Thanks for the comment and pointing this out. I hadn't seen it.
I've had a number of conversations about this since the video was posted and I realize that the video doesn't give a really conclusive definition.
Disruptive Realism is an expression presented in an everyday context that disrupts peoples perceptions about different things. Expression can mean many things and it a way it's art but it's also much more expansive a term than just art.
Banksy's graffiti looks real enough that you might do a double take looking at it. It draws you into the content which is disruptive...like a little girl flying a refrigerator kite in New Orleans.
The other two examples are even more non-conventional than the word Art implies. Most people hear the word art and they think of a painting in a museum. Because Bruno Taylor's work is an experience that involves physical designs like the swing set in the bus stop, the viewer is no longer viewing, they're interacting and the videos he takes of people enjoying the installations are, in fact, part of the art. So this example is difficult to define, but definitely real and definitely disruptive.
Improv Everywhere is one part performance art and one part massive, crowdsourced goof. People get together (often strangers) to collaborate on a kind of a joke on the unsuspecting and unknowing non-participants. In a way, it's almost an anti-terrorism...Humorism? But again, very real and very disruptive.
In the case of the fake NY Times, I would say that absolutely, it's Disruptive Realism and if the issue's headline was that the wars are over, then it's a hopeful message, which is a very good thing.
Another example a friend pointed out to me was Reverse Graffiti: http://www.psfk.com/2008/11/free-fake-copies-...
where Paul "Moose" Curtis (awesome middle name by the way) "makes pictures by cleaning." He goes on to say that reverse graffiti is also commentary in that he can't "not tow the environmental line" so his art is disruptive in that he says that people walk up to it and realize that his work is dirt removal and that the world is "really, really dirty." If that ain't reality and if that ain't disruptive then I don't know what is. Hopefully viewers are moved to clean more and ride their bike to work because the art is a very visceral represesentation of how nasty pollution is.
Yet another example was Orson Welles's 'War of the Worlds' radio broadcast, which was meant as entertainment and likely a commentary on how evolution had been twisted into Social Darwinism (which is an interpretation of the HG Wells book on which the broadcast was based.) Regardless of its intention, the broadcast caused mass hysteria. An excellent example of Disruptive Realism.
Rethink, an advertising agency based in Vancouver have used these types of techniques for thier clients in the past. It's great because it takes the familar and transforms it. Thier website is not the easisest to navigate, but under their work archives is a portfolio piece for a company called the Bike Doctor. What they did is add to exisitng road stencils for bike lanes, giving each bike a flat tire and adding the name and address of the company.
A question that comes to mind about the Improv Everywhere pranks is what the justification is for this disruption of reality for the "unsuspecting and unknowing non-participants." Improv Everywhere seems to have two types of pranks. The first is like the Grand Central Freeze, where the viewers recognize that what is going on is some sort of performance, some sort of art (i.e. they don't actually believe 200 people froze in time for a few minutes, but recognize there must be some sort of coordination). The second type of prank is more deceptive, and includes pranks like Will You Marry Me?, Romantic Comedy Cab, and Best Gig Ever (all documented on the Improv Everywhere website), where the non-participants don't actually recognize that what they witnessed was a performance, but actually think it is reality (i.e. they actually think they aided a wedding proposal, or reunited two estranged lovers, or performed for a full house of die-hard fans).
The first type of prank seems to fit well with Banksy and Bruno Taylor, because the audience recognizes it is some sort of art. However, the latter seems to require a different set of justifications, since it really does seem to be just an exercise in deception. The Improv Everywhere justification for the second type seems to be that they are providing happy peak experiences for these people, but those feelings of happiness are ultimately based on a false reality. What do you think are the ethical issues that go along with that, and can these acts be justified?
See also the legacy of hacks at MIT and Seattle's emerging tradition of sculpture park hacks. I particularly admire the "coming soon" fake-signage genre.
The fake NYT was great, but does it count as Disruptive Realism when you hack the media?
I think the missions that can be identified by bystanders like, ‘Frozen Grand Central,’ ‘Human Mirror’ and ‘No Pants,’ can more easily be defined as Disruptive Realism, but the examples you mention are disruptive and do change the reality of the participants.
Providing a little happiness isn’t a bad thing.
