CatFish Analysis

Lance Dodd

Media Lit-Com155-133

Spring 2011

Catfish Analysis

            Catfish is a very interesting movie. At its core the movie shows the power of current democratized media. Using platforms like Facebook a person can adopt whatever persona a person wants. In the movie Catfish, Angela Faccio is able to take on the role of her younger daughter Megan Faccio. She is even able to produce paintings and claim that it is the work of her young daughter Abbey. The movie also forecasts the dangers of the amorphous and anonymous nature of the online world. When people can be anybody, how can you trust who is who? Nev established a relationship with an entire family without ever knowing who they really are; he developed deep feeling for a woman he has never met.

            In a way Nev represents a majority of us. When we go to sites like Facebook, we have a tendency to take things at face value. When we are interacting with people either online or in real life, unless they are acting suspicious we do not over analyze what a person says. What happened to Nev is an example as to what Andrew Keene thought was wrong with Web 2.0. Andrew Keene believed that the onset of Web 2.0 severely impaired factual integrity. The intermediaries that made sure information was true do not exist. People are able to say things and they are presented as fact. Angela was able to present herself as anyone without anyone being able to dispute it. Only through Nev’s Facebook detective work was he able to find out the truth.  

            However, I do not believe that democratized media should be done away with. On the contrary despite the events in the movie, I believe that it is to everyone’s benefit that people have a voice. That they can craft whatever identity they want in order to get their message across. Sometimes anonymity is a good thing, as it allows you to state your case without fear of reprisal. However, people like Angela can abuse the system, even if it was not malicious. Putting Andrew Keene’s fear aside, I believe there can be a middle ground.  People can craft their own identity, but everyone should be careful and aware that people may not be who they say they are.

Exit though the Gift Shop

Lance D odd
Media Lit
Spring 2011
Exit through the Gift Shop

Exit through the Gift Shop is a documentary made by the world renowned street artist Banksy. The movie starts off with Thierry Guetta, mutton chopped Frenchman who is living in Los Angeles, who obsessively films everything he does. He believes that all moments are important and should be saved for prosperity. As Thierry films everything around him, he begins to follow a street artist by the name of Invader. As Thierry follows Invader, he is eventually introduced to the artist Shepard Fairy, who is best known for his Obey art as well as for images of our current president. Eventually, Thierry begins filming the emerging world of street art. Thierry begins to film multiple street artists. As Thierry progresses though the street art world, he eventually meets Banksy. Banksy approves of the documentary that Thierry is creating, and wants him to put it together. However, the source tapes to Thierry’s film are lost amongst the scattered and unlabeled tapes of his life. When Thierry finally presents his documentary to Banksy, it is an incoherent mess. Banksy takes the camera and tells Thierry to become an artist. Soon Thierry himself becomes the new subject of the documentary as the audience sees the creation of Mr. Brain Wash, the street name Thierry calls himself.
The film becomes quite fascinating as we see the progression of the film and Mr. Brainwash. After witnessing one of Banksy’s art galleries in London, Thierry tries to follow suit. He creates an image of himself and posts himself all over Los Angeles and gaining some notoriety, he begins work on his art exhibit. However, Thierry instead of creating his own work, but instead outsources much of the work to other artists. In fact during the art show the other artists even have to place Thierry’s work on the wall because he is too distracted. As the gallery draws closer, Mr. Brainwash (Thierry) becomes arrogant and full of himself. Despite the success of the art gallery, the movie shows audiences how quickly art can be commercialized, and reduced to dollars and cents. Thierry does not practice to become an artist, but instead works off the ideas of others. He follows a sort of pattern in to becoming a famous street artist. The viewers are left wondering how meaningful street art, or any art truly is, and how we define how much that art is worth. The movie proves that anti-establishment art can become part of the establishment.
Does the fact that the work is illegal change the meaning of the work? Does it weaken or empower it?
I believe the fact that the work is illegal does impact the work, and in fact empowers it. People have a certain attraction to anti-establishment/subversive work. We are fascinated by the mindset of the artist and excited by the prospect of seeing something new. Overall, the illegality of street art creates a mystery that people want to know more about.

Live Tracing

Original Picture

Traced Image

Vector Logo

Logo

Andrew Keene Responses

Andrew Keene defines democratized media as content that is both created by the masses and consumed by them as well. Keene has several problems with democratized media and Web 2.O in general. Keene believes that the democratization of the media ultimately undermines truth, sours the civic discourse, and belittles the expertise and talent of individuals. What Keene refers to as the Web 2.0 revolution is in his opinion delivering superficial observations of the world around us, instead of the critical analysis we may have been used to in the past.
Also, Keene goes on to say that user generated content is decimating our “cultural gatekeepers” as the expertise of professional critics, journalists, and editors are being replaced by amateur bloggers. Basically Keene is exposing the idea that there is so much unfiltered information circulating on the internet that the purveyors of actual verified information (professionals) are getting lost in the shuffle. According to Keene the Web 2.0 revolution is a maelstrom of useless information involving less reliable news and less culture. In what Keene talks about as a flattened editor- free world, independent bloggers, podcasters, etc… can post their amateur creations at will with no form of fact checking. In the end, Keene advocates that democratized media is diluting our culture, we as a society cannot tell the good content from the bad.

Answer to Question 2.
The difference between Andrew Keene and David Rushkoff’s view of social media is that Keene believes that social media is not really a good thing. Keen believes that social media in the unfiltered state that Web 2.0 allows it to be is useless information. Social media is unverified and thus untrustworthy. Keene thinks that because of the anonymity that the internet provides anybody from corporations, to biased political commentators can create a post and call it news. However, David Rushkoff on the other hand is more cautiously optimistic about social media, but he believes that ultimately social media is good if used responsibly. I think I lean more towards Rushkoff’s view on things. Keene outright distrusts social media, but Rushkoff sees the potential.


Here is an article about amateurs written by Ruskoff

Comments

I posted on Matt's, Vicky's, and Becky's blogs.