AD603 Critical Theory

I can’t help but think back to the fight of craft versus art, and trying to figure out the barrier between.  It seems like a question of validity and acceptance.  I understand that this isn’t exactly what the reading was about, but I couldn’t stop thinking of SOFA.  I have attended SOFA for the past couple of years, well at least every other year, and have to say that what I have seen from Europe and other countries seems depressing.  I guess that is my Americentrism coming out, my need to feel superior and better than the rest.  I looked at the galleries from Ireland in hopes of finding something interesting and for some odd reason felt let down.  I was not born in Ireland nor were my parents, but I feel like I have a tie to that country.  I supposedly have more Irish blood in me than any other; I guess I should look into how much, based on last weeks reading from Adrian Piper.  I shouldn’t have any pride for a country I guess aside from America based on the fact that I was born here and will most likely never move to a different country.  If my work was based on any perception in any one country, I would have to say that it was based on the United States, for the soul purpose that I look at how we perceive nature.  This idea or question seems to have a large origin in America based on the paintings from the Hudson River School.  Painters like Thomas Cole came over from Europe and turned their Eurocentrism into Americentrism painting landscape portraits to show the grandeur of the new world, an idea that was supposed to make the Europeans jealous. Okay I am kind of trailing off here, sorry. 

So, going back to the SOFA issue, to say the least I was unpleased this year yet again. For one, call the art fair glass (based on the fact that everything there is made of glass), and second show something new for once, I saw that the last two times I was here.  My biggest concern is the ad that SOFA had this year, what the hell is going on, not only does this make Galleri Udengaard look bad, it make ceramics look lame as hell.  If the ceramic artists in Denmark are making work like this I will cancel my trip, and as for ceramics, what is Lars Calmar trying to accomplish, what is he trying to communicate?  Your figurative work is great, so continue working in bronze, and stay out of ceramics for the people in this world who work with clay.

As for the idea of Americentrism, it would not be so if it weren’t for the idea of Eurocentrism.  No matter what country you come from their will always be a backing of that country and its heritage.  The ideas from one culture will always influence another in one way or another, just look at Santa clause in his all red get up, this was not always so(thank you coca cola).      

It’s because I’m white isn’t it

Oh no. 

I have a hard time with Adrian Piper’s Cornered, the set up, and the accusations.  Look at me, a black woman that you have pushed against a wall, you are looking, judging, all the time.  Why do I have to struggle, why would you put me in this position?

Her work throws accusations at you, assuming that you need to reassess your feelings, your understanding of what it is to be this or that and how people view you, and how you view others.  For me the work seems to lack, lack tact that is and yes I understand that this is her point, if you approach me with race, and in this manner, I will immediately ignore you.  If you would like to discuss the way the black Americans are perceived in the United States, I am perfectly fine with that, as long as it’s an open discussion. 

It’s no secret, whatever color you are, and no matter what ethnicity you are, race is a touchy subject.  Race is hard, it’s hard to discuss in a group, and it’s even harder to discuss with a group of people from multiple ethnicities.  You are always going to hear something negative, or an incorrect stereotype.   If we could all just laugh at our stereo types, pushing them off as a joke I think we would be better off, some people can not let the stereotypes go, they get very offended by them, for those of you who are easily offended by common stereotypes open up this link and have a good laugh:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuTjQLfU6Gk  - Thanks Dave Chappelle

I would like to bring up the fact that the black, or I should say Black / African American debate is not over, and won’t be for a long time.  This debate has created segregation within a single skin color what does color mean, and what does a name mean?  In this article an African American was denied an award for not being Black enough, yet he was African American.  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36764

I do have a problem with calling all Blacks, African American, how do I know that they are originally from Africa?  What if I referred to someone as African American and they were Jamaican American? http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=649901

This brake down goes back and forth, but Piper did ask for you to find out your history, follow you family tree to find out just how black you are (or African, or British, or …). 

