Untitled Main Menu

Blogpost 2

44465
Translation I used: "I do not complain about anything and I like everything, despite the fact that I have never been here and do not know anything about these places." 

When I was reading Political Games of Chance: Monstrations and Their Ludic Tactics, I couldn't help but be reminded of Andrei Monastyrski's 1977 photo from the first week of this section. I will be close reading this image and comparing it to the form of monstrations. I understand that the term monstration wasn't coined until 2004, and became popular after the 2012 protests, in response to the brutal crackdowns on legal demonstrations; however, I couldn't get that red banner out of my head while reading. Even though these two sentences are absurd, they felt true and yet subversive. This is my understanding of monstrations: they represent a challenge to power by using humor to ensure its audience receives and enjoys the critique. The first sentence feels like something one says when they know they are being listened to by the authorities, which allows it to be said without repercussions. It is a tactical choice of critique without posing a direct political challenge. Any Russian would understand that they cannot complain about anything, and they probably do not like everything. I find the banner pushing this message by being written in the first person. Which I find odd for a banner and its general purpose. 

What is the purpose of a banner? To me, it is a form of strategic communication, designed to be short and simple, yet powerful in its message or call to action. We created banners to support, inform, or inspire the people who read them. While the reading of this seems quite absurd, the extension of its location draws certain truths. Using the first person, the reader is telling at least two truths; I have never been here, and I do not know anything about these places. If this banner were hung somewhere more public or recognizable, I think it would lose all its meaning. The fact that it is a picture of a banner in an unknown location, changes the context to which it is viewed. The location and season together gives the reader the opposite feeling of a banner's intent. When I read a banner, in my head it tends to be yelling, or at least loud, both in the way it is read and generally the colors used, but the juxtaposition of the snow covered hilltop and the red banner, somehow dampens what should be a loud statement or a call to action, and reduces it to a whisper. The image feels quiet and estranged, until you notice the footprints in front of it. 

The number of foot prints in front of the banner betrays what it says: someone has been here, possibly several someones, which is obvious because the banner is hung in the trees, but not only is the banner evidence in itself that the second statement is not true, the footprints leave the impression that several people have been here and the initial truth felt is a lie. Then I noticed that the image is not centered on the banner, is this a technique to further askew the reader, as to say from the start that something is wrong with the banner or its message? To me, it gives the sense of the cliche from action films, where the clerk at a gas station is trying to notify the policeman paying for gas, that he is being robbed. A slight nod or blinking too many times too quickly to show something is off. In the end, the banner no longer feels true, it almost feels like it is being forced to read from a script, and desperate for the reader to know it is held hostage. But then you realize it reads as "I", and you feel as though you are the real hostage. 

This page has paths:

  1. Title Page Joshua sandy

This page has replies:

  1. Yunis's comment on Joshua's blogpost 2 Yunis Gurbanov In my opinion, Joshua's critical comment provides a thoughtful analysis of the image and its implications. Moreover, Joshua provides insights into the nuances of monstrations and using banners as a form of communication. I just would like to suggest the following while you draw parallels between the image and the concept of monstrations, to my opinion, it might be beneficial to elaborate on how exactly the image reflects the principles or tactics associated with monstrations. Moreover, I would tackle the question: what specific elements of the image align with the characteristics of monstrations, such as humor, subversion, or indirect critique? I hope it makes sense to you. Furthermore, you briefly touch upon the image's composition, noting the placement of the banner and the surrounding environment. For instance, I would consider digging deeper into how the visual elements contribute to the overall message or interpretation of the image. For example, how do the snowy landscape and the solitary placement of the banner contribute to the sense of isolation or estrangement? Answering this question would give a more insightful answer to interpreting the image. You conclude by reflecting on the reader's experience and emotional response to the image. I might consider expanding on this reflection by exploring how the image evokes a sense of unease or dissonance in the viewer. Of course, the above-mentioned points reflect my own perspective, which can and should differ from yours. However, generally, I enjoyed reading the post. Thank you!
  2. Second part of the banner Liza Senatorova Dear Josh, thank you for your analysis of this banner, I find it very accurate and it inspired me to think about this installation more. 1) About the location: I would also consider that this banner is located not in an urban space (like most of monstrations) but in a forest that is not quite adapted for the protests, rallies, or marches. Here, the forest is like a space of absence - not a lot of people would see this banner, and it would hang there without any human involvement. A liminal zone is chosen for a liminal form of protest. 2) I agree that there is an element of absurdity since someone was at this place, and we see the footsteps in the snow. This aligns with the reaction to Pasternak's novel "Doctor Zhivago": "I have not read it, but I condemn it," where the idea of absence is also present. But the funniest thing is that the story of this banner has a continuation. After a year, at the very same place, there was another banner with the words: "It's strange why I lied to myself that I've never been here and don't know anything about these places - because in fact it's the same as everywhere else - except you feel it even more acutely and don't understand it more deeply." So this apolitical play with the political critique first subverts the current state regime and later subverts itself.