their lives. The judge, apparently impressed, offers him a weekly television show. The last scene of the episode sees the protagonist, finishing a recording of a similarly passionate rant, places the shard of glass into an ornate case and goes back to an apparently luxurious life. Other workers, still working hard on their bikes, watch his video and receive an emotional fix.

The question which has always struck me when watching this episode is how? How did the system manage to so thoroughly support his message?

The more boring explanation is raw capitalism: the protagonist, however strong his convictions may have been, was always willing to ‘sell out’ for a good enough offer. But there is something about this interpretation that rings false: the man’s determination was consistently presented as real, not cynical: he was very willing to go through with suicide to get his message out there.

The other interpretation is more disturbing. The protagonist, even when recording a mass-distributed television show, did feel and express authentic emotions. It was the system itself that was so resilient that it was able to incorporate any emotion, including the emotion of revolution against the system, and, by working it into it’s framework, incorporate it any grow stronger.

(My apologies for the late blog post: I looked for an email, but I didn’t realize that it was posted on here when we didn’t get an email about it)

I think the concept of counter-revolutionary culture is interesting in the context of film, music, and television. Many times that art is viewed as revolutionary it is quickly appropriated and cast into the mainstream, whether it be art, television, or movies. Therefore it seems that all forms of art are always trying to outrun the quick monetization and conversion towards popular culture or ultimately accept the fate of their of being thrust into the popular culture.

Technology has somewhat freed artists from certain constraints in terms of limits placed on them by structures such as record labels. Platforms such as SoundCloud and the relative ease through which individuals can edit music allows music artists to produce music with greater freedom than ever before.

I also find the concept of revolutionary art interesting because of who deems the art revolutionary at different points. Are critics who ultimately establish the consensus of revolutionary art part of the elite or are they considered organic intellectuals that can determine whether art is truly revolutionary. Therefore is art revolutionary only until the point it is deemed as such?

The art world is often dominated by its own tendency to overvalue drawings and paintings by famous (often white, male, and dead) artists. Too often, new, relevant, and striking pieces by lesser-known artists are overlooked in favor of pieces which attract more attention from the name next to the piece rather than the work itself. In art history classes, students are taught which pieces they should treasure, taught to value the past importance of a piece more than critically evaluating its place in modern times. For example, Picasso’s work was rebellious and revolutionary almost 100 years ago, strongly contrasting the accepted styles of that time, though his work viewed in a modern context seems to fall flat, as most view the work to be great simply because it is a “Picasso” and his styling has been copied and reworked in so many ways in the following 100 years that in this period the Picasso work in itself seems cliché, having completely lost its original meaning.

The exhibits at the Clark museum in Williamstown are a prime example of reinforcing the hegemony of art culture. If you’ve seen their latest exhibit “Drawn to Greatness” you’ve seen the featured gallery filled with brief sketches and seemingly mediocre works, though selected because of the “greatness” behind the name of the artists. All of the names, from Picasso to Pollock to Cezanne to Degas framed along the walls, though only brief sketches or studies for other works. As I walked through on the opening night of the gallery, I asked myself whether I would like these pieces at all if the name tags weren’t right beside them or whether if a simple unknown artist based in Williamstown had produced these exact pieces whether they would’ve had any chance to land in the Clark.

The truth is, the Clark doesn’t have shows which feature local artists—I’ve asked the front desk and they laughed, informing me that the majority of the work they show is over a century old. It’s an institution reinforcing the hegemony of the art world, in that only a few artists ever “are discovered” (due to extreme branding and marketing), at which point their pieces are sold to economic elites (though those responsible for marketing and contracting the art get a fair share of the profit), then for centuries after the rise of the artist, economic elites display the pieces as a symbol of wealth and reinforce the brand of the artist in order to sell the pieces again for a larger profit (at this point the profits stay within the class of economic elites). In example, in 2006, Hollywood entertainment mogul David Geffen, currently worth $8.4 billion, sold Jackson Pollock’s “Number 17A” for $200 million to hedge fund manager Kenneth Griffin. At this point, Jackson Pollock had been dead and buried for 50 years, and the piece had lost its original meaning as the meticulous release of pain and suffering for Pollock and turned into a status symbol for elites. Meanwhile countless starving artists produce sharp, engaging, and provocative pieces which go largely unseen and receive little recognition in comparison to the works of a few over-glorified artists.

