Intern Labor, Maintenance Work, Freemium Games (and other video games), Art, and Representation

Intern labor and other forms of free labor are similar to the way maintenance work both in its social function and in how it is viewed. Although intern labor is not needed on the part of the company, many feel that it is key to being able to enter into the work world. Maintenance work is crucial to the functioning of a normal society that prides itself on not being covered in its own filth (it also improves health, too). Ukeles' work focuses on bringing to light what is not normally examined, such as maintenance work and the work done by housewives, by calling it art. The Ross article draws attention to how internships, seen as critical to getting a job straight out of college, and other free forms of labor ("playbor"), also go mostly unnoticed, despite the time that the companies benefit from without having to pay those that use their sites. Internships, especially unpaid internships, are accepted because of a perceived value on the part of both the intern and company (free or low-cost menial labor), which some companies have also manipulated to make money off of by selling these unpaid or low pay positions. I do not feel that internships really are that key to entering the workforce, as from what I have heard, not all internships give experience in the actual line of work, just experience near the line of work. Certainly, some internships are very beneficial in finding a job, but honestly, I really do not see companies actually relying on such positions (and any that DO rely on interns probably have other problems on their hands, since interns typically do not have any experience). Major companies certainly have little need for interns, as they already have a fairly large professional staff. The video below (though it is from a comedy group called "The Whitest Kids U Know," as well as being rather old, I feel it is still somewhat relevant) makes fun of not only how cut-throat businesses can be at times, but also makes fun of the idea of how expendable interns are. Most internships involve not actually working at the job function that the intern hopes to one day do, but doing clerical work, such as copying, faxing, and getting coffee (to which Tony had admitted he had offered to do during his internship).

On the issue of the free labor from women, as Ukeles had focused on in her work as well as in Tatianna's post, I feel there is another side to the issue that hasn't yet been discussed. It's not just about the way in which femininity was created, but also in the way that masculinity is created in direct opposition to everything feminine. Masculine identity is centered around violence, as a way of communicating and showing comradeship, of asserting dominance, and as a way of resolving conflicts. A documentary entitled "Tough Guise: Violence, Media, & the Crisis in Masculinity" outlines the issue very well. The issue is not only about how women have been pictured in culture as housewives and as subservient to men, but also in how men are built up as independent, strong, tough, and respected (of which the closest I have ever come to is "blubbery"). Any guy who tries to go against these ideas are often taunted (as in the pictures below, taken from the documentary). Fortunately, the high school I attended (a private, Catholic, all-male high school) did not seek to perpetuate these ideas, and I had noticed this in the fact that within my own group of friends, I had shied away from the whole "hitting as a sign of friends" thing altogether, and my friends didn't seem to question it at all (although that part may be because the whole "lack of emotions beyond anger" thing).

Due to all of the images as "men as independent" crap (but really they aren't, because everyone depends on someone at some point), men are often seen as stronger leaders than women, both in politics and in the business world, and is reflected in the paychecks of CEOs, which are highly skewed in favor of men. I, however, feel that women would actually make better leaders than men, because men typically make decisions based on numbers and what they feel would yield the best result, rather than what would benefit people the most (often a subjective thing that requires understanding how people feel, something masculine ideals strikes down as "weak"). Women in leadership positions allow for more input from others, whereas men typically work alone to make decisions (and, due to lack of different perspectives, can often overlook certain things). I do not consider myself a feminist, however, because, while the cause of feminism is certainly important, I feel it misses one main source of the problem facing women (that being the ideals of masculinity). Rather, I consider myself to be an "anti-masculinist," not only because I do not fit in with the normal masculine ideals (I have never been particularly "strong" or "athletic" or "coordinated," so I have instead focused on more intellectual tasks), but also because I feel changing the way in which masculinity is defined would allow for women to be treated as equals in society.

