Street Smart for Street Art?

Has Banksy’s latest New York stunt proven that we are all slightly ignorant to culture?

An old man laid out his art stall this weekend and sat through a bright, yet slightly chilly autumnal day in New York.

His stand, much like those that lined not just the same street, but boulevards and promenades in London, Paris and around the world, presented a hot-pot of artistic pieces of intricate detail, selling at just $60 (roughly £38).

Few people took notice of whatappeared to be an ordinary stall. It took hours to sell his first painting. Even then, it was at a discounted price of 50% off.  Total takings for the day only came in at $420, not even £300.

But this was not just a street vendor. These were 100% originally Banksy paintings. It is estimated their true value may be in the region of £20,000. A bargain for the savvy few that bought the pieces; for the rest of us, this is a truly saddening indictment of society.

The questions raised by the experiment are just as interesting as the spontaneous sale itself: “Are we too busy?”, “Are we ignorant?”, “Are we uncultured?”. And, seemingly, the answer would be a yes. At least based on Banksy’s approach.

A similar experience befell world renowned and talented violinist, Joshua Bell, a few years ago at a Metro station in Washington DC. The musician, who had but two nights before sold out a theatre in Boston for an average of $100 a seat, earned just $27 in the stunt, which saw thousands of naïve commuters pass by unawares.

Such unusual tactics obviously catch us by surprise. But is the reality that we are becoming less observant and increasingly driven by a busy society? We no longer give time to consider the value the art in front of us until a bystander informs us of what we have missed. The old school of thought that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” has never rung truer, yet been so underappreciated.

If an artist paints his work, but no one stops to consider it; does the painting remain true great art? Of course it does. The legacy and testament of artists such as Van Gogh proves this. But in the modern world, with internet, mobile technology and greater access to information, it strikes as ignorance that so many could walk past unaware as to the achievement in front of them. It goes to show that increasingly, it is not talent, but marketing and reputation that sell artwork: a sign of a culture that has become dependent on others to tell them what art is, and by extension, how to think and live.

Seneca noted the problem over two millennia ago: “There is nothing the busy man is less busied with than living” he mused. He concluded that it left little space for man to successfully consider everything because his mind was too busied. The sentiment was echoed last century, when W. H. Davies penned the immortal words “What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare”.

Now, with television adverts, billboards, the internet, social media and an increasingly diverse number of mediums by which to disseminate information and opinion, are minds have never been so busy sifting through information. The result is that we are immune and numb to art and talent, because we have become hardened by the apparent need to strive for achievements in work, glamorised by society.

The art debate has raged fiercely throughout history: is art representing fact or an opinion or an emotion or all of these?

The Banksy project does not show that we are incapable of recognising beauty. Rather, people have the wrong priorities: the art seems irrelevant to them at the time. If it were housed proudly and resplendently in a museum or gallery, then we can be sure that people would queue eagerly to snap a photo and admire the detail up close. If we took time to stop, would we realise we have been missing a wealth of culture every day?

Society will have to pay for its ignorance several times over before the month is out. Banksy’s ‘Better Out Than In’ project promises new street art in NYC each day throughout October. And whilst art buffs and fans alike race the streets of Manhattan to find the artwork each day, they have already found the works defaced and altered by other taggers, artists and property owners, unaware they are covering a thousand dollar masterpiece.

The Day After Shutdown

America’s greatest challenge only comes to light now the shutdown is over.

The United States of America, considered by many to be one of the greatest examples of Western democracy, has been in shutdown for over two weeks. In this time, America’s global standing has certainly been undermined each day with its allies, whilst its enemies have looked on in a mocking triumph, as if this is the proof of everything wrong with the American way of life.

Dysfunction within a nation considered a bastion of power and democracy is always going to challenge international relations, but, more so than ever before, this government shutdown has reeked of ego massaging, in a scenario akin to a child walking away from his team because they’re losing a game. Reopening the house is now a mammoth and multifaceted problem.

Paralysis in the US means that other nations have learnt their own power. State Department deputy spokeswoman, Marie Harf, blasted what she called a “damaging” shutdown that “negatively impacts [US] standing abroad.”

Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, mimicked the sentiment, expanding that “This sends a message to allies that they're somewhat on their own.”

Indeed, you would be forgiven for forgetting the trouble across the pond. Following the initial week of turbulence, the shutdown seems largely disappeared from our news channels. With little action for negotiation on either side, the rest of the world could hardly wait around for America to splutter and kick start its way back to life.

In 1995, the last government shutdown, the economy was better equipped to deal with this sort of mass reduction in activity. Now, the economy is volatile.