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/08/news/0e-mcwhorter8

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28816/Black-African-American.aspx

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_latimes-why_im_black.htm

Should I get into my own, personal experiences on being a white man?  I have seen, on many occasions, what is referred to as reverse racism, anti – white racism or reverse discrimination take place.

http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/08-02.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination

I guess I can’t say that I understand what some one with a different color skin (than my own) goes through on a day to day basis, but I do feel that constantly making it an issue will only make the situation worse.  Yes, I understand that we need to now our history, what we have done and where we have come from, but dose the constant recognition make us numb to the topic all together?  I guess we will just have to see what happens in time. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081117/ts_csm/aaryan 

One last remark, how Black are you Piper? Because you look like your Hispanic, I guess that shows how I look at people or more appropriately how I see people.

The Jameson reading wasn’t the worst reading yet, but where are we going?  I can’t act like I haven’t heard the argument it’s all been done before, so if it has why are we continuing?  I understand why I am trying, why I continue to make what I would like to call artwork, but what is Fredric Jameson’s response to this?  I can say that I don’t necessarily agree of disagree with this idea, I am unsure as to haw I can react to this comment.

I feel that I continue to make art based on the anxious feeling that I need to, a feeling that turns the process of making art into a necessity.  I guess that this feeling will continue through time for a certain number of people who will be told from now until the end of time that its all been done before.  I think that I can say that to a certain degree it has all been done before, but at the same time it hasn’t ever been done before. Does that make sense to anyone?  Teachers have told me that it has all been done before, and that were here to put our own spin on something that we have already seen. Other teachers have argued that if its all been done before than no one would get recognition fro what they are doing, it wouldn’t matter anymore, and that if we were just putting our own spin on it we would be criticized as a copycat.  I just come back to the fact that I love and need to make, so that’s what I do, and that is what I will continue to do until I die.  Although I do have to admit that it sucks when you go to a museum, gallery or show and you see what you’re currently working on completed.  It not only hurts you in a way, but it also reconfirms that you are an artist, that if you ever questioned whether what you were doing is valid or invalid at that moment you get validity.  I have to bring recognition to the beat poets; the poets from the east coast and the west coast were trying to free the people from traditional American values at the same time, in two parts of the same country.  So, in this sense of its all been done before, I have to say that it’s a valid argument, but a good thing that this is happening at the same time.   

I feel that Jameson needs to give more information to his readers.  Most of the films that he refers to I have never watched, and the books that he refers to I have never read.  I guess that I will have to get the low down on the films from John.  The little amount of information that he gives about the films or the books was unfortunately not enough for me to better understand the points that he was trying to get across.

I feel that modernism was the initial exploration, and postmodernism has not only the confirmation but it was put into process, everything and anything could and was recognized as art.   

I feel that in all of this you just recognize that you have to continue, no matter what anyone says.  Dada has it – art is always in a state of flux!

Can walls both real and imaginary define us as a culture, as a society?  Where do the walls begin, and where do they end?  How do we classify these walls and how many are their?

I don’t think that Michael Foucault would necessarily have definitive answers to any of these questions; he would probably say, well this is about that and I don’t want to hold anything to a solid definition, so lets look to this example in the past.

I remember shortly after 9/11 I was watching Fox news and they were interviewing a lady from Afghanistan, and she said something like “the US is a snake, and New York is the head of the snake, so if you kill the head, you kill the snake”.  So, what did she mean by this, why is New York the head?  New York isn’t the capital of the United States, so who gives a shit about New York?  Obviously this lady did, as well as a large group of terrorists, and probably a large part of a nation, but why?  Is it due to the fact that immigrants use to pass through New York in order to come to the US, or is the architecture to blame?  Does the setup or the position of the city have anything to do with how we perceive New York, or how we see any city for that matter? 

There are walls on buildings and then there are walls within districts of the city.  Streets act as walls, by defining where Chinatown begins and ends within the city.  The same thing happens with soho and Little Italy, and on and on.  I wonder if there are walls with in the walls.  If there was a Little Ireland would there be a Northern Ireland and an Ireland within the whole spectrum of Little Ireland?  Would there be walls and if there were walls, and how would they be defined?

