Painted for my best friend who asked for something to hang on her wall as she moves interstate. It’s a favourite poem we share by William Carlos Williams, so I was really going for simple symbolism…

Two 10×10″ canvasses, hung a few inches apart.

The Red Wheelbarrow William Carlos Williams

so much depends

upon

a red wheelbarrow

glazed

with rainwater

beside

the white

chickens

]]> http://www.samuelwebster.com/portfolio/2012/01/painting-the-red-wheelbarrow/feed/ 0 http://www.samuelwebster.com/portfolio/2012/01/rubyrevue-jan2012/ http://www.samuelwebster.com/portfolio/2012/01/rubyrevue-jan2012/#comments Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:47:32 +0000 Samuel Webster http://www.samuelwebster.com/portfolio/?p=1094 Please click the smaller images to see photos full size.

All photographs are protected under copyright and remain the property of Samuel Webster. They may not be used, under any circumstances, without permission.

◄ Back

Next ►

Picture 1 of 18

The Ruby Revue / © Samuel Webster 2012. All Rights Reserved.

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

The creation and development of information is based upon processes of interaction between publishers and their audience. In the digital world, as interaction becomes more and more important, we can see a progression across three interrelated stages – reception (which involves receiving or reading information), expression (transmitting information and, in the process, forging identity), and interception (the disruption of understanding through peer review and direct opposition). Traditional forms of media have retained rigid barriers between creation and reception of information – one party engages in the dynamic process of creation, whilst the other in the passive process of reception. However, in the development of modern social media, the line between creator and receiver are in constant transience. The average internet user now enjoys a myriad of roles in the virtual world – from the active blogger to the mere observer, but in order to make the most of this engagement in the education field, we must take the existing levels of interaction and extend them into the area of community interception, where they can be challenged rigorously and strengthened as a result.

In 1938, H. G. Wells criticized the knowledge organization and access of the time as ‘“extremely ineffective” and better suited to “the horse and coaches phase of development rather than … the phase of the automobile and the aeroplane”. Universities, schools and libraries, he said, “do not enlarge their scope to anything like the urgent demands of this troubled and dangerous age. They do not perform the task nor exercise the authority that might reasonably be attributed to the thought and knowledge organization of the world” (Wells 1938, 84). He proposed a new type of “permanent world encyclopedia” or “world brain” that would link the collections of all the major libraries and universities into a worldwide network ” (Lievrouw, L. A. 2010: 222)

The first stage of online interaction is one which arrived, as expected, quite naturally. The system which H.G. Wells had wished for was not a system which defied any of the conventional means of sharing information, it merely existed on a larger scale and was internationally accessible. Though Wells believed quite strongly that open access to information would bring world peace – and he is certainly noble for such optimistic thought – his prediction was one which was limited by the time in which it was presented. It engaged with all of the traditional notions but carried none of the extended considerations which the digital age brought about. Of course, he can’t be faulted for proposing a model which stopped at the Reception stage of global learning, but his shortcomings in regards to the grander possibilities should be addressed.

H.G. Wells believed that if all human knowledge were made available in a grand vault, that the multiplicity of truth would create world peace through universal understanding. The problem with this model, which we have since discovered, is that without a method of antithesis, ideas remain in opposition with each other, judged by their exponents as true, yet never evolving through conscious debate. That is, ideas without exposure to antithesis remain as they enter, and like the public libraries of today, are merely left without update to grow stale and antiquated. The reception level must be seen as the foray into idea generation, realising that if it is considered as the only method of education, it is easily antiquated by the technology on which it is stored.

The level of interaction which builds upon the reception model is that of individual expression. In the 21st century, it may seem odd to refer to individuality as a ‘new’ form of educational technique, but we must consider it anew, due to the repetition which the birth of new technology creates. Historically, we can see other mediums which lacked the latitude for such an expansion. Two-way telephony promoted conversation, but was not a broadcast medium. Though television increased the audience for public broadcast, it was not available to the common man for such a use. With the advent of the Internet, for the first time, users had access to a potential publishing platform. Additionally, digital media has introduced the factor of anonymity to further complicate the idea of authorship and identity.

