My notes from last night’s Google+ Debate Hangout.
- It’s almost impossible to track the success of memes in terms of voter turn out. If memes are successful, they spread. Theoretically, on the internet, ideas that spread, win. But we don’t know if Binders Full of Women or Invisible Obama will result in an increase in voter turnout or a win for Obama.
- When we don’t see ourselves or our communities represented it begin to desintegrate our sense of self within that community.
- Memes validate our ideas and opinions and help us connect with other link-minded people. They give us hope & a sense of community. They reinforce that we are not alone, that our values are represented in the public sphere.
- Memes encourage us to go from passive audicence to active creator.
- Many contributions look like crap – they don’t have to be aesthetically perfect. The point is that they are created quickly and force creators to be copywriters, creating headlines and punchlines which rely on some knowledge of the issue.
- While they may limit nuance in the discussion, memes also broaden the audience beyond niche readers of articles with nuance. They encouraged viewers to get caught up if they missed the debate.
- The appropriation of popular culture plays an important role in generating content quickly as those are the assets (footage and still images) creators have access to. This copyrighted content is then altered to the meme-specifications which changes the original meaning of the source material.
What do you think about the meme-ification of the 2012 election? Big Bird? Paul Ryan Gosling? Hey Girl, It’s Paul Ryan? RomCom2012? Eastwooding? Invisible Obama? Binders Full Of Women? Text From Hillary ? And then, the “Best Political Memes“? Do these qualify as art? What is art? I can only define art with this experience with an Art Meme.