In Chicago police saw walls forming around Cabrini-Green, the ABLA, Stateway Gardens and the Robert Taylor Homes.  Walls that were both clearly defined, and clearly undefined, if you lived around the projects you knew were these walls stood, yet if you were driving through you wouldn’t see these walls.  These projects have been torn down to rid the city of the gang violence and improve the areas.  The families that were housed by the projects moved to nearby suburbs, or to other housing developments in nearby cities.  Once the projects are fully demolished the Chicago Housing Authority will be building mixed income housing on the sites.  The families that lived in the projects were promised that they would not only have a home within the mixed income housing they build, but that they would also be able to afford living their.  Most of the families have already moved, and the ones that have stayed nearby don’t feel like they will be able to afford the new homes.  The walls within the mixed housing have the idea of two types of walls, walls that define a Barrier between your home and your neighbors, as well as walls that define your income and their income.

Everything that has ever gone wrong in my life is defiantly because of some stupid architects design.  Is there a reason why I placed walls around my bathroom, and on top of this, is there a reason why I placed my bathroom next to the kitchen? Who knows?

http://www.thecha.org/

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/253.html

http://www.voicesofcabrini.com/index.html

I feel like the readings clarified my understanding of the mirror stage. In a means to better understand myself, as well as what I am trying to say with my work, I started reading books on Lacan not very long ago. The books that I have read so far jumble up all his work, without an in-depth explanation to any one thing Lacan was doing.

The mirror stage seems to be the beginning of a visual identification. I feel that having a four year old around me greatly benefits my understanding of the mirror stage. I take notice of how my daughter reacts to situations, such as having Hannah Montana as an idol. I know that she doesn’t notice the difference between herself and Hannah Montana /MIley Stewart (Miley Ray Cyrus); I say this because she tells me that she is going to be Hannah Montana when she grows up. I would also like to note that she thinks she can become a dog when she grows up; this is due to her mother telling her she can be anything when she is older. I have tried to explain that humans cannot become animals numerous times and in numerous ways, yet she still thinks that it is entirely possible to become a dog once you reach a certain age. It’s very likely that I too thought I could be a dog at her age, so I know that it’s not a big deal, based on the idea that I am somewhat normal. I just don’t want her to turn out to be one of those people who really think that they are an animal, like this lady.

This is an image of Jocelyn Wildenstsin after having plastic surgery making her look more like a cat, just what she asked for, to become feline like. I have a hard time understanding some people and I feel like they need help, or maybe she didn’t have mirrors around and her parents owned numerous cats? If you think she looks odd take a look at this dude, I think he could use a little more help than her.

I know that I look like the bad guy, pointing out the differences in people, but I am interested in what happened here, why the need to transform yourself into something else.

In Why Lacan, on the eleventh page, second to last paragraph Sean Homer brought up the unconscious, this is something that I am very interested in and I’m trying to incorporate into my work. I don’t necessarily feel the need to speak to the audience’s unconscious, but I would like to display my unconscious indirectly. The way that the unconscious has no boundaries, nothing saying you can’t do that, no restrictions, this idea is extremely appealing. I am trying to understand the links between the real and the unconscious, and how to display this idea.

The best example I can give is the work of Del Harrow, he talks about Deleuzes “Virtual Reality” and Zizeks “reality of the virtual”. His work has layers and contains links to each other through a deeper understanding or meaning.

Most likely everyone has heard about Freud, he is referred to in so many things.  I had somewhat of an understanding of who he was and what he did.  In reading the texts I got a better understanding of what he was trying to accomplish, as well as his views on how we operate as people, or did I?

The Freud for Beginners was straight forward and of course easy to understand, you get an understanding as to how the ego, id and super ego function according to Freud.  I feel like this reading was going to be a good introduction to the next two readings by Peter Gay.  As I the reading about the unconscious, I stop and get the dictionary, then continue on with the reading, then looking up something, then stopping and trying understand what I just read, this continues through out the entire reading I feel the need to understand the text before going on to the next.  The sad thing is that I am truly interested in understanding all of this, critical theory, how we work as beings.  In going through the entire text again trying to remember my previous understanding about this and that as well as what that word meant, I find that I need to go back and read The Freud for Beginners once more.  This just took me back to square one, ok a basic understanding as to what Freud accomplished in his research, and that’s about it.  So, screw it, I just can’t follow how the conscious, the unconscious, and the preconscious, or the Cs, Ucs, Pcs, USB all work.  I feel like an old man at a nursing home complaining about everything, CAN SOMEONE MAKE ME A DAMN CHART?!?!?!