With the advent of such user based interfaces as Facebook and Twitter, publishing platforms have become commonplace and have allowed users of online resources to enjoy dual roles of producing and consuming online media. It has been observed that “The idea that Web 2.0 has blurred the lines between the producers and consumers of information, enabling any Internet user to create and share content with anyone else, has already become something of a cliché́. What may be more significant for scientific and scholarly communication, however, is that the turn to new collaborative platforms, interfaces and applications has also blurred familiar distinctions between documents and interaction. Wikis, blogs, social network sites and computer-linked research collaboratories,1 tagging and bookmarking, forums, gateways, and real-time conferencing and chat are being employed in ways that may have important consequences for scientific and scholarly communication, transforming it from a relatively straightforward process of gatekeeping, publishing, and targeted search and retrieval, into a multilayered, thoroughly socialized arena of commentary, amendment, collaboration, critique, argumentation, recombination, and recommendation (Furner 2002). In a very real sense, social media are helping to change people’s expectations about the sources, availability, and uses of information in all its forms, both in society at large and in the practice of science.” (Lievrouw, L. A. 2010: 220). It is perhaps this development that has been the most crucial in the online world – the acknowledgement that the internet is now no longer a domain where one must merely ‘receive’, but rather, it is based upon user contribution and expansion of available information. Importantly, the breadth and diversity of such information has also progressed exponentially though it was an initially slow uptake.

Though personal websites and blogs have been around for nearly fifteen years now, it is only now considered a normal pastime to engage in such methods of transmission. The term “Web 2.0″ is becoming antiquated at the very moment that it is achieving normalcy. The egalitarian flexibility of publishing on the web is enticing to those who find themselves without a voice in other scenarios and through the use of social media, we have seen the seeds of great political change sowed. On a more personal level, it has been shown that those with self-esteem deficiencies (of all magnitudes) find solace in media interaction, through para-social interaction. For example, the effect of music media upon adolescent development and perception of self has been well noted, and its impact is bittersweet. Kistler et al observe that “Music media consumption was positively associated with adolescents’ involvement with media focusing on music personae. Higher involvement was associated with perceiving the self as less physically attractive and having lower overall self-worth. Music media consumption was directly related to adolescents’ evaluations of their own romantic appeal. Results suggest that through involvement processes with music media characters, adolescents may use music media as a venue for social comparison against which they evaluate their own physical attractiveness and self-worth.” (Kistler, Rodgers, Power, Austin & Hill 2010: 616)

There are many comparisons to be made between music media consumption and social media, due to the prevalence of accessible identity in both. Interaction with these identities, however superficial, is what Kistler et al (2010) call “Para-social interaction” – interaction which lacks many of the common traits of face-to-face connection but engages with many of its pitfalls – social pressure, personal comparison and obsession.

Parasocial interaction describes a “felt interpersonal relationship with media characters that can take place during or outside the viewing episode and is related to, yet is conceptually distinct from, wishful identification and liking [...] Each of these components of involvement with characters (wishful identification, parasocial interaction, and liking) are cognitive processes associated with the interpretation of selected media content, and the presence and magnitude of each will vary with the individual and with media type. Perceiving music artists to be attractive or desirable—that is, ‘‘liking’’ the characters, is an attentional process; wanting to be like the artist (wishful identification) and feeling social connection with music or music artists (parasocial interaction) are retentional processes.” (Kistler, Rodgers, Power, Austin & Hill 2010: 619)

Indeed, the advent of social networking website, Twitter, has caused many to consider the role of narcissism in online interaction. Narcissism is the potential downside to an ultimately positive freedom – affording the individual an elevated voice and an independent pedestal. Furthermore, it has even been argued that social networking means have functioned to accentuate and intensify the broad spectrum of human qualities and characteristics – both for the better and for the worst. “The Internet reflects some of our best qualities: irreverence, vitality, excitement, and youthfulness, for instance. but Keen suggests that it also reflects many of the worst developments in modern cultural life—in particular, what he calls digital narcissism, the embrace of the self. Time magazine’s person of the year for last year was “you,” and Keen thinks that “you” is not a good person. He does not believe that the key to citizenship is personal self-expression. For him, the key to citizenship means listening and reading and consuming high-quality information and entertainment. In Keen’s view, the most corrosive element of today’s Internet is the anonymity that creates an uncivil world. We don’t behave properly and we have uncivil conversations and other unpleasantness because we don’t reveal who we are.” (Junco & Chickering 2010: 15) Despite Keen’s aggressive stance upon anonymity, interaction via Twitter seems to have evolved beyond the narcissistic. As Gayo-Avello (2011) posits: “Twitter has since evolved into a complex information-dissemination platform, especially during situations of mass convergence.” (Gayo-Avello 2011: 121) Though the abhorrence of narcissism would seem to be a valid claim by those on the outside of social media, it is one which is soon solved within the community itself. Because the users are individuals, narcissism isn’t accepted any more than it would be in regular society and continued egocentric solipsism is discouraged.

