OPENWIDE v14.4

FIMS’ alternative student publication

OPENWIDEZINE.COM

FIMS’ alternative student publication

VOLUME 14 ISSUE 4

CON 3 WORLD

SOCHI IN RETROSPECT

5 POLITICIZING THE OLYMPIC GAMES estee fresco

7 PUTIN’S WET DREAM chris ling

9 CELEBRITY CULTURE AND POLITICS: WHEN STARS GET INVOLVED ainsleigh burelle

11 ARTS&ENTERTAINMENT 12

CURTAIN CALL:

LOCAL STARTUPS REVITALIZE LONDON’S STAGNANT THEATRE INDUSTRY erin hofmann

15 “FORGIVE ME ARTPOP” michael usling

16 THE WOLF OF WALLSTREET: THE STRAW THAT BROKE EQUALITY’S BACK tish lewis

17 WESTERN LIFE

17 DIVESTING WESTERN IN BIG OIL travis welowszky 19 WAYS TO IMPROVE WESTERN travis welowszky and chris ling 20 WHERE THE USC NEEDS TO CHANGE spencer sterritt 21 ONE FOR THE PAWNS richard starkey Disclaimer: The sole responsibility of this publication lies with its authors. Contents do not reflect the opinions of the University Students Council of the University of Western Ontario (“USC”) or those of the Faculty of Media and Information Studies Students Council. The USC assumes no reponsiblity or liability for any error, inaccuracy, omission or comment contained in this publication or for any use that may be made of such

1

T

&

#OVERWORKED

UNDERVALUED

Friday, March 7 saw the passing of Western Founder’s Day, a celebration of an institution that has been alive and well since 1878. Yet how healthy is our university when many of its faculty struggle to earn a competitive- nay, a living wage?

Occupying the day’s circulating hashtags of #since1878 and #purpleandproud, FIMS professors expressed their scorn for the university, exemplified in the tweet shown here from Warren Steele. Steele voiced his concerns in an article in The Gazette: “last year I taught a full course load, performed service work, conducted research, mentored students and gave up nearly all of my free time and energy to do my job well, because I care deeply about what I do, and I took home $24,000”. Naomi Klein’s pricetag for her appearance at FIMS’ recent System Error conference? 25K. With these figures in mind, it’s a wonder that Steele, and the many adjunct professors in similar situations, are able to maintain a decent quality of life. The fact that many also devote time and effort to consult, to publish, and to sit on committees and councils while still bringing the quality of teaching that they do to the classroom is nothing short of a bloody miracle. These people deserve more than a pat on the back.

TENTS World Editor KEVIN CHAO

Editor-in-chief CHRIS LING

A&E Editor JENNA TAYLOR

Managing Editor KEVIN HURREN

Western Life Editor TRAVIS WELOWSZKY

Web Editor EMILY STEWART

Graphics & Layout OLIVIA PIERRATOS

Assistant Web Editor MARWA HASSAN

Photography & Images ERIN HOFMANN

2

world//

Sochi in retrospect 3

4

Politicizing the Olympic Games WORDS Estee Fresco

Estee Fresco is a PhD candidate in Media Studies at Western University. Her research examines the relationship between commercialism and national identity in the Olympic Games held in Canada.

During the most recent Winter Olympics, the 2014 Sochi Games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC)

did not allow athletes competing in the Games to wear stickers on their helmets commemorating the late Canadian freestyle skier, Sarah Burke. The IOC also disapproved of members of Norway’s Olympic cross-country team wearing black armbands in memory of a Norwegian who trained with them, the brother of Olympic skier Astrid Uhrenholdt Jacobsen. In a letter to the Norwegian Olympic Committee, the IOC described the athletes’ actions as inappropriate.

Finally, the IOC rejected the Ukrainian Olympic Committee’s request that athletes be allowed to wear black armbands honouring Ukrainians who died in protests in Kiev. At the heart of the IOC’s response to all three cases was the desire to keep the Games free of political messages and focus peoples’ attention on the athletic competitions. The President of the IOC, Thomas Bach, discouraged athletes from making public statements about Russia’s anti-gay laws, stating: “if the Olympic competitions or venues are becoming a political stage, this is no longer a sports competition.” However, despite the IOC’s efforts to keep politics out of the Games, the Olympics are, and have always been, political. In what follows, I examine historical examples of the influence politics have on the Olympic Games.

5

When the modern Olympic Games were revived by Pierre de Coubertin in 1896, only amateur rather than professional athletes were permitted to participate in the Games. However, members of the upper classes, who had access to private means of income, were the only athletes who could afford to participate in sport on an amateur basis. Thus, IOC’s value of amateurism was tied to the maintenance of class hierarchies.

Although professional athletes compete in contemporary Olympic Games, the IOC tries to establish a link between the modern and ancient Olympic Games by emphasizing the fact that most modern Olympians are amateurs. However, this view falsely assumes that only amateur athletes competed in the ancient Greek Games. In fact, these athletes often won monetary prizes and were sometimes paid to compete. Moreover, upon completion of the Games, many successful athletes were given money.

The 1936 Berlin Summer Olympics, often dubbed the Nazi Olympics, offered Hitler the opportunity to showcase the Nazi’s power and influence on an international stage. The IOC awarded the Games to Germany before the Nazis seized power, and Hitler was originally ambivalent about hosting the Games. On one hand, he viewed the Olympics as a bourgeois form of culture and was deeply suspicious of any non-German cultural event.

However, Hitler eventually saw the Games as a valuable opportunity to disseminate Nazi propaganda. Although religious groups in the United States pressured the government to boycott the 1936 Games, the American IOC member (and later President) Avery Brundage successfully campaigned in favor of US participation in the Games.

Surprisingly, when Brundage and then IOC President Henri de Baillet-Latour visited Germany, they determined that, if anti-Jewish racism existed, it was an internal and political matter in Germany rather than an important matter for the IOC to consider. Brundage and fellow IOC member, General Sherrill, maintained that the US should participate in the Games even after Sherrill travelled to Germany and learned that Hitler intended to ban German-Jewish athletes from competing in the Games.