Though art is an expressive and potentially revolutionary medium, we often see those in power (socially and economically) like the Clark museum feed into the act of over-glorifying the pieces of dead, white men while passing over new pieces from lesser known artists. Collectors and museums and even art studio and art history professors have the opportunity to change this dynamic by seeking out new artists to feature rather than regurgitate what they’ve been taught is “valuable art”. With the rise of social media, we also see many artists overriding the known system of the art world by gaining online fan bases, though it is largely seen in small drawings and paintings. It remains difficult to represent the textures and in-person effects of larger paintings online, thus in the world of paintings, the hegemony of the art world reigns supreme.

Although i am no business expert.. I’m sure most of us have at least in one way or another heard about how cryptocurrencies are taking the financial world by storm. In my very limited capacity, I’ve understood this as a form currency that can be exchanged by different people without the interference of a centralized governing power. In doing this, the privacy of those involved is concealed and the government cannot have any direct influences on this market. Considering this, one can understand why banks and government have been slow to fully adopt their societies because of the lack of control that they would be able to maintain on society if they let this go on unregulated. This is why we continue to see banks and even some governments put in place several impediments that slow the growth of this sector. Looking at this made me drew parallels with the difficulties that come with trying to really shake the system and also see if cryptocurrencies will have a future…

Artists in the music industry, while not shackled to signing a deal by just one singular, hegemonic record label, are constrained by the fact that they must be signed somewhere in order to have success. Although these record labels give these artists a platform to universally sell their music, they take a healthy portion of profits while also having an influential hand—if not the most influential—in the actual creative process of making music. In essence, most artists end up feeling trapped. They are torn between wanting to maintain complete creative autonomy over their own music, and wanting to be signed to a label in order to increase their chances at having monetary/billboard success. This is a common dilemma for artists in the music game, and the problem is amplified even more for up-and-coming stars, who labels tend to exploit due to their lack of experience and established fan base.

Nonetheless, one musician is challenging this hegemonic process by electing to remain independent from record labels altogether. Chance the Rapper is one of the biggest names in the music industry today, and the fact that he is so popular grants him an immense amount of influence. He has turned down multiple offers from different labels throughout the years, choosing to maintain in control of his own music and branding. He has made multiple references to this decision in his songs, stating, “labels told me to my face that they own my friends.” This reference, along with others, has stirred up some backlash from certain labels, as some of them have refused to allow Chance work with some of their artists (thus only further validating the above line). While this method of climbing the music ranks is definitely unorthodox, Chance’s proving that it is in fact possible could lead other artists to attempt to remain independent in the future, which may lead to the fall of these hegemonic industries.

In the 1960s, a group of African American students at UCLA created a collective of films, unlike most had seen before, which would be coined as the LA Rebellion. With sporadic plots and symbolism, the L.A. Rebellion featured films such as Killer of Sheep by Charles Burnett that utilized neorealist influences and jazz music. With the cinematic arena being whitewashed, the L.A. Rebellion was as a vessel for change in the movie industry. The films contributed to the depathologization of black music, the deepening of a positive societal image of blackness, and as opposition to a epidermalized cinematic industry. The L.A. Rebellion combatted hegemonic holds that white actors and white movies had on cinematic arena. In some respects, the L.A. Rebellion was more of a reformist movement than a revolution because of the fact that the film collective did not look to desolate the entire industry but rather expose and thus uplift film from dishonest, negative black representation. The students created an awareness to the way film represents black culture which has since helped to create a more racially accepting industry.

However, even through their efforts we can see black films like Boyz n The Hood still being the standard for popular black film in the U.S. It is not until recently that we see films such as Black Panther and A Wrinkle in Time that feature consistently positive and honest black representation. Looking at the movement through Gramsci’s lense it is clear that the L.A. Rebellion was lacking a organic intellectual. Sure they could make all the revolutionary films they wanted, but without a vessel in which to bridge the elitist, white cinematic community to the L.A. Rebellion filmmakers and their “radical” works, they effectively preach to the choir. Once cannot force another to watch a film let alone appreciate its message, especially if that message is politicized and racialized. Gramsci would argue that the L.A. Rebellion could have be far more effective for black cinema if it had an OI.