While studying the effect of social media upon change in political standpoint amongst Russians, Rimskii (2011) comments that “although communication on the Internet is mediated by technical means, it is carried on between individuals, each of whom has to decide on his membership in the community, accept its values, find his role, determine his similarities and differences, and so on. Otherwise, participation in virtual communication would be problematic; the community would reject the individual who was not able to form an identity appropriate to the community. In exchanging information, Internet users form their identity by internalizing elements that they acquire from the Internet—attitudes, perceptions, stereotypes, judgments, opinions, assessments, priorities, tastes, ways of life, characteristics of activity, and so on. In this regard, the information environment of the Internet shapes certain qualities of identity of each of its users via the procedures by which the information is selected, participation in the formation of values and the exchange of information with others, in commentaries, keeping blogs, diaries, and so on.” (Rimskii 2011: 94) This self-regulation, while ultimately dependent on the group in which the interaction is occurring, ensures that interaction reflects the goals of the overall community.

The pinnacle of the model I would present is Interception, and the term is chosen as a careful step beyond mere interaction. Interception is not simply interaction. Interaction can be garnered purely by the simultaneous connection of users. Interaction does not require solid antithesis, ongoing synthesis or the recreation of new hypothesis, as Hegel would have preferred. Instead, as Alavi and Leidner argue, “If a library can only provide books to readers, then it is just a static knowledge database; but if it can provide readers the opportunities to share and communicate with each other, then it is a dynamic knowledge sharing. With this interaction mechanism, knowledge acquiring and absorbing are not just of one direction. Alavi & Leidner (2001) sorted out some scholars’ viewpoints about knowledge. They thought that knowledge is a process that includes the creation, sharing and spread of it. Simply speaking, knowledge is a sharing process. Nickols (2003) pointed out that the advantage of a community of practice is that it can promote the interaction between members in order to create new knowledge and share out the best practicality experiences. Once the knowledge is built, community members can acquire from it and further enhance their learning activities. The knowledge sharing process can also help members develop their identifications in the community so that they would be more willing to stay. Even if someone leaves the community, the knowledge he/she once provided will not be taken away. As a result, knowledge sharing plays an important role in a library, and it is the community of practice that can provide the knowledge sharing mechanism.” (Huang, Yang, Yueh-Min & Hsiao 2010: 85).

Interception, definitively, carries a denotation of disruption or, in fact, complete interruption. Rather than being a model of collaboration, it is a model of direct ideological clash. This can occur in simple forms (peer review, editing suggestion, feedback systems) or in more complex forms (fiercely debated wiki-contribution, crowd sourced knowledge bases.) What is key to interception as a model as opposed to interaction is that it requires knowledge, not just information. “William James argued that there are two types of knowledge, the acquaintance with and the knowledge about. As he noted, “the less we analyze a thing, and the fewer of its relations we perceive, the less we know about it and the more our familiarity with it as the acquaintance-type.” Later, journalist and sociologist Robert Park extended the notion to suggest that “knowledge about” is a formal knowledge achieved through some degree of exactness and precision. However, Park suggested that news was a form of this “knowledge about” and a type of reification of ideas. I would suggest that the emphasis in our culture on celebrity encourages an acquaintance with issues, events, and people. Without in-depth news and analysis, as we have seen develop over the most recent period of media technology, we lack historical, cultural, and social context. Reading, interpreting, and thinking—what might be called reflective thought—is replaced frequently by Googling, Yahooing, or by some search engine.” (Ferri 2010: 406)

Where interaction asks for response, interception requires proof. Where interaction might be open to uneducated opinion, interception requires fierce speculation and antithesis. “…Social networking helps users locate people with shared interests and thus form CoP. Through these social platforms, collective intelligence is realized. Afterwards, people can bring different CoPs [Communities of Practice] together to form CoIs (Communities of interest) which can provide unique opportunities to bring social creativity alive by transcending individual perspectives.” (Huang, Yang, Yueh-Min & Hsiao 2010: 79) Interaction requires an active audience while Interception requires a diverse, knowledgeable Community of Practice.

It is obvious, as research continues, that there are many social dangers to Internet use amongst adolescents. However, while social media continues to be marginalized by the mainstream media, students all over the world are engaged. As thoughtful and keen educators, we must keep track of the emerging technologies, not purely for our own personal benefit, but so that we might use these tools as active methods of engagement.

Bibliography

Ferri, A. (2010). Emergence of the Entertainment Age?. Society, 47(5), 403-409. doi:10.1007/s12115-010-9351-1

The FP Survey: The Internet. (2011). Foreign Policy, (188), 1-9.