More recently, the 2000 Sydney Summer Olympics offered Australians an opportunity to discuss reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. The Australian press represented Cathy Freeman, an indigenous athlete, as a unifying figure whose Olympic success helped further efforts between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples by bringing all Australians together and giving them an opportunity to put the past behind them. Freeman lit the Olympic flame in the opening ceremony and won a gold medal in the 400 meters track race at the Sydney Olympics. However, some argued that this emphasis on unity sidelined important discussions about the persistence of unequal power relations between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Activists used the Sydney Games to pressure the government to apologize for the mass removal of indigenous children from their families by government agencies, a practice that occurred between 1910 and 1970. The government did not apologize and, instead, claimed that the activists would tarnish the nation’s global image if they continued to demand an apology (the government eventually apologized to indigenous peoples in 2008).

Nike released two ads that commented on reconciliation in Australia, and these ads show that the commercial dimensions of the Games sometimes intervene in political issues. Nike released an ad entitled “Sorry” shortly before the 2000 Games began. The ad featured Australian Olympians apologizing, ostensibly for being too preoccupied with training. However, it implied that the apology was actually directed at Cathy Freeman, who was the only indigenous athlete in the ad and the only one who did not apologize. Instead, she ran past the camera and asked, “Can we talk about this later?” Indigenous groups criticized the ad for trivializing the importance of reconciliation as a political issue. Moreover, only 15 minutes after she won the 400 meter track race, Nike erected billboards around Sydney featuring Freeman and the caption “Change the world 400 meters at a time.” Like the discussion in the Australian press about Freeman, the ad drew a link between Freeman’s Olympic success and reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.

As the philosophical framework that underpins the Games, Olympism maintains that sport helps people co-exist harmoniously and educates young people about peace, justice, fair play, mutual understanding and international friendship. Indeed, the Olympic Games help promote these values. However, they also provide a platform for groups to further their political interests. As such, it is disingenuous for the IOC to continue the pretense that the Games do nothing more than celebrate global harmony, co-operation and goodwill.

6

Putin’sWet Dream

WORDS Chris Ling he decision to host a winter Olympics in Sochi, the coastal, subtropical region Joseph Stalin once called a beach vacation destination, has been labeled a highly controversial one. Russia struggles to police a tarnished reputation, blackened mostly by the man at its centre, President Vladimir Putin. His decision to take on these Games was an equally questionable decision; the international scrutiny and vulnerability of image that accompanies the Olympics is well-documented. Predictably, the onslaught of media coverage inherent to the Olympic Games has illuminated some of the flaws in the former Soviet nation. Less predictable, I think, are the severity of the issues unfolding before us. On the surface of the games are videos of Cossacks savagely beating peaceful protestors and an Olympic village tightly corralled by as many as 40 000 heavily armed security personnel, as well as ongoing conflicts in Syria and Ukraine fuelled in large part by Putin himself. Beneath the Sochi project, a plethora of elaborate stadiums, shopping centres and gleaming new highways, is a crumbling national infrastructure. Impoverished living conditions of many of Russia’s citizens have been revealed in the photos of unfinished hotels and taps running dirty water tweeted by visiting journalists. The menacing presence of an oppressive regime is unmistakable. Athletes may be competing in shorts and t-shirts, and the International Olympic Committee can fervently claim that relief from winter weather has made the Games a more family-friendly environment, but there have been dark clouds of another kind looming overhead during these past weeks. The condition in which we see Russia is largely the product of an autocratic ruler with a perverted agenda. The Sochi Games themselves have been an appalling exercise in both physical and political propaganda, darkly reminiscent of oppressive times under Soviet rule.

T

The Games as a political stage, in many ways a microcosm for a much larger political theatre, is by no means a new development. The 2008 Summer Games in Beijing are best remembered for China’s atrocious environmental violations, the iron curtain surrounding Beijing in the weeks preceding the games (an economic tourniquet that cut off innumerable local businesses to ensure the Games would function smoothly), and the country’s controversial political position on Tibet. Russia has been no exception. The months leading up to Sochi were riddled with controversy, especially surrounding Putin’s outspoken anti-gay stance, reports of underpaid (and in many cases, unpaid) migrant labourers employed to complete Olympic construction projects, environmental concerns in the Western Caucasus mountain range, and Russia’s contentious political affiliations with Syria and Ukraine, the former engaged in full-blown civil war and the latter teetering on full-blown anarchy.

7

It seems strange that countries like China and Russia, with their precarious international relations, would be clamoring to play host to an international event as costly or as exposed to foreign media as the Olympics. While fortification of national image, direct economic benefit through revenue, and the indirect benefits that accompany hosting (tourism, infrastructure stimulus, strengthening trade relations, etc.) are all attractive factors to Olympic bidders, few cities in recent history have profited from the Games, and heavy media exposure is inevitable. Vancouver is one of the few cities to have broken even and emerged politically unscathed in the past few decades. The city invested in sustainable transportation infrastructure that is poised to continually benefit the metro area for the foreseeable future. But Vancouver was in a good position to do so, both socially and economically, prior to the 2010 Games; it lacked China’s disastrous environmental problems, indicated most recently by the dismal health statistics of the average Beijing citizen. It lacked Russia’s corruption, largely a product of President Vladimir Putin’s autocratic regime, which has put a stranglehold on the economy, driven poverty levels to what they were during Soviet times, and effectively made Putin the state. The decision for Russia, like China, to take on the task of the Games is little more than Putin’s patriotic wet dream, a propagandist exercise which began in an attempt to erect Russia’s dominance on an international stage and which will end with the national image falling limp, subject to a raking over the coals by the international mass media.

