Max MSP: Animal Cruelty “Binary Opposition”

The aim of this group project was to create a short (roughly 1-2 min) audio-visual composition, showing:

•    Original Content
•    Aesthetic Concept
•    Coherent Structure

Concept

  • The perceptual unification (or making equivalent) of two dissociated representations of the same reality through a minimalistic audio‐visual composition. (Subverting the advertising efforts of a corporation.)
  • A video piece that displays the contrasting narratives put forth by corporations/vested interests and activists.
  • This piece displays two depictions of (parallel) realities. One of which consumers
    are more exposed to on a daily basis. It serves as a contrast between those two perceptions of reality; “inviting” aesthetics vs. “unpleasant” ones.
  • Channel A: a lavish high-end production; brand/product image; and corporate power. Displaying the power of seductive aesthetics. The corporate, glamourised advertising methods which mask the barbaric methods used to make certain products.
  • Channel B: amateur production hidden costs and victims. Revealing a ‘realistic perception’, which corporations would rather hide from public view.

 

Technical Approach

  • Raw files were used which were taken from online sources. One Herbal Essence advertisement and footage of animal testing. These video sources were then tactically edited together within Max MSP for absolute accuracy.
  • Majority of the experimentation incorporated Max MSP.

 

My Role in this project

  • Researched the subject matter.
  • Experimented with several Max MSP techniques/effects to explore different compositional strategies discussed.
  • Found relevant art pieces that were significant to our concept or shared similar subject matter.

 

Final Product

 

Politics and Ethics

Due to the inaccuracy of events suggested in the video, this is not intended for public attention, until the source material has been updated accordingly. It is only on this portfolio to showcase a previous project.

 

The online research did not find evidence to support a connection between the product featured in the advertisement (namely Clairol’s Herbal Essences) and cosmetics testing on Macaque monkeys or other non-human primates.

The proposed content of the piece would have clearly suggested to viewers that a direct link existed between the product being shown and the laboratory scenes in which a monkey was being experimented-on. Since hard evidence was not available to support the existence of such a link, the truthfulness of the piece was called into question.

To take liberties with the truth in a piece which itself purported to reveal a more essential form of it was deemed to be socially irresponsible by the artists. Furthermore, as a form of social and political activism, it was reckoned that it could have been ultimately self-defeating to drum-up support for a cause using potentially fictitious evidence. This would have, ironically, also aligned the artists more closely with the propaganda they sought to discredit.

A temptation, however, remained to use the available footage despite those potential consequences. This was due to the following reasons: Procter & Gamble (the parent company of Clairol, owner of the Herbal Essences brand) are still engaged in animal testing of their cosmetic products in China (News, 2013). In 2008, it was revealed that Herbal Essences product ingredients were inhumanely tested on rats (News, 2013). In 2011, P&G falsely claimed that Herbal Essences was not tested on animals and were forced to retract the claim by the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK (Uncaged, 2011). Finally, in 1990 P&G reportedly lobbied against legislation to prevent a ban on the Draize test in California (Wesleyan, 2014). So while P&G/Herbal Essences cannot be directly linked to animal testing activity involving primates, it can be inferred that their activity supports the institutions and culture in which such testing is condoned and practiced.

Nevertheless, it was deemed that using the macaque testing footage was ineffective and the piece would not be released publically until an accurate substitute was found, e.g. footage of Draize tests or cosmetic tests on rats.