Gayo-Avello, D. (2011). Don’t Turn Social Media Into Another ‘Literary Digest’ Poll. Communications Of The ACM, 54(10), 121-128

Huang, J. S., Yang, S. H., Yueh-Min, H., & Hsiao, I. T. (2010). Social Learning Networks: Build Mobile Learning Networks Based on Collaborative Services. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 78-92

Jang Hyun, K., Min-Sun, K., & Yoonjae, N. (2010). An Analysis of Self-Construals, Motivations, Facebook Use, and User Satisfaction. International Journal Of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(11/12), 1077-1099.

Junco, R., & Chickering, A. W. (2010). Civil discourse in the age of social media. About Campus, 15(4), 12-18

Kistler, M., Rodgers, K., Power, T., Austin, E., & Hill, L. (2010). Adolescents and Music Media: Toward an Involvement-Mediational Model of Consumption and Self-Concept. Journal Of Research On Adolescence (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 20(3), 616-630

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). Learning Cultures on the Move: Where are we heading?. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 4-14.

Lievrouw, L. A. (2010). Social Media and the Production of Knowledge: A Return to Little Science?. Social Epistemology, 24(3), 219-237

Orange, E. (2011). Augmented, Anonymous, Accountable. Futurist, 45(4), 37-41.

Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. B., & Dunbar, R. M. (2011). Use of Social Network Sites and Instant Messaging Does Not Lead to Increased Offline Social Network Size, or to Emotionally Closer Relationships with Offline Network Members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(4), 253-258

Rimskii, V. (2011). The Influence of the Internet on Active Social Involvement and the Formation and Development of Identities. Russian Social Science Review, 52(1), 79-101

Stefanone, M. A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2010). The Relationship between Traditional Mass Media and “Social Media”: Reality Television as a Model for Social Network Site Behavior. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(3), 508-525

Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Friend Me or You’ll Strain Us: Understanding Negative Events That Occur over Social Networking Sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(7/8), 425-432

This is not the first time I’ve written about the Prime Minister, but even in these first few words I fear misrepresentation.

Instead of ‘her’, I used Julia Gillard’s title, wondering to myself if avoiding gender might rob her of her womanhood when in fact I hope to leave it intact. Do I risk the step Australia made in electing a female to our highest rank by refusing to address her femininity in my speculation?

The Prime Minister’s gender is something that Australian critics have been forced to deal with. I barely get through 100 words before stumbling over the personal pronoun for the sake of the line between celebrating a woman’s right to power and judging her as merely a woman from that point on. I even use her full name to avoid another trend I have noticed, dropping her last name – a trespass which could be humbling, but often shows disrespect.

But I do try, because nobody else seems able to, and its worst offenders have begun to sicken me.

The first incident, beyond post-election speculation about hairstyles and marital status, was the day of the carbon tax. Instead of reporting on the impact of what would be a nationwide incursion, papers published a photo of Gillard and Kevin Rudd kissing in congratulations. It wouldn’t be the first time the media has focused heated political rivalry (and the fact that it is within party ranks does make it extra juicy) but no mainstream newspaper would have spun a story about two competing men shaking hands. No – it was a kiss, and sex sells.

The second incident happened with the Queen. Gillard, fully aware of what the custom did and didn’t require of her, chose not to curtsy. She didn’t break any rules or offend any heads of state. The Queen’s political power is arguable at best. But there it was again, headlining the media. Some may draw comparison to Keating’s similar flogging all those years ago, but the two are only similar in their relationship to custom. Keating’s disruption was a choice to make unwanted physical contact, Gillard’s was a personal decision which affected only herself. Avoiding the concept of the curtsy as a sign of submission to greater powers, she was well within her rights to forego.

The third incident occurred yesterday, when our Prime Minister met her American equal (remember that – they are equals) and the Herald Sun’s Patrick Carlyon chose to writean article full of drivel, the least sickening of which was the opening line:

“Gillard blushes, like a high school girl who has, finally, after much bedroom plotting, captured the gaze of the football captain.”

But who am I to say what good writing is? After all, Carlyon is a Walkley award winning journalist. In fact, the 2009 Walkley judge commented that he “has a good forensic detail that gives strength to the story’s eloquence” and that he possesses “a beautiful turn of phrase.” Now, I admire a good turn as much as the next ballerina, but to what point should we allow it to infiltrate our news media? Is the sexualised elaboration a necessary commentary on leadership?

I tried to ignore it. I tried to tell myself that it was just the media failing to see the point yet again. I tried to pretend that it wasn’t that corruption of sense which I feared most. But there’s no denying it now. Our Prime Minister is not, for the sake of mainstream media, a Prime Minister by majority. She is first and foremost a woman and will be denigrated as such.