51 billion and counting. The estimated cost of the Sochi Games is an exorbitant figure for a country whose national water purification system is in shambles, and whose state-owned and Oligarch-friendly rail giant Russian Railways has a near monopoly on employment. The title of the recent CBC documentary Putin’s Sochi neatly sums up the Games: what is essentially the rejuvenation of the Soviet megaprojects of the Stalin era includes superhighways, bridges and railroad infrastructure, as well as hospitals and hotels, all overseen

by Putin’s personal pawn, mayor Anatoly Pakhomov, and all heavily concentrated in a small area around the Western Caucasus mountain range. The Games have been called Putin’s great legacy, the legitimization of his 14-year rule, and as The New York Times’ Steven Meyer put it, “a vital instrument” for the maintenance of his power. But Sochi is merely the crowning touch on a series of equally costly and environmentally scourging megaprojects Putin’s government has undertaken: $51 billion in Vladivostok for a summit meeting of the nations of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and an estimated $20 billion plus in preparation for FIFA 2018. With such monolithic efforts in mind, it is not difficult to see the connection between Putin’s ambitions and his Soviet upbringing. The costs and scale of his monumental projects, as well as the labour force required to complete them in condensed timeframes, are hallmarks of the legendary physical propaganda constructed under Soviet leadership. Essentially, that is what Sochi and its sister projects boil down to: propaganda of the grandest kind, with little long-term benefit for Russia but national pride, and most of that in Putin’s image.

The gay propaganda law that Putin implemented last year is perhaps the most notorious example of his perverted need for outright control. The law essentially bans the dissemination of homosexual ideas to Russian youth, a less-than-subtle way of ostracizing members of the LGBT community during the Games and normalizing repression of dissenters. Implementation of the law has escalated beyond finger-wagging and verbal condemnation to peaceful protestors being rounded up and beaten into submission in the streets, and the trickle-down effect to far-right extremist groups practicing “vigilantism,” violently enforcing the law upon helpless members of the Russian LGBT community. Counter-efforts from the international community, largely in the form of online activism, have been met (in Russia, at least) with another familiar Soviet repression tactic: censorship. In the weeks leading up to the Games, Russia’s FSB security service publicly announced that no form of mediated communication would be free from surveillance during the games.

This has essentially allowed the Kremlin to monitor any and all digital footprints, and to effectively inflict the propaganda law upon Russian citizens and international visitors alike. The law was visibly in effect during the games as a website belonging to a Canadian bobsledder was censored, drawing cries of protest and scorn from the international media. Such overt methods of discipline and punish are Orwellian maneuvers by a tyrant ensuring the clutches of his power. However, those same repression tactics functioned adversely to reveal Putin in his true, anti-rainbow colours: a man born into miserable poverty in desperate pursuit of national resurrection, all the while stumbling in front of thousands of television cameras feeding a critical audience.

Despite the transparent lens that mediation of the Games provides, Putin continues his autocracy unhindered by the external bodies designated to check such perverted applications of power. The absence of many prominent world leaders at the Games may indicate their scorn, but these boycotts are nothing more than symbolic slaps on the wrist. As tensions in Kyiv escalate to chaotic levels of violence and death on both sides of the protest lines during the final days of the Games, Western nations have done little more than impose travel sanctions on members of the Ukrainian government. Yet Putin is accused by many of puppeteering the violence, painting an alarming picture of Russia’s rejuvenated trade relationship with its former Soviet Bloc ally as catalyst for the conflict that has rocked the Maidan since January. A bloody civil war rages on in Syria, with Putin fuelling the fire, and still Western nations are paralyzed as his power, influence and ego continue to swell to a dramatic climax.

Celebrity Culture and WORDS

Stars get involved

Politics

Ainsleigh Burelle

when

We’re all familiar with the ins and outs of celebrity culture, such as the antics of Justin Bieber, the current affairs of local politics, like what’s going on with Rob Ford. However, what exactly characterizes the intersection of these two realms of celebrity and politics? What connects them, and what renders these figures susceptible to criticism? Musically speaking, artists like Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Woodie Guthrie, and the late Pete Seeger among countless others have used their songs to spark political awareness and activism through the Civil Rights movement, the Cold War era, and today. Events like Rock the Vote emphasize the groundbreaking power of music to sway and mobilize communities for the purpose of political and social justice.

When musicians get involved in politics, is there something about their approach or perspective that warrants harsh criticisms from the rest of society? Not to say that music makers and actors don’t undergo their fair share of critics already, but is there something inherently different about the way these figures are perceived as political movers? Is there something about the rhythmic coo of Bob Dylan that merits his musical means over say, the impassioned and charismatic tone of comedian and actor Russell Brand?

For instance, in Jeremy Paxman’s interview with Brand for the BBC the British actor fervently rails against capitalism-fed inequality and growing wage disparities around the globe. Not one to camouflage his humble beginnings, Brand admonishes the systemic fractures imposed by neoliberalism and advocates for genuine alternatives. Recently, a widely-shared photo entitled “Russell Brand’s brilliant quote about inequality in one easily shareable image” showed the actor as a Guy-Fawkes-sporting-celebrity-turned-anarchist with the quote: “When I was poor and complained about inequality, people said I was bitter. Now I’m rich and complain about inequality, they say I’m a hypocrite. I’m beginning to think they just don’t want inequality on the agenda because it is a real problem that needs to be addressed.” Arguably, there is a glimmer of truth regarding media representation here. It is significantly easier for the media to assimilate Brand’s rants and the counter-hegemonic, anti-capitalist ideals he holds into an iconoclastic bracket, than it is for them to engage with the aroused issues. Following Guy Fawkes, he becomes the movement’s icon.

Conversely, someone who does seem to be churning out waves of change is Neil Young. What happens when one of the most beloved and revered paragon of Canadian pop culture identity takes an oppositional stance to the opportune business ventures of the elite? For starters, a lot of fact checking, and just a dash of slander.

9

9

Young’s crusade to protect the indigenous rights of the Athabasca Chipewan First Nations People culminated with the end of his national Honor the Treaties tour in Calgary late January. Undoubtedly, Young has sparked considerable debate over the expansion of oilsands development with the radical remarks made on his tour, and has come under fire from the industry due to apparent misinformation. Those supporting the oil establishment denigrate Young’s claims that the pipeline will allow Canada to export oil-rich resources to East Asia, facilitate Hiroshima-sized effects on the planet, and create an industrial area the size of England among other effects. After the musician proved to critics that “rock stars don’t need oil” by driving his biomass-fueled electric car cross country, backlash was fueled when he admitted to using private jets to travel.

The other side of the coin shows immense support from musical fans and left-leaning environmentalists. David Suzuki, who accompanied Young during Honor the Treaties, vilified the ignorant corporate logic behind the pipeline expansion, while others like John Bennett of the Sierra Club have praised Young’s use of his social stature to qualify the threats of the pipeline expansion and draw national attention to the pertinent issue.