Continuing on to the Ego and Id reading, yes I am going to say it, lost me on this one as well, though not as much as the reading on the unconscious.  So what I can say is that the Id is basically any innate behavior (?) the ego is what we use to present ourselves with, or as (?) and the unconscious has so many layers and ways of working that no one will ever truly understand, maybe?  I need to find more beginner, and introduction style books that are more comprehensive on what Freud, Lacan, Adorno, etc….  I guess that I am admitting that my brain is too small to comprehend any of this, or maybe my ego is just getting in the way.  My ego is most likely jealous of the fact that it cannot sound as intelligent as Freud, Marx or anyone else that we have read about so far.

On to something I can bring to the table for show and tell, I give myself; I mean Guy Ritchie (damn ego) credit for the 2005 movie Revolver.  It your typical Ritchie film complete with gangsters, and so on with somewhat of a twist, the movie plays with the ego trying to make the standard gangster film have a little depth to it.  This might not be the best guide to understanding the ego, but based on the fact that most of us need some sort of entertainment to understand anything, you might take a look at it.

Commodity has a bad virus and has thrown up all over everyone and everything.  I feel that the commodity as spectacle is a way to show how commodity seems to play a role in everyone’s everyday life.  Today the influence of commodity is in everything we see and do, we cannot escape it!

Advertisements make everything desirable from completely unnecessary items to necessities like bread.  I know that we need food in order to survive, but we don’t need a million different verities of the same product.  Commodity is anything that has a demand for, yet bread is no longer bread, and bananas are no longer bananas.  I notice that this grocery store has organic bananas, yet the other doesn’t, and that the other has Aunt Millie’s 9 grain summer wheat, but this one doesn’t.  There is not only a desire for the commodity yet there is a desire to shop at a store that carries the products.  The point that I am trying to make here is that there is no longer any equivalent to each other; I predict that very soon gold will no longer be gold, and in a sense this is already true, a gold ring from Tiffany & Co. is ten times more than a comparable gold ring from Kay Jewelers.  The quality of the gold is exactly the same but the name is a more desirable commodity.

I would like to bring recognition to a quote from Debord’s Bible section 42 sentence 2 on page 21, “Commodification is not only visible, we no longer see anything else; the world we see is the world of commodity.”.  I respond to this with a slight disagreement (most likely due to the time I was born) I was born into this and only began to recognize this in high school, not the fact that there are necessities, but the way they are marketed to consumers.  I feel that we have been raised in a world that has taught us to present ourselves as a commodity, and if we don’t, we won’t make the team, get the job, or get anything.  As a society how would we survive without the desire of the commodity, could we?  The general population knows and understands that the desire to purchase an object may not truly be their desire, yet they don’t care, they still want to own it.  Possession is the true problem and we will never get past this need/desire to posses objects as long as the commodity is anything other than ordinary. 

The commodity only grows with the consumer.  The consumer typically is glad to ware a shirt that advertises the commodity’s source.  Clothing is the worst, it not only is the product of desire (commodity), but it typically states your status, advertising to the world where the product was from.  People feel good about spending more money if they advertise for the company; it shows that they can afford the product.  This is a win for the company, and a win for consumer, look at me I can afford to purchase a purse from Prada, jeans from Gap, a shirt from French Connection United Kingdom.  Thank you for throwing up your name on all the products we can purchase.

P.S. Thanks for letting me see Debord as a drunk John, I thought he was making a bible.  

Help me, or just kill me!  I have no idea what Walter Benjamin is trying to say.  I feel like I have some understanding to what Dan Graham is talking about, yet, I am lost with Benjamin.

I understand that Adorno’s works on critical theory was a great influence on Benjamin’s work.  I feel like I have somewhat of an understanding as to what Adorno was trying to say about the culture industry and how he applies it to our (or his) world. Yet, for whatever reason I could find little to no parallel between the works of Benjamin to that of Adorno, very little seemed to transfer or translate into Benjamins language.  Adorno’s radio project could have had some influence but I didn’t see Benjamin discuss this.   