Moving on to other kinds of free labor, Kristen's use of an image from South Park (specifically, episode 6 of the most recent season, season 18) is a great reference in terms of examining free labor from sites like Facebook, although the focus of the episode is on "freemium games," often free downloadable mobile games that have different pay scales in the game. That particular episode goes far beyond just saying "freemium is Latin for 'not really free,'" but also attacks freemium games for exploiting people with addictive personalities, which is the real source of money from these kinds of games. I have no idea how to actually get these particular clips embedded in this post, so instead here are links to a description of how freemium games appear to work and a more realistic look at how they make money. The second link shows the kinds of abuse that freemium games allows for, in that it takes advantage of people with addictive personalities. In the same episode, other methods of exploiting those with addictive personalities is also mocked, such as gambling and alcohol. The ending of the episode also implies that the people who come up with these kinds of way to abuse those with addictive personalities are worse than the Satan (a recurring character on the show). Also, on the note of "word of mouth," the episode also mocks how some companies literally pay people to create word of mouth for their products (because marketing clearly isn't seen as evil enough, in just the whole "freemium games" idea). In a similar way, women are also abused by capitalism, in that many advertisements are directed very specifically at women. Ads for various kinds of make-up or beauty treatments target and degrade women, in that these adds imply that women need to look attractive to men, and they need these products to accomplish this task. In this way, women are coaxed into buying things they don't need, in a very similar way that freemium games coax money out of people for games that are made for the explicit purpose of making money by pretending to be "free."

Art has also been subjected to this kind of monetization. Areas supporting "the arts" are really just ploys for increasing the property value of the area. Kitsch is art made as a commodity, and its purpose is not "art for art's sake," as Greenburg feels it should be, but art that is easily accessible in order to appeal to as many people as possible in order to make money off of it. In addition, it sometimes seems that the idea of using unconventional kinds of art (like balloon animals or trash) can lead some artists to do some pretty insane things, and call them art. The Cracked.com article lists off a number of things that may be art in some ways, but for others it seems to be more of just purely for money (such as the one listed as #1, in which the "artist" takes a picture that he didn't take, makes it larger, and sells it as art (without even changing the name of the photograph)). Another article from Cracked.com also makes fun of how sometimes mad science and art overlap. These kinds of art miss both Greenburg's idea for "art for art's sake" and any other idea normally associated with art, due to the insanity that had produced it (at least in my opinion). Some things that are labelled "art" are really more about making money, or a way of passing off insanity as beneficial to society.
 
While the avant-garde style of art that Greenburg had so highly praised is elitist and inaccessible to the general public, I can understand (at least a little bit) why he feels that way about art. The discussion on freemium games reminded me of other questionable marketing practices in the gaming industry, specifically that of downloadable content (DLC). While it started off as something that could easily add a lot of official content to a game (beyond user-generated content, which sometimes can be a literal joke, as I found out one time from trying to play a StarCraft 2 mod that was actually just a "Rick roll"), some developers started to release DLC at the same time as the base game (often referred to as "day-1 DLC"). Early DLC like that really makes it feel like the developers intentionally left out part of the game as a way of getting people to pay more for the game. Some DLC packages were worse than others, however. I play (a lot of) video games in my spare time, and have even bought DLC for some of the games I play (but only the DLC that added meaningful content, not just extra colors or crap like that), but there are plenty of game companies I feel are actively focusing on sucking the player base dry. World of Warcraft, for example, had done so brilliantly. It is the largest massively multiplayer online roleplaying game (MMORPG) out on the market. It has a $15 a month subscription, as well as numerous DLCs that raise the level cap (or at least most of them do), and while the first two cost $20 each, the last one that I had bought when I had still been playing the game cost $60 (the same as a full, newly-released game costs) that only added 5 levels (half of the normal level-cap increase) and actually recycled some of the lore the game was built on, and soon thereafter the game overall had its mechanics dumbed-down to the point where I felt a 5-year-old could easily succeed at the game. Worse yet, they had also opened a market where players could buy new mounts, whose only special function was the look (literally no other function than currently-available in-game mounts, though at least still better than the horse armor from Oblivion). I also find it frustrating how certain games just seem to be different versions of some other game in nearly every way. The worst games for originality, however, tend to be the ones that sell the most copies, such as sports games and Call of Duty games. The sports games, in particular, are bad in that a new version is released each year, with little-to-no changes from the old version, usually only with updated player rosters. There are some games that are actually very unique, both in terms of how the game is played and in the story of the game, such as the games made by indie game developer Super Giant Games. Similar to with art, there are both games made just to squeeze as much money as possible out of, as well as games that help to make gaming better by adding new ideas. While I have played a few Call of Duty games, I would prefer games that have something (or several things) unique about them, and less that just try to be money-sponges.