Just because the expression’s participants aren’t in on the joke, it’s ok, as long as they’re not getting hurt. The ‘Best Gig Ever’ didn’t seem to end with the band being told about the mission (unless I missed it in the post) and they ended up with some publicity. This mission was posted on RollingStone.com and printed in Spin magazine. DAVID SPRAGUE, the writer of the RollingStone piece, seems to see the mission as hurtful, but perhaps he simply has no sense of humor. I would defer to the members of Ghosts of Pasha [http://www.ghostsofpasha.com/] to know whether they feel slighted or not but since they have a link to the RollingStone.com article on their site, and note in the Spin article that they’re slightly more successful now than they were, that they don’t feel bad about the mission. Both links can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/2lzknr
I’m not an advocate of any expression knowingly or unknowingly hurting anyone else, but in the case of the 'War of Worlds' broadcast, it is definitely Disruptive Realism. The mission by Improv Everywhere titled, ‘Suicide Jumper’ [http://tinyurl.com/227cam] could have upset people, but the scene ends happily and I’m sure the intention wasn’t malicious. It should be noted that although this mission and ‘Food Court Musical’ are disruptive, they’re less real, and therefore may not fall under my definition. Both of these missions can be found at: http://improveverywhere.com/
So my opinion is that it’s not unethical to alter a persons’ day for the better, with an expression that sends a positive message. I’m not an ethicist though so you should ask Randy Cohen of the New York Times. ethicist@nytimes.com
I'm going to play devil's advocate here a bit. Going off of your last statement (it's not unethical to alter a person's day for the better, with an expression that sends a positive message): what about if/when the person finds out that it was all false?
Improv Everywhere clearly has the best intentions in the moment: to make a person's day a bit better. However, when they post the video of the prank online for millions to view, there is a strong likelihood that some of the people who were pranked will discover that the experience that had made them real was actually fabricated. There are a few reactions that may be had in the situation:
1) The person may think it makes their exciting story even more exciting (and THEN i found out that the wedding proposal was actually all staged!)
2) The person may feel a bit saddened that the experience wasn't real (i was so happy when i thought that someone would actually propose on the subway...)
3) The person may then become skeptical of reality (if i ever see someone proposing on the subway again, i'll think it's a prank.)
The Ghosts of Pasha had a mixed reaction once they discovered that Best Gig Ever was a prank. They had thought it was bizarre that 40 unknown people had shown up knowing all their lyrics, but they had just written it off as a stroke of awesome luck. When they first found out that the audience was fake, they had feelings basically of betrayal (with the realization that they didn't actually have as many fans as they thought they did, and that their best concert was actually played to bunch of pranksters). This was about the time when they were interviewed on This American Life (which can be found here: http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sc...). However, as is made clear by their website, they did ultimately recognize that they were getting publicity out of the prank, and so ultimately it did benefit them. But does that discount those initial negative feelings?
Even though this isn't the best analogy, I'm going to give it: when someone finds out that their spouse cheated on them and then hid it from them to prevent them from getting hurt, that person is very likely to feel betrayed not only because of the cheating, but also because the truth was hidden from them. They were being presented with a false reality that made them happy, and then they discovered that reality was fictitious, and that actual reality is not as great as the false reality.
Obviously finding out that you've been cheated on is much worse than finding out that you didn't actually awesome fans, or that you didn't actually witness a marriage proposal, or that you didn't actually reunite two estranged lovers. But the comparison still calls something to light, I think.
Finally, the third thing I mentioned in that list is also important, I think. The idea that you are then approaching life a bit more skeptically does not seem to be very positive. It doesn't seem to be promoting a sense of wonder in the world, but instead a more distrustful eye....looking for the clues to see whether someone is deceiving you, even if only to make you happy.
I feel like such a cynic here, but it's just on my mind! (I'm currently writing my thesis on urban pranks, and am heavily basing it on Improv Everywhere).
Thanks again for the comments Mr. Andersson. This is an interesting discussion and I very much appreciate it.
While I agree that some people might react negatively to some of the missions from Improv Everywhere, it is impossible to gauge. Despite the intention of the mission, there may be some who become unhappy if they feel they're the brunt of a joke or even if they feel like their time has been wasted. Does this mean that Mr. Todd and the Improv Everywhere folks should discontinue their missions? I certainly hope not because I think the majority of people find these expressions wonderful and engaging. The Disruption for the many, outweighs the betrayal of the few.