Another supposed great influence on Benjamin was the work of Bertolt Brecht, a Marxist who had some very personal views as to what a Marxist was.  I know a little about Brecht and feel that his greatest influence would have been his works as a play write.  Still I find little influence in Benjamin’s actual writing. 

Benjamin’s writing style has me more confused than ever, I don’t know where he is going, what he is trying to say, and how he is trying to communicate his ideas.  Benjamin’s “The Works of Art of the Age of its Technological Reproducibility: second Version” lost me, I couldn’t really piece anything together.  So after reading Dan Graham’s “Legacies of Critical Practice in the 1980s” I decided to read Benjamin’s “The Author as Producer”  hoping to find some clarity to what the hell he is really trying to say.  I wish I could say that the weight was lifted and the fog cleared, but I can’t, unfortunately I feel even more lost than I was before.  In questioning I look to the pure brilliance of Wikipedia.com please Wikipedia give me something, anything.  Thank you Susan Sontag for your small input into the style of writing that has me so confused “ Sontage once remarked that, in Benjamin’s text, sentences do not seem to generate in the ordinary way; they do not lead gently into one another’ and do not create an obvious line of reasoning.”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin)  She calls his style “freeze-frame baroque” I’m not sure what she means by this yet I feel like I am not the only one that is completely lost.

To say in the least I can not give any input into what he is trying to say I couldn’t argue with anyone about his views, and thankfully don’t care to.  No, I will not be doing any light reading about Benjamin any time soon; unless a professor decides I need to.

Dan Graham seemed to be a breath of fresh air in comparison to Benjamin.  I am most fascinated with his views on the layering of history.  Graham states”In historicism there’s no real past, only an overlay of interpretations or simulation of the “past”.”  This idea of building on the past gives validity to the idea that there is nothing original; we are all just building upon each other’s ideas in our own way.  This idea seems romantic and yet is very hard to argue, Benjamin of course disputed this idea and claimed that original ideas can come from dreams, hallucinations, etc…, My argument with Benjamin on his dispute is the question of whether dreams, hallucinations are the product of past experiences?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2LHRKVVZIM

The first reading introduced me to Theodor Adornos views on the world he lived in.  I would say that you can apply some of his theory to todays mass media influence on product advertisement and sales.

Over the river and through the woods to culture industry we go?  I could follow through on some of Adorno’s views, yet he lost me more than once.  He made me question if he truly meant what he was saying or if he just got caught up in an idea.  He says things throughout the reading that seem questionable.  For instance he claims a “profound distrust of all rational resolutions.” (231) this comment is in the beginning of the reading, and already turns me off to his points of view.  From this statement alone I get the feeling that if I were to sit down and have a discussion / argument with Adorno we would get nothing accomplished in understanding each other.  I am not saying that I disagree with all of Adorno’s views, in actuality I can easily relate to them.  I can agree that popular culture affects the lives of a vast majority of individuals.  The culture industry is “Hollywood movies, radio, mass-produced journalism, and advertising” (p.31 of the culture studies reader) I agree with this statement.  All of the things we see and watch are a part of the culture industry; to Adorno this is a way to lead the mass population into passivity, numbness, satisfaction in the simplest of simple.  We see, we buy and we love the product we now have. 

I unfortunately cannot agree with all of Adornos views; he would like to apply his idea of culture industry to nearly everything in life. The mass population follows many different directions rules movements, so much so that I cannot apply the idea of numb lifestyle to everyone.  I can say that a large amount feed into this way of life, yet others are against this way of life, or just pay no attention to this life style.  The most difficult view for me to follow is his reference to art being a part of the culture industry.  I would agree that Warhol was part of the culture industry, but that was his point art as commodity.  Yes, art fairs and to a degree SOFA feed into this idea, but not everything within the community of art is part of the culture industry.  What Adorno lacks is definitive explanation to what is truly part of the culture industry; he wants to include everything and disregards the lines in-between.  To me the culture industry is all black and no white, absolutely no shades of gray.  While reading about Adorno a small piece of  Spike Jonze 1999 film “Being John Malkovich” would play in my head.  In the scene John Malkovich falls into his own head, every one is Malkovich and everything is Malkovich.  In my head everything was culture industry, the only words you could say were culture industry, and the only thing you could do was culture industry.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur3CQE8xB3c

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3568894233/

In the second reading I was struck by the a passage “It has recently become customary among culture officials as well as sociologists to warn against understanding the culture industry while pointing to its great importance for the development of the consciousness of its consumers.” (p.15, C.I.R.).  Consumers understand what is going on they understand that advertisements are creating false needs, and yet they still buy the products.  This only shows that within our society we know, but don’t care we like our simple lives, and false necessities, its what makes us tick. We love shit for no specific reason, and the new desire is a necessity, designer food, brilliant!