If we had a male Prime Minister, would handshakes, foregone bowing or collegial presidential visits remain the subject of such intensely fetishised scrutiny? While the Walkley judge may have admired his turn of phrase, it seems that Carlyon has since taken his talents to the widely published equivalent of erotic fan fiction. Here’s another phrase to turn your stomach (you can have that pun, Patrick, even though it doesn’t have the sparkling wit of “The audacity of grope…”):

“In Obama’s company, Gillard looks like she’s won a date with George Clooney. Their encounters, the respectful gazes as the other speaks, the touches of familiarity, stand to bestow her with a statesmanship she may have lacked until now.”

It seems to me, come next election, that Patrick Carlyon might vote for Asher Keddie, given how convincingly lovesick she was in just about every episode of Offspring.

However, although it’s fun to use him as the scapegoat, these things don’t publish themselves. He is not the only one to have committed to the fetish. The above scenarios which at first seemed like low-rate reporting actually point to a much deeper issue. The Prime Minister, our highest ranking politician, is being reported on her faults as a woman, not her faults as a leader. To go even further, her faults as a leader are being directly linked to her faults as her woman.

And yes, though we might reserve some softness for the feminine kind, swooning over Obama as women have swooned over George Clooney undermines her authority and weakens her political resolve. Imagine journalists writing the same thing of Putin’s interaction with the American president. Though Putin might present himself as the Fabio of Russian politics, he would not take kindly to being painted as submissive to any other leader, male or female.

It’s all well and good to criticise journalists for not doing their job (side note: their job is to report the news, if you’d forgotten) but let’s take a step back from media criticism and look at the big picture.

It would be a little rich for me to say that all of this is a right wing, Liberal Party conspiracy to undermine our Prime Minister. I don’t think that’s the case, though I’m sure you can make your mind up about Tony Abbott’s opinion of women in power. However, it does indirectly serve their agenda to have the PM’s media representation subdued by fanciful tales: flighty, sexualised, submissive and superficial. After all, who is more replaceable than a superficial woman, especially when a strong man is ready to take the throne?

I’m not one to bestow honour upon the holder of great power – I believe that respect should be earned, and loyalty will follow – but such media flub impedes the process. Julia Gillard’s job is to represent the Australian people, and Tony Abbott’s job is to play devil’s advocate. By campaigning throughout the entire political term, Tony Abbott’s catch-cry of ‘no’ has sought to weaken the Prime Ministerial position, rather than strengthen the progression of our nation. By denigrating our Prime Minister because of her gender, she can not continue to represent us, because the relationship between leader and citizen lacks truth. It is a relationship tainted by an invented superficial character – a character which is fuelled by the media’s sexist, male-dominated bigotry.

Patrick Carlyon is just one of many to lead us into the valley while painting it with smoke. Until we can find our own way, and until our media allows us that privilege, we are destined to squander our own egalitarianism for the sake of cheap erotic tricks and testosterone-tainted Kool-Aid.

Isn’t it wonderful? Finally, we get the media we want. We have become a part of good, honest entertainment on the daily. It’s fantastic. That is, if it stays honest.

Unfortunately, we’re seeing more and more cases of manipulation. It’s unlikely that Karl Stefanovic has an audience interested in ‘planking‘ (the teenage pastime which involves lying face down on arbitrary objects) but he reenacted the craze anyway. Why? Because Today knew it would be passed around online: simply free advertising.

Online media is an advertiser’s dream. In the way that television heralded widespread access to the population, the Internet provides an illimitable audience ready to consume.
Viral media – that is, media which is passed on socially – is the new ‘word of mouth’, one of the most desirable forms of advertisement. It is free and carries the personal recommendation of someone you know and trust. But along with our adoption of technology has come nefarious use in the hands of promoters. When a shameless stunt is pulled, it’s not surprising some of us feel cheated.

It’s pretty obvious that the US version of “Family Feud” wasn’t innocent when they proposed the topic “Things which you put in your mouth but don’t swallow” to a minister’s wife (btw, there’s a reason news.com.au doesn’t credit the writer on that piece – shame on you), and we have certainly gotten to a point where flash mobs have completely lost all element of surprise.

And what about the serendipity of things going well on their very own? Can we be impressed if we have to constantly ask ourselves if we’re being tricked?