So, is celebrity politics a double-edged sword? As the famed sway from the norm and into the public sphere, this very action arguably becomes the spectacle itself, effectively shrouding the issues at hand. I don’t know about you, but the Jackpine expansion into Fort Mac wasn’t exactly keeping me up at night until Neil sang about it.

There remains a stigma surrounding celebrity activism that warrants skepticism from the media, yet the empty words of political figures are taken at face value. Young has made statements like, “As far as me not knowing what I’m talking about, everybody knows that. It couldn’t be more obvious; I’m a musician”; yet for some reason, this humble and honest statement from the beloved musician feels more transparent than the empty talking 10 points of any politician.

Curtain Call

Local startups revitalize London’s stagnant theatre industry WORDS Erin Hofmann

12

The curtain call for many theatre production companies seems a daunting pos-

sibility as primary audiences age. There’s a plague in the theatre industry that is spreading across a disinterested population of young people. As one of the oldest art forms, acting for the stage is a classic performance style that has been enjoyed for generations. The fate of theatre rests in the hands of the younger generation, one that just does not seem to be represented in the audience. According to The Broadway League, the average age of the attendees of a Broadway show is 42.5 years old, a much higher age than recent shows seem to be targeted at attracting.

Ryan Cole, the creator of the new professional theatre company called Tempting Tree Theatre Collective, has a hopeful outlook for London’s theatre industry. Within the past decade, Cole has seen a growth in the number of companies, including student and amateur groups, that aspire towards the prominence of The Grand Theatre. Cole is only 22 years old but has already received 6 Brickenden Awards this past summer for his adaptation of Midsummer Night’s Dream, in addition to directing his own theatre company. In February, Tempting Tree made its debut with “Reasons to Be Pretty,” a play that challenged the traditional romantic narrative recycled across many forms of media. Their inaugural play was a demonstration of Cole’s desire to transform theatre into a more engaging, intimate mode of artistic communication. As a theatre producer, he is aware of the difficult task ahead of him: to captivate the interest of the younger generation in order to sustain and expand the industry.

Ryan is not the only one who places emphasis on targeting a younger demographic, as there have been a number of adaptations for various films, albums and books which have been adopted to Broadway in an effort to appeal to youngsters. The Lion King, Evil Dead: The Musical, Beauty and the Beast, Rock of Ages, American Idiot and Wicked are among a series of shows that are breaking the stigma of theatre created by an arduous study of Shakespeare in the Canadian education system.

Although there have been these new additions to the theatre circuit, the turnout is still generally older. Price may play a part in discouraging the under-30 and student demographics. The high cost of Broadway tickets (which range from $228 to $475) make these productions unavailable to those of a certain socio-economic status and of a certain age range. With the intention of tackling this obstacle, both MTV and NBC have used the more populous and widespread technology of television.

In 2007, Legally Blonde debuted on Broadway and was recorded by and aired on MTV in the same year. This silly and whimsical musical broadcasted on television was the first to do so, bringing an expensive viewing privilege to the comfort of the house. The technological shift in recorded and televised productions make seeing a Broadway show available to much wider audiences. On December 5th, 2013, NBC made a revolutionary move by broadcasting a live staged version of The Sound of Music starring Carrie Underwood. With a nine-million dollar production price tag and generally negative reviews, the studio nevertheless saw their experiment as a success, as it garnered an audience of over 18 million.

13

When asked his position on these recent experiments, Ryan Cole replied: “I’m on the fence. I love the idea, I love the concept, I think theatre for the masses is a great idea, but part of me hates it. Theatre isn’t film. I think it is something people might realize, but you almost have to have been part of theatre to really understand that you can’t film theatre.

You can’t set up a camera at the back of the room and film the show and watch it later and have the same experience. There is something about the energy of having an actor or actress 10 feet away from you and being brought into this other world.”

Lauren Conrad, a former Hills actress, hosted the Legally Blonde television debut.

During the intermission she turned to the camera to proclaim that this is “the only play you will be able to see the without buying a ticket.” Conrad, whilst actually physically enjoying the production from the audience, is selling to her viewers the idea that plays can be absorbed into the medium of television. But when buying a ticket to the theatre, you are not purchasing a mediated experience; you are physically immersing yourself within a story, watching all spontaneous movements of the actors as they absorb the energy of the audience.

Ryan Cole went on to say that he believes smaller venues are the way of the future.

He imagines breaking the distant rock concert vibe created through impersonal stadium seating of large venues such as Stratford and the Grand being replaced by small venues with limited seating creating intimate theatre experiences. When marketing his productions, he wishes to foster a community experience that is continued before and after the play itself. He envisions a night out on the town, with restaurant recommendations, an open bar and the ability for open discussion about the play after it is seen. In selecting his next production, Cole has to consider two main points: if he feels artistically inspired by a play, and the budgetary restrictions he is faced with. As a new company with approximately 80% of its budget allocated to actors’ salaries, Ryan can only afford three to four players, placing major constraints on his selections. Even the Grand Theatre in downtown London struggles with the pressures of maintaining a certain standard of profit, perhaps undermining the artistic vision by viewing their business through a more strategic, market-driven lens.

The Western bubble that is so often referred to, but not actively addressed, is created through restrictive knowledge the UWO student body is supplied with concerning the opportunities in London. By simply encouraging an exploration of the London’s venues such as Aeolian Hall and The Arts Project, students can discover thriving subcultures. With students working so diligently to stay within their monetary budgets, they may see attending the theatre as an extravagant outing. My solution to this is to offer a list of a few affordable theatre productions happening in the near future, that can be enjoyed for close to the same price as a movie: Alice in Wonderland Jr.:March 13th-16th @ Palace Theatre A View From the Roof: Student tickets $12, March 26th-29th @ The Arts Project Love, Loss and What I Wore: March 27th-April 5th @ Procunier Hall Skin Deep: Tickets $15, April 2nd-5th @ The Arts Project The Importance of Being Earnest: Tickets $22, April 22nd-26th @McManus Theatre Gypsy: Tickets $29 March 28th- April 5th @ Palace Theatre If you are interested in more information about Tempting Tree Theatre Collective or wish to get involved in any way, feel free to contact Ryan Cole: rcole@temptingtree.com 1414