In the end I agree and agree to disagree with Adorno, not all of it applies, maybe I’m too caught up in the culture industry? Who knows?

I was excited to begin the readings for class the first “Marx for beginners”, a reading that may actually bring a better understanding to the man referred to as the father of communism.  I was truly lost as to what Marxism was even though I have heard numerous people refer to Karl Marx and Marxism. 

Ahh. A sigh of relief Rius uses a comic book style to explain Karl Marx life and what people refer to as Marxism.  The sigh of relief comes from the fact that I have read books very similar to this such as Leader and Groves (1995) Introducing Lacan.  The style is quick, it keeps your attention and most of all it is easy to understand and read.  Trying to understand Marxism or communism in Marx’s own words is far from easy the way the book is set up clarifies the passages in order to better understand them.

We have most likely all had jobs that can directly relate to the reading.  Working hard so that your boss has to do little to nothing, and still getting pressured into completing more work on a daily basis.  While working for Michaels Arts and Crafts (a splendid corporation), in the framing center I had to look at the magnificent production management charts every day.  The was not physically demanding in any way I would like to add yet the time aloud to complete a customers frame was completely underestimated.  Day in and day out I would have to hear from my boss about not selling enough or not completing everything on the production chart.  It was impractical and insane, my boss knew that the production charts couldn’t possibly be completed in a day yet he would still yell at us. 

A communist society seems somewhat impossible; I think that it’s a great dream, but nothing more.  I would love it if everyone felt as though they were equal to each other, but the idea of not really owning objects seems unappealing.  This is where I get a little of track, I guess its because I have my own idea of what communism should be, and then again this may be due to the fact that I don’t truly have a full understanding of communism.  For my own sake I tend to see communism as a trade system, I give you an item in return for an item of similar value, where the ownership is still their, yet the trade is equal.  I would love it if I gave you a potato from my garden for an ear of corn from you garden. This past example is probably defined as some other sort or something; obviously I am not the first to this. What I want I guess is a pure equality and ownership over my work, the closest thing in reference would be Alex Garlands (1996) Novel “The Beach”.  The novel was later turned into a film in 2000 staring Leonardo DiCaprio.  DiCaprio is backpacking through Asia, meets a crazy dude who gives him a map to an island that is supposed to be weed nirvana.  Once he gets to the island he becomes part of a secret island society that works together in a similar fashion to what I described.  Obviously more happens in the film I was just getting to the point that was a comparison to my whole idea of pure communism.  Everyone helps each other out equally yet still has ownership over objects. Below is a clip from the 2000 movie The Beach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3T1W7FO4og&feature=related

Over all, the most difficult item for me to grasp is the ownership, in working I feel the need to posse’s items, to say this is my house, my chair, my food, it’s why I work!  It just feels like it goes against human nature, society enjoys a name, Prada, Sony, Apple, it gives us an odd sense of accomplishment.  I worked hard in order to have these objects.   This view may come from the idea that one object is better than another, yet it still seems natural to desire it.  I know that I am going of in my own tangent about one aspect; it’s just that it is the one aspect I don’t understand.

Now that I have a better understanding of the life and ideas of Karl Marx from Rius, I can discuss the other readings for the week.  Held brings us to a group of theorists that had concerns about Marx’s theories, but also shared similar views to that of Marx.  The concerns arose due to modern day realities.  Their largest concern with Marx was on his view that Socialism should be the next step.  In the next reading Horkheimer seems to show me that critical theory should free me from my current state.  I need to read this one again don’t fully understand his point.

I have gained a better understanding for Marxism and critical theory from these readings, yet still feel some what lost.  Not that I would ever argue with any one based on this knowledge but it’s always better than quoting Rage Against the Machine lyrics.