For all Australia’s pomp and circumstance, it’s not surprising that we are easily fixated upon curtsying for the queen, or the kiss between two former rivals, but I do find it hard to wonder whether we’re best served with such distractions. There are plenty of advertising campaigns which intrigue us as they unfold, but if all media production stoops to such obvious manipulation, will we ever be surprised again?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHnhbEzJAS8

On Saturday afternoon, I left the Occupy Sydney protest disappointed. While I had found resonance in the movement overseas, the protests which have occurred in Australia are not representative of a unified idea.

The final straw for me was the erection of Che Guevara flags, and I tweeted my exit: “Yes, the capitalised image of Che. I think I’m out of here.” And it’s not Che Guevara that I particularly have an issue with, but the fact that the image of him has come to represent something he didn’t. Occupy Sydney had gone the same way.

The movement was born from the US public’s reaction to the fact that the top 1% of the population (financially) own the great majority of the wealth, but Occupy Sydney was characterised by an array of confusion: people spruiking (misunderstood) socialism to those claiming Charles Darwin was a conspiracy to keep men from believing they had God-given creativity. It was a peaceful protest – I have the pictures and the media reports to prove it – but it is one which has lost my personal support.

I tweeted again to clarify: “Research your idols, protest with specificity” and although that merely scratched the surface of my criticisms, it is this which allows me to write objectively – and without specific emotional attachment – about this morning’s proceedings.

At 5am, protesters report that approximately 200 police officers arrived and demanded their eviction. Ten minutes later, they began destroying the camp and making arrests. Now, there are certainly those who will argue that, NSW police were simply acting out of their duty to protect the community. Although that reasoning seems slightly dubious given the nature of the Occupy protest, we could certainly give them the benefit of the doubt if it weren’t for the manner in which they carried out their orders.

By arriving at the camp at 5AM, the police avoided the news cycle. Sunday papers were out and Monday’s were too far away. It is a deliberate attempt to avoid media scrutiny. The mere five minute delay between eviction and dismantling shows that they were keen to have this taken care of before anybody could arrive on the scene.

Barry O’Farrell claims that it was the most opportune time to clear the area, but that doesn’t clear the lack of warning. Surely due notice should be given before such forceful eviction. The NSW Police statement claims that protesters “[had] been camping within the grounds of Martin Place for a week, since Saturday 15 October 2011. They only had approval to protest between 2.30pm – 4.30pm on 15 October” which means, as Kate Ausburn points out, they had an entire week to warn the group. Why were there at least 20 police officers standing idly by Saturday afternoon as hundreds gathered (and cameras captured the gathering) if the protest had overstayed its welcome by 6 days? Why did they stand idly by, knowing they were going to forcefully evict them in the morning? It just doesn’t add up.

We can’t simply say that individual police officers are spoiling for a fight (they are at the mercy of their employer) but one is led to wonder whether a fifteen minute window might have allowed for their request to be fulfilled without leading to those arrests. One wonders whether they might have prejudged the protesters, who had been peaceful to this point, on the actions of their Melbourne counterparts.

It is the Police’s job to react to danger and direct threat with muscle. In these scenarios they are not a diplomatic force. They are trained security guards with the full power of the law. Their job is to react, but this morning’s action was not one of reaction unless the police have terrifically slow reflexes. If it were a necessary action, it would have been an immediate response to the threat and – barring the possibility of something secretly occurring at 3am in the morning – this response was not immediate. It appears that someone made the call, and then waited until protesters slept. Why would the police force react to something with such delay if not to strike the movement at its weakest point, and what does this decision say about the way in which the law is being enforced?

There is no excuse for such a quick and non-diplomatic response. Why not tell protesters at 9pm that at 5am police would come? Because they would have the opportunity to stand their ground. Because they would ensure media coverage. Because they would not be the weak force the police intended them to be.

To play my own devil’s advocate, there are those who say that police were simply trying to avoid the violence which occurred in Melbourne with a preemptive attack. While that intention may be a noble one, judging one protest against another lacks intelligence, especially when the Sydney counterpart had gone to such lengths to ensure their protest was peaceful and contained. In this scenario, there is still no excuse for the deliberate nature of the takedown: it was executed less than 12 hours after the media left Martin Place; it was undertaken too swiftly to allow sufficient response from protesters; it was disrespectful of the liberty to protest.

This is not about whether the movement is ideologically sound, and it is not about the events in Melbourne. This is not about the legitimacy of protest. The weakest articles today will focus on whether the writer agrees with the movement, but looking at police response through such a political gaze is short-sighted.

As long as protesting is legal in Australia, a preemptive strike on civilians without warrant or major criminal investigation, is an abuse of the brute force a loyal police force allows. We should not begin by blaming the men and women who are stationed in Sydney’s CBD for doing their job. We must blame those who made the call to send their foot-soldiers into what was a dirty, shameful strike on civilians who could, and should, have been given more than fair warning.