“Forgive me ARTPOP” WORDS

Michael Usling

15

“Forgive me monsters. Forgive me ARTPOP. You are my whole world.” These words from Lady GaGa appear at the end of a December 2013 blog post in which the singer cryptically spoke of her struggle for artistic freedom from those surrounding her who “want billions, then they need trillions.” Rewind to July, when the Haus of GaGa published a press release about Lady GaGa’s forthcoming album/app, ARTPOP. The release promised music with “a rage of electronic passion and fury” and stated the ARTPOP app itself would “bring ARTculture into POP in a reverse Warholian expedition.” The following month the music video for “Applause” was released - GaGa’s inauguration to whatever “artpop” seems to be in its most blatant, yet abstract form. Aesthetically akin to the music video, GaGa’s show-stopping performance of “Applause” at the MTV VMAs consisted of a pastiche assemblage of wigs, fashion and choreography from each of GaGa’s respective album eras. Yet enigmatic lyrics from the album’s title track do not provide further clarity about what ARTPOP is, as GaGa sings, “My ARTPOP could mean anything.”

Preceding the album’s release, GaGa took an international press tour and singles “Applause” and “Do What U Want” received commercial treatments from Kia and Beats by Dre respectively. In the past, GaGa has both legitimately endorsed products (Versace) and dissected such culture in her videos (using Wonder Bread, Miracle Whip and poison in “Telephone”), yet her most recent commercial plugs don’t work to authenticate aspects of her star image as her past endorsements have. Were these commercial efforts to be interpreted as ARTPOP disseminating through popular/ consumer culture? Or were these simply shallow marketing ploys signaling something was up at Interscope headquarters? In November, during an interview with the BBC Two’s “Culture Show,” the pop star appeared overworked when sharing her belief that “the corporate musical world is terrifying, I hate it...[even now] they try to tell me what to do.” Days after the interview took place and shortly before ARTPOP’s release, it was confirmed that GaGa and

her manager of 5 years split due to creative differences.

The release party for ARTPOP, dubbed the artRave, showcased GaGa’s collaborations with performance artist Marina Abramovic, photographers Inez and Vinoodh, theatre producer Bob Wilson and renowned neo-pop artist Jeff Koons – who also designed a sculpture of the popstar for the album’s cover and the album booklet artwork. Was this the true introduction of ARTPOP? Marrying highbrow art and fandom culture together in a space mediated by the popstar herself ?

What is perhaps most important to note is the brouhaha surrounding the album’s decreased level of commercial success compared to Born This Way. The behind-thescenes profit wrangle also seems to speak to the core meaning of the album and can be seen as a validation of the intention behind GaGa’s work to begin with.

Since The Fame, Lady GaGa as a performer has garnered a very specific yet evolving aesthetic that works to authenticate the star image she projects. Never seen without a wig, makeup and couture, it is easy to see GaGa as authentic because her star image is consistent; she is never photographed turned “off,” and as the audience, we only see one GaGa. This is a sought after quality for artists’ star image – especially when it comes to promoting them. Artists who appear authentic and “genuine” attract fans that align themselves with some facet of their star image and in a world where artiface is ubiquitous, pop stars who oppose such an image and can substantiate an alternative one further authenticate their authenticity.

This is all important to note, especially because a revealing January 2014 blog post from GaGa read: “The next few months will truly be [ARTPOP’s] beginning, because those who did not care about ARTPOP’s success are now gone, and the dreams I have been planning can now come to fruition.” In February’s “Harper’s Bazaar” GaGa stated she “became very depressed at the end of 2013” and was taking anti-depressants. The confession to her fans concerning her new album’s recovery from a corporate occupation is perhaps best communicated again through the title track “ARTPOP”: “I try to sell myself but I am really laughing / Because I just love the music not the bling.”

It will be interesting, then, to see how Lady GaGa develops creative projects with ARTPOP now that she has parted ways with her former handlers and appears to be more creatively autonomous now than ever before. If her performance of “ARTPOP” during the launch week of The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon is any indicator, we are in store for some spectacular things to come.

The Wolf of Wall Street The Straw that Broke Equality’s Back WORDS Tish Lewis There is undoubtedly a long and exhausting list of areas in which The Wolf of Wall Street went completely wrong: its romanticization of crime and more specifically fraud, its degrading use of diminutive individuals as entertainment for others, its positive and unrealistic representative of drug addiction and its twisted and corrupt portrayal of “The American Dream.” Ask anyone with a functional moral compass and they will unfortunately (because who doesn’t love Leonardo DiCaprio right?) realize there is far more wrong with this film than right.

The most pressing and mostly unnoticed problem with The Wolf of Wall Street is its blatant disregard for historical accuracy and its strategic employment of telling only “one story” of women and their relationship to the workforce during the 1990s.

Throughout the entire movie, no real attention is paid to women within the field of business or any position boasting a female as a high-level representative. Within the first three minutes, DiCaprio’s extremely attractive wife and another unnamed female character act completely submissive to DiCaprio. If you take look at all the female character roles within this film, they all play the roles of hookers, sales assistants, waitresses, hostesses, strippers and wedding guests. Now, these professions or roles aren’t necessarily less appealing or inspiring than a women in a power suit or at the head of a board office meeting, but why is it that these roles are the only ones in the spotlight? What are the consequences of these decisions on impressionable male youth?

Yes, The Wolf of Wall Street is not a film intended to be an enriching or educational experience. However, what I can’t (or won’t) agree with is the notion that the film and others similar to it choose to use their global platform irresponsibly, failing to tell a story that is accurate of the time or individuals it ambitiously seeks to portray. It is well known that more women were entering the workforce and specifically making their mark on Wall Street during the 1990s than any other any other previous time period, and yet Martin Scorsese chose to forego adding characters that would reflect this monumental

event. Instead he noticeably places over-sexualized and comparatively unintelligent woman beside conservative, cunning and business-savvy male characters. Even when their desperate addiction to drugs makes into onto the big-screen, the male characters are shown as still powerful enough to achieve success in their jobs. Successful women on Wall Street existed, but they didn’t fit Scorsese’s patriarchal cookie-cutter caricatures.