Consequently, resolve within the American government, however, ushers in a new series of crises waiting to befall what appears an ailing regime of democracy.

Cancelling his important trip to Asia, with the intent of fostering better Chinese-American relations, Obama has allowed China to expand its global influence. The long planned trip was cut immediately to attend to the American crisis; a crisis fuelled and fired from the inside, on an issue triply settled in Congress, the courts and ballot.

The budget battle seriously risked sending the world into another recession, should the US default on its debts. This would provide China with grounds to claim that the US Dollar is not a secure currency, and to switch internationally to the Yuan, creating inflation in the US and leaving China able to manipulate exchange rates. China has a heaven sent opportunity to portray itself as the image of stability once peddled by US citizens.

Reopening government will be haunted by questions not only of reliability, but efficiency and how effective America is as a world power.

Not too long ago, America was the flexing power by which Syria was a crisis that would soon be resolved. Instead, the state now appears hypocritical at best for not even being able to hold control of its own house. Iran’s nuclear programme, one of the most controversial aspects of news, is legitimised by the US shutdown: how can one country in a turbulent period comment on another’s right for nuclear power?

The ramifications are more than economic and political then: they shake the very foundations of opinion on Western democracy and its impact. Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed his disappointment at not being able to meet with Obama over these key international issues that have been played out on a world stage for the past year. His spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said, “There is a great need in our bilateral relations for a dialogue at the highest level.” Yet the only dialogue is that of the Russians.

Ironically, not only does this strengthen the Russian position, but seriously gives credence to those who believe the Russian President is a viable candidate to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This nomination the result of what is now viewed the most effective plan to initiate peace in Syria, spearheaded by Russia alone during shutdown.

Uncle Sam awakes to find a nation not only questioning its own importance, but one that has shot itself, and is now bleeding internally. It will be a slow and painful process to recover, but never heal fully. Being held to ransom by its own government, the US continues to lose money every day with hundreds of thousands of people out of work, tourism and national monument sites closed, and Head State funded programmes cancelled without notice, as it slowly hits restart. Not only will this be an international debacle, but a case of national humiliation. Americans will need to learn to have faith and trust in their own system again. When controversial popstar Miley Cyrus manages to mock the shutdown with panache, one wonders whether the people responsible realise the true extent of the extravagant spectacle.

What ‘Obamacare’ is highlighting is a chronic condition: an illness with little chance of treatment. Raising the debt ceiling and reopening the government isn’t the last of the turbulent American issues: it just kicks a proverbial can of worms a few months further down the line. This is a disease that has become malignant.

The latest poll suggests that almost three quarters of American’s leave the blame with the Republican Party. Essentially, the minority are trying to gain the upperhand through a form of extortion, and Obama is not willing to give into that. So, as government is reopened, the logical solution would be to pass an amendment to stop such petty squabbles crippling the US in future.

Well, this is where America comes to its ultimate Catch 22. This is the nation that declares itself the land of the free. This is the nation of modern democracy. To change the freedom enjoyed by Americans in the House is to admit that the system was wrong. It is unlikely that the government will risk this ultimate humiliation. Ideologically and, more importantly, in all practicality, this is a battle for freedom of speech that neither side can win.

Frankfurt's Forgotten Riots

“Look at you, stood protecting your blood money! You’re no better than politicians. You’re bribed by the money that is making your nation weak and is stealing from us every day and you don’t even realise it!”

Over the past two years, the Arab Spring has seen revolutions and demonstrations sweep Northern Africa in a hot fury that has both shocked and been viewed in awe within Europe. Corruption, economic hardship, and threat of wars all contributed to the radical movements that have unseated governments and autocrats alike.

This fire seems to have sparked a new European movement in itself, and this was certainly ablaze in Frankfurt last weekend. Whilst Turkish riots in the corner of Europe spread across the news as the most interesting and harrowing examples of recent protest in the Western world, the demonstrations at the Economic Central Bank of Europe went seemingly unreported in comparison.

There is no doubt that there is an economic boss in Europe, and she wears the name Angela Merkel. Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, has earned her place to dictate economic measures across the Eurozone, providing the backbone of the European economy. But disruption and distrust of the system sow seeds of further weakening across Europe.

Riots in Greece and Turkey are no mere trifle. The countries face growing rates of unemployment, restricted economic growth and limited financial trades. The former is set to accept a set of stringent measures by which it is to be provided with a bail out that by no means appeases the nation, who are baying for European blood amidst the onset of a further downturn.