Also, your example of infidelity is too extreme and diminishes your argument. When you're in a relationship, there's a deep level of trust that when broken, can be emotionally crippling. The taxi driver in the Will You Marry Me mission, was only emotionally involved for a limited time and if he ever found out, may have been annoyed but he likely didn't feel betrayed. The Ghosts of Pasha were probably not affected this badly. Again, a white lie is a more comparable example. If I mention that a shirt that a colleague is wearing is sharp looking, even if I don't mean it, the intention is to be complimentary and the result is that the person may feel better about themselves or their wardrobe. If they find out later that I was ingenuous, they may feel hurt, or trust me less, but will likely not end up crying in the shower, curled in a fetal position till the hot water runs out. :)
To go back to your first post on Nov. 17th, I've been thinking about it and I agree with you that there are different kinds of expressions, but to say that there are just two is probably limiting. Would it be fair to say there are a spectrum of expressions from the simple to the complex? Some missions on Improve Everywhere involve a great deal of preparation, props and documentation. Some less so. Some of the missions are expressions involving few people like Will You Marry Me, and some involve a much larger number like the MP3 Experiments. There are those that are meant to entertain, like Food Court Musical and those that have political commentary like this example from Urban Prankster - http://urbanprankster.com/2008/11/iraq-war-ve... I'm sure we can come up with numerous other sub-categorizations but all fall under Disruptive Realism to one degree or another.
[...] a few weeks old but still worth pointing out as another recent example of "Disruptive Realism" - a clever twist on the slogan of the New York Times: 'All the news we hope to [...]
dave
thanks for the video - it made me think of the largest disruptive realism piece i've ever encountered, 'the gates' by christo. and while i'm thinking about it, just about any kind of trompe l'oeil.
i'd define disruptive realism as anything that makes me look at things anew and that usually makes me giggle.
thanks for giving me something to think about.
brooke
What is DR?
reviewer - November 13, 2008
Do you consider these fake NYT distributed in NYC, "disruptive realism"? http://www.psfk.com/2008/11/free-fake-copies-of-the-new-york-times.html
Response to What is DR Comment
Dave - November 13, 2008
Thanks for the comment and pointing this out. I hadn't seen it.
I've had a number of conversations about this since the video was posted and I realize that the video doesn't give a really conclusive definition.
Disruptive Realism is an expression presented in an everyday context that disrupts peoples perceptions about different things. Expression can mean many things and it a way it's art but it's also much more expansive a term than just art.
Banksy's graffiti looks real enough that you might do a double take looking at it. It draws you into the content which is disruptive...like a little girl flying a refrigerator kite in New Orleans.
The other two examples are even more non-conventional than the word Art implies. Most people hear the word art and they think of a painting in a museum. Because Bruno Taylor's work is an experience that involves physical designs like the swing set in the bus stop, the viewer is no longer viewing, they're interacting and the videos he takes of people enjoying the installations are, in fact, part of the art. So this example is difficult to define, but definitely real and definitely disruptive.
Improv Everywhere is one part performance art and one part massive, crowdsourced goof. People get together (often strangers) to collaborate on a kind of a joke on the unsuspecting and unknowing non-participants. In a way, it's almost an anti-terrorism...Humorism? But again, very real and very disruptive.
In the case of the fake NY Times, I would say that absolutely, it's Disruptive Realism and if the issue's headline was that the wars are over, then it's a hopeful message, which is a very good thing.
Another example a friend pointed out to me was Reverse Graffiti:
http://www.psfk.com/2008/11/free-fake-copies-...
where Paul "Moose" Curtis (awesome middle name by the way) "makes pictures by cleaning." He goes on to say that reverse graffiti is also commentary in that he can't "not tow the environmental line" so his art is disruptive in that he says that people walk up to it and realize that his work is dirt removal and that the world is "really, really dirty." If that ain't reality and if that ain't disruptive then I don't know what is. Hopefully viewers are moved to clean more and ride their bike to work because the art is a very visceral represesentation of how nasty pollution is.
Yet another example was Orson Welles's 'War of the Worlds' radio broadcast, which was meant as entertainment and likely a commentary on how evolution had been twisted into Social Darwinism (which is an interpretation of the HG Wells book on which the broadcast was based.) Regardless of its intention, the broadcast caused mass hysteria. An excellent example of Disruptive Realism.
Advertising example of this concept from 2003
scott lawrence - November 15, 2008
Rethink, an advertising agency based in Vancouver have used these types of techniques for thier clients in the past. It's great because it takes the familar and transforms it. Thier website is not the easisest to navigate, but under their work archives is a portfolio piece for a company called the Bike Doctor. What they did is add to exisitng road stencils for bike lanes, giving each bike a flat tire and adding the name and address of the company.
