Disruptive Realism

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.

[...] Check out Dave Hoffer’s thoughts on creativity. [...]

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?

[...] I think it’s safe to say that The Yes Men would have made Orson proud. Here’s to “reality”. [...]

Is hacking the media Disruptive Realism? It depends on what you mean by hacking the media.

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.

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