However, when the Germans themselves come to contest the Euro, the writing really is on the proverbial wall. Here, where Berlin is seen as a symbol of democracy, the population is not likely to sit and be ignored regarding the running of their country a second time. Whether a wall is physical or fiscal, the outpouring of resentment from within the European banking capital in Frankfurt is concerning.

The force of the German police certainly took the threat seriously, regardless of the world opinion. Shutting the main financial district and sending in excess of 70 police vans to line the boulevard, forces were armed in full riot gear, lining the streets with barbed wire, and sending water cannons in to assist on the ground, helicopters to monitor from the air.

European economy is not just centred on Germany, it arguably thrives from Germany. While there have been numerous capitalist crises in the past, the gravitas of the current financial situation has still to show its boundaries. This permanent state of crisis has now come to disillusion new generations of activists and unemployed as the central countries of Europe and the US see credit ratings slash and further recession despite never ending political will to slow the rate of cuts and boost markets.

The austerity measures proposed by the so-called troika, consisting of the ECB, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Commission have not reduced the national debts of the European countries. An increase of taxes and cuts of governmental social programs they promote have actually worsened the situation, deepening recession and increasing unemployment in the EU dramatically.

Since protests are now igniting not as isolated European events, but increasing in frequency and local, it shows that there are deep roots to these problems. The ‘fad’ of Occupy London is called to mind. At once, the threat doesn’t seem so unique: removed from isolation, the plight of all those that were at once both strong and desperate enough to ‘siege’ the London banking district for weeks in search of resolve is both revered in new merit and feared in equal measure.

In previous years, riots have all too often appeared incoherent and inchoate. With all but limited aims and reasons, most of these disruptions have garnered little support. But the controversy begun with ‘Occupy’ continues to threaten in new forms. The controversial 2011 riots in the UK may have started as a peaceful protest against a shooting, but an abhorrent mix of social problems ignited the violence that followed.

Sweden now faces nights of unlawful action, as the unemployed take to the street to violently protest at the state of the economy in their nation. Despite being amongst the richest nations in the EU, there has been a significant increase in the level of youth unemployment here, as with many other parts of Europe. As with the London riots, the trigger seems to have been a police shooting that has opened the floodgates of national resentment. Once topping OECD rankings for low poverty, the country is now slipping further and further down the table, with Europeans crying out for change.

Of course, things could be worse. Sweden has the EU’s lowest percentage of low-wage earners. The honour of largest low wage earners goes to Germany, with 22.2% of employers receiving minimum wage. This is possibly part of the reason for the massive outburst in Frankfurt.

There appears large discrepancy between the image of Germany, the European Powerhouse, and the economic wellbeing of its residents. Looking in, the country surely has fared better than most in the recession. But the cracks are self-evident. Low wages coupled with increasing inflation and continued bailouts, funded by the German public en masse if protesters would be believed, seriously weakens the economic standing of the EU giant and its residents.

Austerity measures on EU citizens are just scratching the surface of the potential violence of the masses. When the 99% drive the economy itself, their voices can certainly impact the future of fiscal measures, but would 99% control solve any problems in itself? Probably not, and the face of uncertainty only makes us worry and riot all the more.

The Independent (Work Experience): Live on £53 per week? Try a student loan, Iain Duncan Smith...

This article was originally published by The Independent on 5th April 2013. It is available online here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/finances/live-on-53-per-week-try-that-on-a-student-loan-iain-8561459.html

In a couple of weeks, we students will be able to stop the thrifty spending and strict budgeting.

At last, the next instalment of our student loans has lined our pockets and topped up our bank accounts with endless fresh amounts of virtual money. As soon as the ominous ‘OD’ disappears from your cashpoint display, a world of leisure opportunities awaits: the doors of Jack Wills and Hollister are all the more appealing, the offers on Jagerbombs at Vodka Revolution instantly appear to be incredibly good value, and funds for a drunken sports tour, brimming with banter, are at last secured.

Budgeting is something that students easily endure without fear, their next loan a glimmering promise of free money: £1,581 per week on average.

Excuse me, I mean to say per term.

A pittance

My termly allowance, which has to last me four months, roughly equates to the amount Iain Duncan Smith pockets in a week on his ministerial salary, meaning that my budget is just shy of £100 a week, or around £14 a day, which is difficult enough at double what Duncan Smith boasts he can manage on.

When the money first floods in most excitable youngsters can be seen running off to pay that overdue library fine, stocking up on teabags that aren’t a budget brand and generally gallivanting around the town centre half-daring to dream of affording those second-hand clothes hidden at the very back of the charity store. Or hell, actually having that haircut.