By leaving out differing representations of women, a sense of elitism grows within the absorptive minds of young males. The Wolf of Wall Street shows that Jordan Belfort’s successful life was achieved with little to no assistance from women—they are merely objects to spoil or gain sexual satisfaction from. Other than being desirable, women are shown as useless and unproductive.

Ultimately, films like The Wolf of Wall Street may guide our male youth right back to the misogynistic and sexist opinions people have (and still are) fighting tirelessly to overcome.

It’s also important to note the differences between a Hollywood representation of Jordan Belfort and other brokers, and the stark reality of their actions in the 1990s. Historically, male brokers in this time period were well-known for using their money on strippers and excessive cocaine use. According to the real account of Jordan Belfort, The Wolf of Wall Street is dead on in glorifying his addiction, objectification of women and addiction to drugs. Well done! However, what the film fails to do is express how the behaviours of male brokers on Wall Street effected the lives and financial stability of the “regular’ working class. So, you and I alike were also pawns in these brokers twisted game. Holding true to the inequality laced throughout this movie, the one story rule is used in favour of men as usual in Hollywood.

16

Divesting Western

Western Life editor Travis Welowszky spoke with EnviroWestern Coordinator Stuart Ruffolo about Western’s responsibility to divest from Big Oil.

in Big

The rising student demand for universities to divest from Big Oil investments has been felt at campuses across North

America, notably at schools such as Dalhousie and U of T, as well as Harvard and Brown. Where is Western situated in this conversation?

With over 30 active campaigns across this country, 300 in the United States and over 500 globally, divestment is the new buzzword on campuses around the world. Just the other month thousands of students at UBC voted on a referendum question in favour of divestment. The student unions of Dalhousie, Trent, McGill, UBC, Simon Fraser, and UVic all unanimously voted in favour of divestment just the other month. Students at these universities and at Western are beginning to realize that extreme weather events make it clear that we need to act now in order to avoid climate catastrophe. Western, along with 300 other schools across the continent, is experiencing a growing number of students standing up for climate justice.

You submitted a ‘purple paper’ to the USC as the EnviroWestern Coordinator. Can you outline what this document requested and what sort of response it received?

The paper outlines the stark truth about climate change and the devastating effects that accompany it. We need to, and can, do something about climate change at Western University by ‘speaking with our money.’ The Purple Paper calls on the USC to respond to the seriousness of climate change by lobbying Western administration to: 1. Make a statement of principle immediately affirming their intention to divest from fossil fuel companies 2. To immediately stop investing new money in the fossil fuel industry 3. To spend the next 5 years winding down existing fossil fuel holdings Western claims to be committed to ensuring that sustainability is an integral part of student’s daily lives. Moreover, they have recently enshrined “sustainability” and “social responsibility” as institutional values and principles within their new strategic plan. It is a conflict of interest for a school that claims to be sustainable to profit off the extraction of fossil fuels, the warming of the planet, and the displacement of millions of people. The paper calls on Western to instill some consistency with its finances and its values.

Western is an institution shaped around serving the public good. As institutions dedicated not to profit, but to educating the next generation, universities have a moral responsibility to help protect the future of the planet. It is our moral obligation to pressure institutions that serve the public good to divest from fossil fuels. We should invest in climate solutions, not fund the problem. As students, we have the power and the responsibility to call on our university leaders to invest our money in a manner that is both environmentally and socially responsible.

For a university that champions the ‘best student experience’, what are the financial implications for the university to withdraw from these bodies? At what point will we put ethics ahead of finances?

There have been a multitude of reports indicating investing in sustainable forms of energy, energy efficiency, and sustainability can be more profitable than investing in fossil fuels. With the clean energy market reaping in over $260 billion in investments in 2011, it is a growing market and a safe place for Western to invest. Thus, there are copious other options for Western to invest in that do not involve fossil fuel companies, while also still serving to fulfill the principle objective of keeping Western’s cash reserves growing.

In fact, many socially responsible funds such as the Domini 400 average the same or better returns, even over a 10-year period, compared to other index funds such as the S&P 500.

Continued investment in this sector will have negative effects on investors as well as society. The valuation of these companies is based on their carbon reserves; these exact reserves need to remain in the ground in order to maintain a livable planet. The bottom line is that divestment from fossil fuel companies is the only moral choice for institutions that care about society and the planet their students are going to inherit

When it comes to facing large corporate bodies, what do students have to realize in terms of their political voice and how do we convince them of their power?

Students need to remember that we live in a democracy and in a democracy, majority rules. If we want fossil fuel companies to stop driving a climate catastrophe, then we can make them stop. As individuals, we have only limited influence, but in solidarity we hold the power to make real change. There is over $415 billion in the endowments of Canadian and American universities, which means we have the power to take a lot of money out of dirty energy and into a more sustainable future. Rolling Stone has called this the largest student movement in decades. Cities, Schools, and religious denominations around the globe have committed to divesting tens of billions of dollars from the fossil fuel industry including Seattle, San Fransisco, and Portland. The Chair of the World Bank and the United Nations Secretary General have both publicly called on institutions to divest their money from fossil fuel-backed funds. Thus, this movement has powerful allies. Many students are too young to remember that divestment has been used successfully as a strategy for social change to fight the Apartheid in South Africa.

In the mid 1980’s, over 155 campuses and many other institutions across the United States divested from all companies doing business in South Africa and it eventually lead to De Klerk proposing the release of Nelson Mandela; the rest is history.

When Mandela got out of jail one of the first places he went, even before the White House, was to Berkeley. He went there to thank Berkeley for divesting the $1.7 billion they held of Apartheid tainted stocks.

Schools made the right decision then, and now another huge social problem has come to face us. Will Western refuse divestment, or realize that doing so would leave them on the wrong side of history?

Why are deeply concerning environmental issues so difficult to understand the material consequences of ? Why do we feel so distanced from things that are so intimately connected to the quality of our lives and lives of so many others?