Each year on November 8^th, thousands of the best high school basketball players sign their National Letter of Intent, officially handing over their rights to the NCAA. While many Division I basketball players receive a full scholarship to attend their respective university, the NCAA prohibits athletes from seeking compensation for the use of their names, images or likenesses in television broadcasts, video games, and memorabilia sales. Additionally, besides for their scholarships and meager stipends, athletes are prohibited from being compensated by their university. Additionally, last year, the NCAA posted $1.1 billion in revenue, while individual high major basketball programs often see tens of millions in annual revenues themselves.

Participating in college basketball, which effectively economically disenfranchises players from profiting from their own likeness, has become a “common sense” form of hegemonic domination. When high school coaches refer to “playing at the next level”, they are ubiquitously referencing playing in the NCAA. While the vast majority of college athletes will never have a marketable enough image for the NCAA rules to have a significantly negative economic effect on them, for “Blue Chips”, or the top players in each graduate class, this rule is highly unprofitable. In the United States, the NCAA has hegemony over the sport of basketball, especially since the NBA shut out the best high school athletes from being able to turn professional straight from high school, with the institution of “Article X” in 2005.

However, one dad is attempting to tear down the entire model that the NCAA has dominated for decades. Led by the bombastic, outlandish, and imposing patriarch, Lavar, the Ball family has taken the basketball world by storm. Not only has Lavar figured out how to dominate the mainstream news cycle, but his merchandising company, Big Baller Brand, has achieved extraordinary success.  While the oldest Ball son, Lonzo, took a traditional route, playing through high school and one year at UCLA before making it to the NBA, Lavar Ball calculated that it would be in his two younger sons’ best interest to fully circumvent the NCAA. By avoiding the restrictive NCAA, and placing his sons LiAngelo and LaMelo in a professional league in Lithuania, the two younger Ball brothers have been able to use their popularity to sell Big Baller Brand merchandise with a surprising amount of success. While LiAngelo and LaMelo’s basketball skills are debatable, their celebrity is undeniable, as they have amassed 2.3 million and 3.6 million Instagram followers respectively. Though it is unclear whether or not they will spark a “revolutionary” trend, their actions can certainly be characterized as counter-hegemonic.

“Citizenfour” is a prime example of a pictorial depiction of a counter state movement. The documentary chronicles Edward Snowden’s process, incentive, and aftermath to releasing classified NSA surveillance on the American people. Edward Snowden is a name that lives in infamy in the United States because he conspired against the American Government after learning the degree to which intelligence officers invaded the privacy of American civilians to spy on them for the sake of national security.

As a documentary, “Citizenfour” represents counter-establishment because its a subversion of the government to reveal the truth. Snowden started a movement where the public sought greater transparency and liability within the branches of government. Snowden managed to make a state vulnerable by exposing its clandestine operations–– his goal was to exploit the paradox of government surveillance of its people in a liberal democracy.

How does the state respond when it feels threatened? How does the state regain control over its populace when its broken their trust? Although the Snowden case is a contentious issue in the United States due to the national security circumstances at the time, I would argue that Snowden’s actions were revolutionary because of the instability it created with the Government and its people. In some respects, his actions can be seen as a reformist type of revolution because he wasn’t trying to dismantle the governmental system but to expose it. It catalyzed a period of awareness and hyper-sensitivity among the American people which has since changed the way the Government navigates its tactical surveillance in the name of national security. Snowden makes me think about the applicability of Gramsci’s organic intellectual. He conjures up the narrative of a modern organic intellectual because he is both a participant in elite American politics and government as well as living his life as an American citizen. He understands the desires and necessities for the Government to respect the privacy of Americans because he fit the demographic of who the Government was surveilling. Yet he was also an agent of the American government therefore understanding the knowledge and premise of what the NSA was trying to accomplish. His awareness of how the State was surveilling the American people and understanding the American civilian psyche helped him make an informed decision about how to effect change from within the system.

As in most fields, the rise of the internet and computing technology has upended the music industry in unfathomable ways. Over our lifetimes, the power record companies held over musicians and their work has dissipated into thin air; however, new forces such as Spotify  and Apple music (or any other streaming platform) have established an entirely new hegemony within the industry. Think about it, how much music do we really pay for anymore?