The Haddock and Lee article also has some interesting ideas about who gets funding for arts projects. Although the idea of "multiculturalism" seeks to open up a space for marginalized groups, the reality actually allows us to quantify just how marginalized those groups are. Dean's article on the idea of primitivism and art has a similar idea, since art that is considered "primitive" is considered as such for the benefit of the group in power. While most funding does still go to those with power in public arts funding, the focus of multiculturalism allows, as the Haddock and Lee article mentioned, those who are part of the group in power to blame ethnic minority groups for taking the funding that prevents them from getting funded.

Tony's look at how Avant-Garde and kitsch art do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive is an interesting point. Avant-Garde art may be used as a way to attract attention to something, but what actually sells is the kitsch (the "umbilical chord of gold," as Greenberg calls it). Even though few people may actually understand Avant-Garde art, the kitsch it inspires can be easily recognized and understood (as well as sold). Prof. Coughlin's post from her dissertation shows an example of how a piece of art that at one time was considered Avant-Garde later ended up becoming kitsch due to over-reproduction of the piece.

The quote from Roland Barthes in Laura's post I feel can be related to these ideas very well, as well as to the lies that the upper class uses that Brecht referred to that Laura had mentioned. Those in power use lies in order to justify their power, by making those who lack power seem to be inferior in some way or another. Over time, these grandiose lies become a system of lies, and from a system of lies into a "myth" about a people considered "Other." Binyavanga Wainaina's "How to Write About Africa," which I have not read, is most likely satirizing this myth. The concept of one "universal humanity" I feel is also one of these myths. As the Barthes quote Laura used was part of his critique of a work of photography that sought to perpetuate a myth of a "universal mankind," I am reminded of my own reflections on "human nature" that I had begun (at least with a re-focused vigor) after some of the readings I read in LCS 490 last semester. I had started this line of inquiry with trying to figure out my own "nature," but had found that each time I had examined myself, the conclusions I had made from the last time affected the way I thought about the same issue now, and the results were different. As such, I feel that there is no possibility of such an objective answer to what human nature is, and any assertion that there is one "universal image of mankind" throws all other ways of living into a broad category of "Other."

Tatianna's connection between examining art and social inequalities due to racism seems to me to be because the same myths that create racism were also used by Europeans to say that their art was superior to the art from any other region (the "primitivism" kinds of art that Dean discusses). These myths are created based on ancient lies, some of which date back as far as Ancient Greece, and are perpetuated through culture, both in the Avant-Garde and especially in kitsch (the broader appeal and accessibility ingrains the ideas they reference into the minds of the general populace). Karl Marx's idea of the "ruling class also being in control of the ruling ideologies" [paraphrased from one of his essays on the political economy] can help to make this connection clearer. Those who control the means of production of culture can decide what is made and what is not, and the culture they want created helps to solidify their own positions of power. Laura's question about the idea of the "familiar" is certainly relevant here. The myths that are created by the upper echelons of power in society create what is seen as "iconic" in today's society, even as these "iconic" images have evolved over time.What's new and commonplace today was once new and "Avant-Garde" before (even if the interpretations change). The myths that shape ideas today have origins so far back in time that they become almost untraceable, and have existed for so long that many of the ideas these myths create are seen as truth. These myths can be seen in anything that is considered "culture" (which is a LOT). The endless barrage of ads, the movies and television shows we watch, and even the news all help to spread and maintain these long-standing myths, as a way of maintaining the current social hierarchy of power.