I think one of the main reasons is that students and a large part of society do not understand climate change as a present danger. Another reason is that humans are terrible at thinking globally. A global temperature rise of 4 degrees would be an absolute calamity on a global scale, but on a local scale no one would even notice an increase of 4 degrees. Moreover, as a culture we are so used to the narrative of a quick, cheap way to fix things. People are convinced that although we may be on a disastrous path, soon enough, just in the nick of time, a new technology will come out that allows us to fix our mistakes. These individuals are ignoring the climate science. The effects we’ve seen to date include extreme weather, rising sea levels, and species loss. The increasing carbon emissions are driving up mean hunger, lack of water access, displacement, desertification, and worsening impacts on people around the world. The biggest threat facing our generation is climate change. Thus, we have a moral responsibility to divest from corporations that are destroying the planet.

This interview has been abridged for length. To read the full, unabridged interview, visit OPENWIDE Online and check out www.facebook.com/DivestWesternU

westernlife//

Ways to ImproveWestern WORDS Travis Welowszky and Chris Ling DEMOLISH WELDON We must take the wrecking crews to the concrete beach colossal that is D.B. Weldon library. While it has been home to countless hours of student papers and exam preparations, the location is prime in driving funds to our commercial centers. In the stead of collapsed ruins, we propose a new mega-residence, powered by Starbucks. The building will stand as a cathedral of student life, with a Purple Store on every floor, walk-in closets, and a state-ofthe-art recreation center with television screens flashing subliminal product placements, dangling the good life just out of reach.

ensure Starbucks boutiques occupy any remaining non-commercial space on campus. Who is that Van Houte guy anyway?

INCREASE ENROLLMENT As governments continue to cut funding to post-secondary education in pursuit of austerity, the most obvious and poorly thoughtout solution is to increase enrollment to Western. While this will undoubtedly reduce the credibility of our institution, credibility doesn’t garner the kind of financial return possible through expansion: too-big-to-fail logic always works, across the board.

A wish fountain will sit at the heart of the atrium, where coins students throw in with their dreams can be added to administration’s already lucrative base salaries. At the centre of the fountain will sit a larger-than-life statue of Western’s founders. The statue will bear the following inscription on a golden placard:“Going Global: Dominance on the International Stage.”

By whittling down creativity and critical thought in papers and research projects, we can instill a generation of brutally rational workers through standardized scantron testing. Grading processes will proceed with remarkable efficiency as we can precisely instruct students on what to think, rather than how to think.

INSOURCING PURPLE PRIDE

PROPAGANDA MACHINE

As students of high learning, we are able to reflect on our biases and expose inequities in the world. Our Western-branded apparel is currently produced in countries such as China, Indonesia, and Nicaragua; we feel this is a chance to wipe clean the blood of globalization on our hands. Instead, we intend to insource this labour to our adjunct professors and graduate students that already work for near-scale wages. This is an opportunity for our transient academics to be fully immersed in purple pride and truly understand what it means to be a part of this institution ©.

If we are all motivated towards pursuing a singular cause, we can get much more accomplished. While it may make the university privy to discrimination, class struggle, and the abolition of a public sphere, we’re results people.

Solutions: Strongarm radical leftist publication OPENWIDE into becoming another propaganda machine for the USC. Take partisan stances to benefit the financial productivity of the USC. Explicitly endorse slate candidates.

ORWELLIAN SECURITY MEASURES We live amidst the age of the image and the public perception of our school has never been of greater importance. Therefore, we must work diligently to crush all voices of dissent and contrary opinion in our mission for global excellence. Taking cues from British social theorist Jeremy Bentham, we feel the University College tower must be reconfigured as the all-seeing USC security panopticon overlooking the campus grounds. Radical protestors can be spotted before their pamphlets are distributed and demonstrators can be stopped short of disseminating knowledge to the student populations. The security tower will loom above us, forever watching and ever ready: our Big Purple Brother.

CAMPUS COFFEE OLIGOPOLY In keeping with the oligopolistic Canadian model for wireless providers Rogers and Bell, we must implement a campus wide coffee oligopoly. Tim Horton’s is nearly there, so we must act quickly to

Advertise, advertise, propagandize. Devote remaining editorial staff to protecting OPENWIDE’s brand loyalty arrangements with Big Business on campus.

IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIC PLAN If we can cut funding to faculties that do not produce immediately commodifiable research, we will free up funding to dedicate to our science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields. Though this will inevitably starve certain faculties, reduce salaries and availability of tenured positions, make research chairs unattainable, burden already underpaid academics, reduce course choices, water-down existing material and lessen the educational experience of many that take massive economic gambles by pursuing post-secondary education, we could be rolling in funding and investments.

Point of interest, we’re already doing this.

Where the USC

Needs to Change WORDS Spencer Sterritt

Now that the USC election is over, it’s time for Matt Helfand and his team to focus on how they can achieve

all of their platform goals, which will be no easy task. As student representatives, the USC has to deal with a number of issues while still outlining the budget for the next administration. It’s time the USC be streamlined to focus solely on student affairs, in the interest of bettering the overall student experience at Western.

While the USC is indeed focused on student affairs, it is unfortunately limited by the wide scope of issues they have to manage. As a student body, the USC sprawls and has to work around other UWO administrations and legislations. As it stands, most of the its time is spent dealing with minor legislative issues, leaving inadequate time to fully delve into deep student concerns.

An example of this current administration is the fervor that was raised by the $59 000 surplus at the beginning of this school year. The argument about the surplus is long over so there’s no reason to relight that fire, but we can use it as an example of the problematic situations that relinquish delicate timeframes that the USC should be devoting to a wider range of concerns.

If the USC was streamlined, it would not have to deal with financial issues such as the surplus. The budget for the following year is the biggest initiative for the USC, and it slows the whole organization. Instead of effectively using their money, they spend most of their time talking about it, which leads to a general disinterest in student government. The voting numbers for the latest election were abysmally low, a mere 19.6% turnout. As FIMS President Jordan Pearson said in an interview, “How can [The USC] claim to speak for 30 000 people when they were elected to power with [only] 5000 students behind them…It’s a bankrupt model of student representation.” Students are checking out of politics completely, which is the last thing the USC needs. Without student input there will be little to guide budget discussions, which is going to cause the kind of problems that make students feel disengaged and unrepresented in campus politics.