The flat monthly fee many of us (myself included) pay for access to a streaming service leaves artists making less than one cent per single stream of their work. Despite neglecting fair compensation for artists and their work, streaming on the internet has become the standard unit of the music industry. Just about everything an artist does today is designed to help them maximize the amount of clicks on their content. Record label offices once dedicated to getting music on the radio, on television, or in the movies are now hubs of social media experts whose mission is to increase their artists’ followers. Artists themselves fall prey to the “common sense” created by the industry’s shift that devalued music by simply giving away tons of free content to remain fresh in the feeds of whatever social media app they want to increase their presence on. The popularity of streaming platforms and their consumer friendly costs have established a hegemony upon the music industry in which the actions of artists are sharply circumscribed by the market’s desire to maximize access to musical content while minimizing its cost.

There are bands and artists that buck these trends to an extent. Perhaps counter hegemonic, jam bands like Phish, the Grateful Dead, and young bands like Vulfpeck represent a possible challenge to consensus and the integrity of “the horizon of the taken-for-granted.” Phish and the Dead cultivated large fan bases dedicated to enjoying live music that looks, sounds, and feels different every single night that forces fans (though they oblige willingly) to put money directly in the pockets of those they love. Vulfpeck’s brilliant 2014 album of all silence called “Sleepify,” released with a message telling their then small fanbase to stream the album during their sleep to fund a free tour, grossed over $20,000 before Spotify took the content down (more than enough to fund the short tour).

However, its tough to say if these are truly counter-hegemonic actions because they have been absorbed by the music industry. Phish and the Dead’s willingness to let fans tape and distribute shows (first through analog processes but later through the early internet in the 90s) is the very basis of streaming services now. Vulfpeck mastered crowd funding long before it started becoming more popular. Maybe the willingness of the industry to usurp their methods should be a measure of success for these counter-hegemonic practices. However, it also suggests that the industry’s hegemony over the masses is more powerful than previously understood since it can continuously adapt its practices to maintain profits while appeasing listeners.

Within the UN, there has been a growing challenge to Western power by the BRICS countries, economically and politically, for as the BRICS countries increasingly develop economically, they have been able to shift the balance of power, thereby challenging Western hegemony. The UN, as a bastion of Western neoliberal ideology, was instituted with the rise of American hegemony and has been viewed as largely furthering Western interests and ideas of rule of law, market economies, and human rights in the name of peace. However, given the disparities in the ability and willingness–economically, politically, militarily, etc.–to implement and enforce such policies, many developing countries have begun to form an oppositional bloc to Western powers, namely the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe.

This is has manifested itself in terms of resistance to Western financial institutions and free trade policies, which are viewed as propagating Western interests at the expense of the economic well-being of developing countries, and instead have advocated for policies that relax free trade provisions, and environmental and labor standards for developing countries. Also part of the growing counter-hegemonic narrative of the BRICS countries is evident in the divergence in the interpretation of human rights and on how and when they should be implemented within countries. The West espouses a very different doctrine of human rights, particularly concerning civil and political rights, than do BRICS and developing countries, whose emphasis is almost always on economic and cultural rights with at times blatant disregard for civil and political rights. This is particularly evident through the East Asian understanding of human rights put forth by East Asian statesmen, who state that East Asian values privilege the collective over the individual, stability over conflict, welfare over freedom, and authority over self-assertion (see Bell, Nathan, and Peleg, 2001). Therefore, the Asian Values debate has produced a counter-hegemonic narrative within human rights, in which East Asian states and other developing countries that have joined the bloc, have argued for a relativist interpretation of human rights over universalism that prizes economic development, sovereignty, and political stability, such that accordingly Western human rights values long espoused and institutionalized in the UN under the UDHR, are inimical to developing countries’ priorities, cultural practices, and objectives. Thus, even though the UN is viewed as a neoliberal institution serving the interests of Western powers and propagating Western global hegemony, there has been a growing counter-hegemonic narrative put forth by the increasingly economically and politically powerful BRICS countries, which has attracted other developing countries to present a mounting counter-hegemonic discourse to Western international organizations and ideology.