Democracy Guest List

Cultural Prophylactics was a performance project conducted in 2009. For background information, please see the following sections: introduction, demographics, priorities, honesty & integrity, public health, yes/no, cultural vitality & public health, and the survey and some images. Also feel free to enjoy this brief overview.

By our estimation, our respondents had drastically underestimated their own hotness and interest level, with a full 50-70% qualifying as “Hot” in our books, and interest level clearly being, at least in terms of taking the survey, closer to 80%. Additionally, many did not choose to identify racially, which should not be taken as a reflection on racial makeup, but as a reflection on an interest in engaging with racial identification. Based on visual data, approximately 90% of our respondents were Caucasian.

The close-to 30% of respondents’ identification as “punk” and “anti-capitalist” corresponds with one-third’s identification as non-commercial artists, but not necessarily with the 50% agreement with the statements that “all money is dirty.” (Keeping in mind that a belief that all money is dirty does not necessarily eliminate a need for it in modern life.) Relevantly, 100% of the respondents that claimed to earn over $50,000 per year also admitted to providing untrue or unverifiable information, and claimed that their incomes had increased in the last year. My personal knowledge of the sole individual who responded to the income question with $40,000,000.00 leads me to believe that he—being an art student—is either terrible at maths (and no questions on the survey gauged mathematic ability nor number identification) or is in this case a big fat liar, which his survey does indicate is a possibility. (25% of his responses were indicated as untrue or unverifiable, and humor and the art context were listed as reasons.) Overall, these potentially inflated reported incomes seem to indicate a desire for a large income that is entirely expendable—not based on need. No respondents, for example listed their income as $0 and then indicated that they lied about it.

Likely, if given a large expendable income, most respondents would support the work of artist friends over youth sport or art programs; fewer still would donate to political campaigns. A major factor may be the discrepancy between one’s personal spending priorities as compared to the perception of the government’s: This ranks art dead last, below even candy.

A comparison of actual government spending to the respondents’ perception of government spending is even more telling. Using a wide latitude in our definition of terms, government spending priorities (as evidenced by 2009 awards, loans, and federal assistance) can be listed in the following order:

1. Entertainment (military spending, which accounts for 54% of annual budget)
2. Physical Health and Safety (Health insurance agencies, big pharma, state health and human services departments)
3. Pursuit of Happiness (motor vehicle manufacturer spending)
4. Shelter (state housing authorities)
5. Ability to See Self Reflected in Media Images (telecom)

This particular ranking lists first what in most respondents’ cases came second-to-last, although Physical Health and Safety is still granted prominence.

The popular interest in attaining wealth evidenced by the large reported incomes isn’t all that surprising, either, when compared to the 42% rate of responses that indicate branding (which impacts personal economics) to have more power than corruption (likely perceived as a governmental problem) or community resources. Elsewhere, however, the organizers of community resources—community organizers, a term made popular during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign—fared better, when respondents were asked to list various figures’ impact over cultural vitality. Community organizers were deemed the most powerful, and the respondent her or himself was deemed the third most powerful. (Fascinating, then that when asked to rate his or her own perception of their own influence of cultural vitality, the respondent ranked her or himself dead last.)

When mentioned in the Public Health section, “The TV show House,” produced a great deal of laughter, but was also intended to remind respondents that Kal Penn, a former actor on the series, had recently been named the Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Still, the program was deemed to have little to do with public health—less even than democracy, independent media, cake and pie access, or hot nurses. Former bubonic plague scare-inducing saws about spitting on the sidewalk were overlooked in favor of listing access to contraception as the most relevant to public health, while arts and cultural funding ranked only 12^th. It would seem contradictory, then, that “Labor” and “Art-making” were together ranked fourth most significant in determining personal vitality in the public sphere, except if we consider how rarely artists are taught to consider their work labor, a lesson that would predetermine a demand to be compensated for it. Despite one of the few self-proclaimed feminist’s notes that anorexia inspired by America’s Next Top Model may influence public health, the reality program was ranked lower than Penn’s former medical dramedy.

The apparent lack of knowledge cultural producers hold about contemporary political figures in the public sphere is surprising. Chicago resident and owner of Tribune Media Inc., Sam Zell produces media that is consumed by 95% of North Americans, and thus quite literally holds more sway than any other figure on the “impact on cultural vitality” list. It is surprising that other image-makers, even those working on a smaller scale, wouldn’t come across this information, especially considering the recent popularity of news stories about Zell’s public proclamations that purchasing the troubled Chicago Tribune may have been a mistake.

Still, the cause may run deeper than a disinterest in news. Respondents ranked “Ability to See Self Reflected in Media Images” last (tied with “Candy”) in order of “import to your life”; ranked it dead last in order of “monthly spending priorities”; and ranked it slightly above only candy in order of “educational achievement.” Yet, some minutes later, respondents ranked “Receiving press on artwork/Media appearances” second in how they determined their vitality in the public sphere. The several embarrassed comments that followed this admission (exemplified by the “isn’t that awful?” comment of one) seem to indicate that there’s a shame tied to a desire for media appearances that isn’t, for example, tied to a blatant desire for money—even in a crowd that runs 30% anti-capitalist, 50% of whom believe all money is dirty. It is, however, common enough in media reform circles to acknowledge that a loss of control over our ability to represent ourselves in the public sphere—represented by figures such as Sam Zell—is a legitimate political problem, and that seeking to be reflected in our own cultural products within a democracy is a civil right.