Pingback
. .. How Do We Break Our Pattern Of Thought « Ston - November 15, 2008
[...] Check out Dave Hoffer’s thoughts on creativity. [...]
Pingback
. .. How Do We Break Our Pattern Of Thought « Ston - November 15, 2008
[...] View Dave Hoffer’s thoughts on DR [...]
Ethics of Disruption
David Andersson - November 17, 2008
A question that comes to mind about the Improv Everywhere pranks is what the justification is for this disruption of reality for the "unsuspecting and unknowing non-participants." Improv Everywhere seems to have two types of pranks. The first is like the Grand Central Freeze, where the viewers recognize that what is going on is some sort of performance, some sort of art (i.e. they don't actually believe 200 people froze in time for a few minutes, but recognize there must be some sort of coordination). The second type of prank is more deceptive, and includes pranks like Will You Marry Me?, Romantic Comedy Cab, and Best Gig Ever (all documented on the Improv Everywhere website), where the non-participants don't actually recognize that what they witnessed was a performance, but actually think it is reality (i.e. they actually think they aided a wedding proposal, or reunited two estranged lovers, or performed for a full house of die-hard fans).
The first type of prank seems to fit well with Banksy and Bruno Taylor, because the audience recognizes it is some sort of art. However, the latter seems to require a different set of justifications, since it really does seem to be just an exercise in deception. The Improv Everywhere justification for the second type seems to be that they are providing happy peak experiences for these people, but those feelings of happiness are ultimately based on a false reality. What do you think are the ethical issues that go along with that, and can these acts be justified?
More examples
Hans - November 17, 2008
See also the legacy of hacks at MIT and Seattle's emerging tradition of sculpture park hacks. I particularly admire the "coming soon" fake-signage genre.
The fake NYT was great, but does it count as Disruptive Realism when you hack the media?
Pingback
Disruptive Realism - November 18, 2008
[...] I think it’s safe to say that The Yes Men would have made Orson proud. Here’s to “reality”. [...]
The Ethics of Disruptive Realism
Dave - November 18, 2008
I think the missions that can be identified by bystanders like, ‘Frozen Grand Central,’ ‘Human Mirror’ and ‘No Pants,’ can more easily be defined as Disruptive Realism, but the examples you mention are disruptive and do change the reality of the participants.
Providing a little happiness isn’t a bad thing.
Just because the expression’s participants aren’t in on the joke, it’s ok, as long as they’re not getting hurt. The ‘Best Gig Ever’ didn’t seem to end with the band being told about the mission (unless I missed it in the post) and they ended up with some publicity. This mission was posted on RollingStone.com and printed in Spin magazine. DAVID SPRAGUE, the writer of the RollingStone piece, seems to see the mission as hurtful, but perhaps he simply has no sense of humor. I would defer to the members of Ghosts of Pasha [http://www.ghostsofpasha.com/] to know whether they feel slighted or not but since they have a link to the RollingStone.com article on their site, and note in the Spin article that they’re slightly more successful now than they were, that they don’t feel bad about the mission. Both links can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/2lzknr
I’m not an advocate of any expression knowingly or unknowingly hurting anyone else, but in the case of the 'War of Worlds' broadcast, it is definitely Disruptive Realism. The mission by Improv Everywhere titled, ‘Suicide Jumper’ [http://tinyurl.com/227cam] could have upset people, but the scene ends happily and I’m sure the intention wasn’t malicious. It should be noted that although this mission and ‘Food Court Musical’ are disruptive, they’re less real, and therefore may not fall under my definition. Both of these missions can be found at: http://improveverywhere.com/
So my opinion is that it’s not unethical to alter a persons’ day for the better, with an expression that sends a positive message. I’m not an ethicist though so you should ask Randy Cohen of the New York Times. ethicist@nytimes.com
Hacking the Media
Dave - November 18, 2008
Is hacking the media Disruptive Realism? It depends on what you mean by hacking the media.
Re: The Ethics of Disruptive Realism
David Andersson - November 18, 2008
I'm going to play devil's advocate here a bit. Going off of your last statement (it's not unethical to alter a person's day for the better, with an expression that sends a positive message): what about if/when the person finds out that it was all false?
Improv Everywhere clearly has the best intentions in the moment: to make a person's day a bit better. However, when they post the video of the prank online for millions to view, there is a strong likelihood that some of the people who were pranked will discover that the experience that had made them real was actually fabricated. There are a few reactions that may be had in the situation:
1) The person may think it makes their exciting story even more exciting (and THEN i found out that the wedding proposal was actually all staged!)