With so few students turning up to vote come election time, there is a distinct fissure in the relationship between students and their representatives. That relationship isn’t strengthened by the fact that a short, one-year term simply does not allow enough time for the USC to accomplish everything proposed on its platform. This leads to dissatisfaction among the student population that their government is unable to follow through on their promises. Even the current government admits this: in a Febuary article of The Gazette, Vice President of Communications Jasmine Irwin expressed that initiatives and changes may seem easy to accomplish from the outside, but from within the USC it is clear that things are run in a particular, bureaucratic fashion. If the priorities of the USC were altered, there would be fewer opportunities for broken promises. Given the limited amount of time student governments have to make large institutional changes, their priority must be first and foremost to engage directly with students. The relationship between a student government and its constituents is pivotal in fostering a healthy public domain, where all feel they are heard and their needs are looked after.

20

One thefor Pawns WORDS Richard Starkey

“Check.” The voice came from a man dressed in drab attire- torn at the knees, and muddy to his ankles. He looked up at his partner and awaited his response.

“You sure are making this hard for me, L. But you were a pain in the ass since the day I met you, so why should that change now?” the man teased. “Blocked. Your move.”

“J, you should know better than anyone that no game is easy when losing is involved.”

“Right you are, kid, and we’ve got the scars to prove it,” J growled.

“There’s no use dwelling on the past.”

“Hey Bub, it’s okay to be mad. Ain’t nobody gonna fault you if you’re more sailor than saint.”

“Just play the game, J.” “Why? Are you that eager to end it?”

“As a matter of fact, yes. I would like to end the game. It’s been going on for too long,” he pleaded.

“Good. That makes two of us.”

They sat in silence for a long time.

“Hey L, tell me about yourself.”

“Why now? You’ve never cared.”

“Well, we’ve been sitting here locked in a stalemate for what feels like forever- with no end in sight. So why the Hell shouldn’t I try to get to know who I’m playing against? In fact, I probably should’ve done this to begin with. Maybe if we’d talked, then I would’ve known not to play with you, because this game is making me crazy.”

Another silence.

L made a quick motion with one of his pieces. “Thanks for the bishop,” he said. “Now what do you want to know, J?” “I don’t know. Tell me about your family or something. Got any little monsters?”

“Kids? Six.” “God damn, son. Good for you.” He gave L a wink. “What are their names?”

“I’ve got Kainaat, James, Kwaku, Jorge, Dimitra, and Seng-wu.”

J raised an eyebrow. ”I didn’t know you were a man of so many tastes.”

“What can I say? I’m a diverse kind of guy.”

“Diversity is good. Diversity is interesting. I haven’t been interested in a damn long time.” J idled with his finger on a rook. “Do you miss them?”

“Every second,” L stated casually. “What about you, J, any family?”

“No blood, but a lot of family.”

“Friends, Lovers, Neighbours.”

“More than that, but Just So.” He reached his hand out to make a move “Ah I guess I’ll just be happy taking your pawn.”

As he grabbed his bounty, J stared at the piece in his hands, and L thought he saw a brief expression of pain 21 cross his companion’s face, before he managed to regain his composure.

L stared as J rolled the captured pawn around in his palm.

“J, are you all right?” he inquired.

“There’s no such thing, kid. I’ve been quarter-right, and half-right, and once I was even nine-tenths-right, but I’ve never been all right, and I reckon no one on Earth can tell me that they have.”

“Wow, and I thought you were just a big, stupid Oaf.” “Watch your mouth, boy,” threatened J, but he managed a smile when he said it.

J then turned his attention to his king piece standing exactly where it had been standing for the entire game.

“You know, this isn’t the way a king should be,” J muttered.

“J? You’re talking to a toy.”

“I’m baring my feelings to you, show some respect.”

L raised his hands in a platonic gesture. “Please, go on.”

“Look at this. Look at where he’s standing. The pampered little devil hasn’t even moved while he’s sent half his men to their deaths. A real king- a real leader would do everything he can to keep his people from danger, and failing that, he would be on the front lines fighting with them. This pawn in my hand was defeated to defend a king who doesn’t care- a king who wants to cause destruction for his own benefit. I wouldn’t ever follow such a coward.”

“J? Those are still toys.”

“So you’re Mr. Comedy all of a sudden? You know what I mean, L. I know you do. I-“ “-I know, J.” “But I did.” J let out a pained sigh.

“We did,” L corrected.

J looked at L in a manner that suggested he wanted to say something, but then with a shrug he cast his eyes back onto the game and said, “The pawns guard the King, but who guards the pawns?”

Another silence.

“L, what did the sky look like over on your side?”

“It looked like you’ve been eating Grandma’s special back pain candy.”

“Humour me, you prick.”

L looked up inquisitively- trying to sense the logic behind such a seemingly redundant question. He was met with a curious stare, like a restless newborn opening his eyes to the world.

“Well, alright,” L allowed. “On the days we could see through the smoke, we saw blue. Mostly blue- save for the grey clouds of thunderstorms and snowy fog of winter. It was the loveliest, freest shade of blue.”

As L finished talking, J’s eyes snapped back into sharp focus and he began to recite words that were clearly once a vivid memory; “We called ourselves different, but our skies were just the same. We were promised many things, but we only claimed the Blue. And in the moment, it almost seemed worth it. The loveliest, freest shade of blue.”

“A poetry fan too? You put on a tough face, but you’re just full of surprises, aren’t you? I didn’t know I was quoting someone. Who said that, again?”

J looked at L with an eerily calm demeanor before he simply stated: “I did.”

And with that, J picked up the King pieces and tossed them away, leaving only “lesser” pieces and pawns remaining on the board.

They sat for a long time- too stunned to speak, too stunned to move. The abrupt end to the game filled them with an empty feeling; it was all they had known, the only constant, and it was gone. But then they sensed a soft spark of excitement as something moved to take its place. It was slow at first, but then the pressure intensified like the volume on a radio being turned to max, like a tree bracing itself against the wind, like a river pounding against a cracking dam“ALL HAIL OUR NEW KINGS!” demanded J. “HAILED!” They both hollered, jumping up out of their seats to dance and cheer.

With the game finally over, the sound of laughter between friends filled the air.

And neither of them noticed the sky.

22

to contribute, visit

openwidezine.com