Soon enough, however, the flush oasis becomes a dried-up puddle, leaving university goers moored in the middle of a desert. Perilous mountains of books need be bought on that dwindling budget, food has to be factored into the equation, and funds even need to stretch to clothes.

I’d say that I am reasonably tight with money whilst food shopping, yet I’ll spend an average of £30 a week replenishing the food cupboard, and taking stock of what I can eat and when to get by.

Then there are bills to cover. Internet, gas, electric, water, TV. The economy of a large student house means these come to just £10 for seven days usage, but it is still a significant 20 per cent of what Duncan Smith believes is a plausible sum to live on.

Then, put on a taxi to town and back along with two drinks, and your £53 budget is blown. That hardly supports the leisure time for which students are renowned.

Subsistence living

As a student, it's harder and harder to stay afloat. You’re alive, but you’re not living. In the turmoil of the economic climate, the thrifty student is learning a valuable life skill; perfecting their ability to shop wisely and live within their means, perhaps the most useful life-skill.

Bids to appear upwardly mobile alongside university, such as being involved in sports clubs to boost your profile, purchasing suits for interviews, and having just a mid-range phone, mean that the burden is impressive to behold. These items are no longer luxuries, but necessities.

Students are navigating a minefield of potential outlays in order to better themselves. I have just undertaken two weeks of work experience to the detriment of my bank account. Travel to and around the capital close to the £150-mark alone. We're learning that a degree is not enough of testament to our dedication. You have to speculate to accumulate, and students shell out far in excess of the ‘liveable’ £53 a week to make themselves stand out.

And of course, there's the rent. I pay £68 a week in rent (which is an extremely reasonable sum), blowing the welfare minister’s entire budget instantly. My personal weekly allowance rests at £30 after rent, just enough for food and not a lot else.

Perhaps Duncan Smith’s declaration was all an ill-judged April Fool’s Day joke. But, then again, if I could file my alcohol consumption under expenses, I suppose I could live on £53 a week too.

The Independent (Work Experience): Student Media and Leveson

This article was originally published by The Independent on Friday 22nd March 2013. Available here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/how-will-leveson-impact-student-journalism-8545630.html

At a City University debate this month, Neil Wallis, a former News of the World executive editor warned: "If there are any student journalists here: it’s your freedom and once it goes you won’t get it back." This advice strikes close to home for many students, as Leveson replicates an issue long-standing at university.

I joined The Yorker at university because the idea of the independent paper appealed to me over union-approved media. Our independence has stood firm since we launched; unlike the other major student papers on campus, we don't sign the YUSU charter and are not moderated. If campus papers adhere to union policies, then they are often subject to restrictions that leave many students without sufficient space for investigative journalism. Instead, papers become a mouthpiece of the authority figures as the university officials steer the direction of print.

You only need to look at recent censorship of student publications to see that Leveson is likely to compromise the young journalist position further. At Sheffield, The Forge Press was banned from distribution in halls after they broke a story concerning the exploitation of a pay loophole by the university. Elsewhere, in Leeds, the NUS attempted to prevent the publishing of an interview with infamous BNP leader, Nick Griffin. 

The most prolific example was probably in the case of Edinburgh University, whose student union served an interim interdict on the The Student paper after a story that could have potentially harmed their reputation was slated for front page. Instead, the students decided to leave the front page with the single word ‘Censored’, but it's still wrong that an article of such gravity should be restricted from student access, especially if rumours will circulate due to the injunction order. The truth and student journalist integrity would be better.

On Question Time last year, Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins warned the audience that: “Every single measure introduced by parliament to restrict your freedom always goes further, it never goes backwards.”

It seems that some student papers could essentially be double-restricted by the proposals, government adding to union restrictions. There is a sense of trepidation: just where should regulation end and student independence start?

At the very climax of years of hard work fine-tuning the ability to report a ground-breaking story, students’ first medium of expression is set to be stifled. How should upcoming reporters explore their journalistic potential if they cannot follow their leads and initiatives?

Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, participated in a candid interview about Leveson on the BBC this week: “People are saying there’s a certain amount if independence in there? Is there?” he questioned. “Independence or not independence? It tends to be a quality that’s either one or the other.”

This has been the issue for students for decades. The best stories came from publishing news the unions didn’t want in print, so undoubtedly the trouble is learning to compromise union policies with student rights. If Leveson meddles in a manner that the unions have advocated thus far, independence is really something under threat, and students may never know true journalistic freedom.