2) The person may feel a bit saddened that the experience wasn't real (i was so happy when i thought that someone would actually propose on the subway...)
3) The person may then become skeptical of reality (if i ever see someone proposing on the subway again, i'll think it's a prank.)
The Ghosts of Pasha had a mixed reaction once they discovered that Best Gig Ever was a prank. They had thought it was bizarre that 40 unknown people had shown up knowing all their lyrics, but they had just written it off as a stroke of awesome luck. When they first found out that the audience was fake, they had feelings basically of betrayal (with the realization that they didn't actually have as many fans as they thought they did, and that their best concert was actually played to bunch of pranksters). This was about the time when they were interviewed on This American Life (which can be found here: http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sc...). However, as is made clear by their website, they did ultimately recognize that they were getting publicity out of the prank, and so ultimately it did benefit them. But does that discount those initial negative feelings?
Even though this isn't the best analogy, I'm going to give it: when someone finds out that their spouse cheated on them and then hid it from them to prevent them from getting hurt, that person is very likely to feel betrayed not only because of the cheating, but also because the truth was hidden from them. They were being presented with a false reality that made them happy, and then they discovered that reality was fictitious, and that actual reality is not as great as the false reality.
Obviously finding out that you've been cheated on is much worse than finding out that you didn't actually awesome fans, or that you didn't actually witness a marriage proposal, or that you didn't actually reunite two estranged lovers. But the comparison still calls something to light, I think.
Finally, the third thing I mentioned in that list is also important, I think. The idea that you are then approaching life a bit more skeptically does not seem to be very positive. It doesn't seem to be promoting a sense of wonder in the world, but instead a more distrustful eye....looking for the clues to see whether someone is deceiving you, even if only to make you happy.
I feel like such a cynic here, but it's just on my mind! (I'm currently writing my thesis on urban pranks, and am heavily basing it on Improv Everywhere).
Ethics
David Hoffer - November 24, 2008
Thanks again for the comments Mr. Andersson. This is an interesting discussion and I very much appreciate it.
While I agree that some people might react negatively to some of the missions from Improv Everywhere, it is impossible to gauge. Despite the intention of the mission, there may be some who become unhappy if they feel they're the brunt of a joke or even if they feel like their time has been wasted. Does this mean that Mr. Todd and the Improv Everywhere folks should discontinue their missions? I certainly hope not because I think the majority of people find these expressions wonderful and engaging. The Disruption for the many, outweighs the betrayal of the few.
Also, your example of infidelity is too extreme and diminishes your argument. When you're in a relationship, there's a deep level of trust that when broken, can be emotionally crippling. The taxi driver in the Will You Marry Me mission, was only emotionally involved for a limited time and if he ever found out, may have been annoyed but he likely didn't feel betrayed. The Ghosts of Pasha were probably not affected this badly. Again, a white lie is a more comparable example. If I mention that a shirt that a colleague is wearing is sharp looking, even if I don't mean it, the intention is to be complimentary and the result is that the person may feel better about themselves or their wardrobe. If they find out later that I was ingenuous, they may feel hurt, or trust me less, but will likely not end up crying in the shower, curled in a fetal position till the hot water runs out. :)
To go back to your first post on Nov. 17th, I've been thinking about it and I agree with you that there are different kinds of expressions, but to say that there are just two is probably limiting. Would it be fair to say there are a spectrum of expressions from the simple to the complex? Some missions on Improve Everywhere involve a great deal of preparation, props and documentation. Some less so. Some of the missions are expressions involving few people like Will You Marry Me, and some involve a much larger number like the MP3 Experiments. There are those that are meant to entertain, like Food Court Musical and those that have political commentary like this example from Urban Prankster - http://urbanprankster.com/2008/11/iraq-war-ve... I'm sure we can come up with numerous other sub-categorizations but all fall under Disruptive Realism to one degree or another.
Pingback
Fake Times | Blog | design mind - November 28, 2008
[...] a few weeks old but still worth pointing out as another recent example of "Disruptive Realism" - a clever twist on the slogan of the New York Times: 'All the news we hope to [...]
dave thanks for the video -
brooke - December 25, 2008
dave
thanks for the video - it made me think of the largest disruptive realism piece i've ever encountered, 'the gates' by christo. and while i'm thinking about it, just about any kind of trompe l'oeil.
i'd define disruptive realism as anything that makes me look at things anew and that usually makes me giggle.
thanks for giving me something to think about.
brooke
Post new comment