Here’s an excerpt:

The beauty of a letter is it almost forces you to stay on one track. You start at the top and you get to the bottom, it’s hard to read a letter while engaged elsewhere. They require and demand ‘one-track time.’ I feel the same way about reading books.   I made a decision: a real letter should be worth keeping. It is not mundane or banal, it is tactile and sentimental. I cannot make any claims for my own writing, but I knew that I had to endeavour to make these last.

While hiding in the QVB from the rain outside, I wrote “It’s funny just how much people rely on the world around them for their mood without realizing it. Poets have been doing it for centuries. Weather, the unwitting muse of the masses.”

To the school friend who had spent her year in the slums of Cambodia, I enclosed seeds to grow a Thyme plant, “You deserve a bit of thanks, but knowing your humility as I do, I know you wouldn’t want gratitude to come from man.”

This September my time will be divided amongst some creative work with Sydney Dance Company, and a trip to the US. During the SDC time, I will be spending a lot of time on Sydney’s Walsh Bay, a beautiful area, surrounded by wonderful artists. In the U.S. I will travel to Madison, Wisconsin, with some time in NY on both ends of the journey, and a two hour stop in LA.

I’m extending the offer to you all, especially if I don’t know you. I want to write 15 letters over the course of September.

If you’d like a letter, please leave a comment (with your proper e-mail address) and the following information.

NAME:

WHERE SHOULD I WRITE YOUR LETTER:

WHERE WILL YOU BE WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE LETTER:

IS THERE A QUESTION OR TOPIC YOU WANT ME TO ENGAGE WITH:

IS THIS INFORMATION PRIVATE: (Comments on here go through moderation, the answer to this question means I won’t post the comment publicly if you wish)

WILL YOU WRITE ME A LETTER BACK:

ARE THERE ANY OTHER STIPULATIONS?

ANY OTHER INFO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE?

(Hot Tip: It looks much better in HD – click here to watch it at highest quality)

Written by Samuel Webster and Mario Kery
Directed by Samuel Webster
Shot on Canon 7D w/ 24-70mm f/2.8 lens

It’s hard to be a man.

These six words could get you into a lot of trouble. If John Lennon had written a song about men instead of Woman is the Nigger of the World, he would have been shunned and laughed out of the Rock’N'Roll Philosophy Club (they meet in opium dens and snort cocaine off Stratocasters.) Why? Because for most purposes, we have it easy. We earn more than women, we are more likely to get hired, we skip childbirth (and some of us skip child raising,) we are the bearers of the surname, the gender history never forgot. We are Kings, we are warriors, we are figureheads and we are immovable. Yes -immovable, rigid, stubborn, obstinate, and inflexible. All the synonyms which point to our steadfast nature, our timelessness and the limitations of our character.

We are men and we will not change.

The term ‘man’ was created before my generation’s time and it seems that even though I am permitted to challenge it, it is not open to change. Rather than encourage the emotional growth of our gender we invented SNAGs, Sensitive New-Age Guys. Rather than acknowledge that we have reached a new age, we pushed it into a box and called it a minority. Instead of accepting that, within society, the male has matured his aesthetic judgement, we created the metrosexual; a term which would seem offensive if not deemed completely harmless by the frequency with which it is tossed about. I cannot help but think of Cary Elwes as Robin Hood, leading his merry men in a rounding rendition of ‘We are men, manly men, we’re men in tights. Yes!’ The call of mankind, portioning off any traditionally feminine characteristics, asserting their manliness before it is even called into question.

We are men; we are masculine and not effeminate.

In 2007, Britney Spears and Madonna performed together at the MTV Music Awards, shocking the world by kissing. You know that thing that everybody does? Well, it was a little bit different this time because it was two women. It was aired, clearly and openly, and the Sydney Morning Herald captioned the image as “desperately seeking publicity.” Why would it be a publicity stunt? Because apparently the world loves to see women kiss. There is a certain double standard when it comes to gay rights for men and women. Gay men are more often than not the image for homosexuality. The fundamentalist Christian movement is called God Hates Fags, even the term Queer (when used in a spiteful context) seems to carry a masculine undertone.

