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.

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 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).

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

Obviously you are not breaking any pattern thinking yourself with that disposable cup on your hand. Keep consuming trash and talk about design... disposable = bad design. Right.

I'm currently completing my major work for a Drama unit in my final year of study and am doing a paper on Improv Everywhere. After stumbling on your article it has become a major component of my work, as I am now gearing the concept of the paper to the involvement of the audience.

--
Cool. Audience participation is huge part of Improv Everywhere and Disruptive Realism. The internet has lent a level of depth and scale to projects that prior to this had to be experienced in a theater. I recently read Steve Martins book:

http://www.amazon.com/Born-Standing-Up-Comics...

In it, he talks about a moment where he played a college or something and when the show was over, the audience was reluctant to leave. So he goes outside and the audience follows him and he finds an empty swimming pool, has everyone get in and he proceeds to body surf/swim across them. He talks about how strange it was to him and how completely different it was from anything else he'd seen or heard of. Andy Kaufman used to bring audiences out for milk and cookies. What a great extension of the performance. Kind of a tangent but two examples of audience participation. I'm sure you've heard of both.
---
I was wondering what your thoughts were on the importance of the audience to 'disruptive realism' as a whole and more specifically, to Improv Everywhere. I guess what I'm trying to prove is whether or not we can experience a theatrical moment without knowing it.

--
Good question. The easy answer is that the audience is integral to both and multilayered. Integral because how can you have a mission like Best Gig Ever without the band, the rest of the present audience and the secondary audience who sees the videos on the web. Which is the multilayered aspect. The band thinks they've got this big audience, the people who really came to see the band are almost getting two performances, the band and the mission fans, and then everyone on the web gets to enjoy the whole scene from a third perspective. I think you could even make an argument that the band themselves is also, kind of an audience.

Reverse Graffiti and the Bus Stop Swing have observers of the situation who pass the bus stop or instance of Reverse Graffiti and who's reality is disrupted. The Bus Stop Swing has the additional audience of the person who actually sits in the swing. The direct observer and direct participant are both primary and again, anyone caught on video observing or participating and viewed online is a secondary audience.

However, the more difficult answer is that neither has an audience and neither are performances.

The Improv Everywhere's missions, Reverse Graffiti, Fake NY Times, Bus Stop Swing, are all artificial situations that I call Disruptive Realism. All of them disrupt the normal pattern that people are currently in and change (hopefully for the better) those peoples reality. The examples are so diverse; MP3 experiments to Grand Central Freeze. Neither has an "audience" or are a "performance," at least not in the traditional sense. You might argue that Food Court Musical is because the mission is close to a traditional performance, but it still falls outside the traditional definition.

I prefer the terms observers and participants as opposed to audience. And of course, the observers, participants and secondary observers who view the online vid's are STILL crucial to the expression.

As to your second point, some of the missions from IE like Romantic Comedy Cab don't necessarily reveal themselves to the primary observers or participants but only to the secondary observers who see the mission online. In a way, this instance is like a friendly grift. Rather than tricking the individual into parting with money, the persons day is (hopefully) made better by being an unwitting participant. These people are still needed but in this case, they don't know.

The MP3 Experiment is wholly different. In this expression, the participants are fully aware of their participation and the bystanders who happen to be there as well, are clearly seeing something going on but the participants ARE the "audience" in that they take part, do the fun MP3 stuff and get to see themselves online later. So they're both the participants AND the secondary observers. Same with the Grand Central Freeze. Participants are fully aware, observers can't not be aware and then they can both watch later online, along with other secondary observers.

You could easily examine each example of Disruptive Realism to determine who the participants, observers and secondary observers are, why each would be interested in participating or observing and how the expression of DR fostered this.

Sounds like fun.

I hope that helps and good luck with your work.
dave

Banksy is a he. No it's not advertising and yes, intensely personal...in very public places. Thanks for the post.

By all means. Send me a copy of the paper when you're finished. Would love to read it.
Thanks