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that heterosexual men have an easy time turning two women kissing into a degrading sexual objectification (momentarily leaving out of the psyche the marginalised sexuality which allows such an attraction to exist.) Perhaps it has to do with the dominant opinion that gay men weaken the image of Man. Perhaps we feel threatened by losing our Kingship to drag queens, our masculinity to the effeminate, our holy matrimony to those we have been taught will desecrate it. So, when American Idol Adam Lambert kissed a man on the American Music Awards, CBS decided to blur it, and then show uncensored images of Britney and Madonna. A CBS representative said that “the Madonna image is very familiar …  the Adam Lambert image is a subject of great current controversy, has not been nearly as widely disseminated, and for all we know, may still lead to legal consequences.” Yet, as far as I understand it, there were no consequences to the female kiss. The consequences were hoots and hollers, controversy not censorship, uproar but not vilification.

The day after the male kiss, the ABC cancelled Adam Lambert’s Good Morning America appearance and replaced him with another role model of masculinity, Chris Brown. What kind of message does this send? That it is more socially acceptable for a man to beat a women black and blue, than to express affection for his own gender? It’s a shame that those words come back yet again to haunt us. Immovable, rigid, stubborn, obstinate, inflexible. We stand as stone to the winds of change.

As I say it again, I hope you will understand the deeper inferences. It is hard to be a man, because, if we measures ourselves against the stereotype, we are not men. We are not the beasts we pretend to be. We are not the mindless beer-drinking users Two and a Half Men would have you believe. We are not all heterosexual. We are not an undefined sexuality because of the way we groom, nor are we unusual because we are sensitive. We are not the sole figureheads we once imagined ourselves to be, and if we continue to gawk at women embracing, and stamp our feet at men who do the same, perhaps the one thing we should continue being is ashamed.

“No!” I hear the plankers cry out. “It’s not just that.”

And you’re right, my dear stiff-bodied circus stopgaps – the real ‘art’ of planking is to do it on top of objects where a plank wouldn’t normally rest. You know, juxtaposition and all that. It’s like Banksy but not on banks. (He’s the bank guy, right?)

“NO, SAM! There’s more to it.”

Okay, calm down – here, play with this slinky.

Yes, there’s another optional step. You should declare your intentions as follows: I’m planking. Then you should carry out the mental equivalent of draining an Olympic pool.

Gold Logie winner Karl Stefanovic

It’s no wonder that planking is incredibly popular among certain subsets. My generation has built the internet as the place of memes. Memes take an absurd connection, make it transient and forgettable, then passed around until we get bored and move on. It’s certainly arguable what value this form of social interaction has.  Personally, I think there is some fraternity in the (fear and) execution of a rick-roll. There is some satirical value in a LOLcat. There is, without a doubt, some intellectual space to consider the evolution of language when it begins 2 b typd lyk dis. But at what point do we realize that our activities are loosely Neanderthal? When it ceases to be absurd, and becomes a trend instead? Or is it when someone dies?

Acton Beale, 20, fell to his death while trying to plank on a 5cm balcony railing outside his apartment. I’m not saying that Mr. Beale was otherwise capable of managing his own wellbeing before deciding to be so foolish,  but it is pretty easy to see the correlation. The fact that Kerri-Anne Kennerley and Karl Stefanovic are getting in on the fad proves more about the scope of their television appearances than it does the popularity of the fad. Does the fact that one man fell to his death mean that planking is a deadly sport? No, not really, but in the wrong hands it does have the potential, moreso when alcohol is introduced into the mix.

Anthony Sharwood of The Punch stated his opinion quite nicely: “Falling onto the ground really hard kills people. And planking is a ripper way to make that happen.”

Yes, there are other sports which also kill people, but the moment a death happens, they adjust their safety procedures. Skydivers have backup parachutes, Grid Iron employs heavy padding and motorcycle riders wear helmets. Plankers, it seems, wear a foggy disposition and a snort.

Let’s take a moment to pen the beginning of a new discourse: “Planking is the art of inserting an object -, in this case a human body -into an open space in a way which subverts the natural utility, purpose and aesthetic normalcy of that space. The body takes a form which denies its own natural state: an inanimate object, free of muscular flexibility and signs of life. Planking is an intentional disconnection of the human experience, both for the planker and the audience. A planker, by stating that he is to begin ‘planking’, announces his intention and it is this deliberation which sets the act aside from unintentional plank events, such as sleeping or fainting.”

Why would this description never be taken seriously? Because planking is not about thought and deconstruction, it is about mindless action and replication. It is a movement which homogenises and is thus considered social because it is a common link between men of the planking ilk. Plankers will claim that intellectualizing the action ruins the fun, that the purpose of planking is that there is no purpose, which leads me to believe that either this is the most useless trend ever, perpetuated by people with no regard for the wonders of social interaction that exist beyond the echo of a grunt, or it’s the most spectacular form of enlightenment the world has ever seen.