Adrian DiLena
Our society, our democracy and our daily lives are centred around the concept of the individual. It is obvious to us that each person has unique qualities that define them and distinguish them from others. In our democracy this is represented by the ability of each citizen to vote and impact the governance of their society. In our daily lives our individualities are represented perhaps best in the relationships we form; our friends, significant others, our family dynamics, our working relationships. Each person is appreciated in light of their unique, individual qualities.
Yet, these conceptions of the individual and identity have not always existed. It wasn’t until the 18th century that the idea of the an individual identity was given much thought. This period coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution and an intense migration from rural living towards urban centres in Europe and soon after in the United States. It was societal shifts like these that set the economic conditions for the development of the individual identity. Fields of study relating to the individual like criminology, social policy and planning, psychology and medicine flourished following the changes occurring in the new urban and industrialized societies. The dense populations allowed for the introduction of advertising, luxury items and a middle class able to consume them.
Following the second world war there was a similar socio-economic shift, this time occurring in the United States and producing a similar change in our conception of individuality. During the war the manufacturing base was streamlined and made as efficient as possible to support the war effort and it created a large problem for manufacturers when the war was over. The problem was over-production. They were capable of producing much more items than the American public was capable of consuming at that point. If left alone the markets would saturate and industries would shrink. The result was the establishment of aggressive marketing strategies which focused their efforts on the need for individuals to exhibit and validate themselves through the consumption of cultural products. However, the mass distribution of culture and the constantly changing nature of it means individuality is short lived. The cool becomes old quickly and news ways must be sought out to validate oneself. Though I would not suggest this is a conspiracy, I would imply that the culture industry has been designed in this cyclical fashion to maintain a market.
These works try to expose the tensions between one’s individuality and the consumptive practices that, unfortunately, often create that individuality. In the pieces titled “Individuality #1 & #2″ the figures stand motionless, expressionless in garbage cans to illustrate the absurdly material nature of the individual. The historical fact is that yesterday’s cultural necessities, those fad items that seem to takeover the cultural landscape sit in today’s landfills. The individual as we know it has been manufactured, both metaphorically and literally, in order to create a market that is virtually insatiable. Our individualities, supposedly a beacon of enlightenment, are subordinate to the profits of the culture industries.
The idea of consumption for the sake of it is the focus of the drawing “Portrait of Self as Consumer”. Within the drawing, the figure, a self portrait, is pictured eating from a plate of food while sitting on the toilet. This satirical portrait represents the way in which we often consume for the sake of consuming. The process and novelty of purchasing and obtaining is often more important to us than the practical benefits of the purchase.
Especially interesting is that although theories about consumerism and its ill effects have been discussed for decades, we can now view consumerism within the unifying and globalizing context of the environmental discourse. Not only can we discuss consumerism as a economic and culture force, but also as an environmentally destructive force that has implications far reaching outside of the source countries.
In the drawing General Mentality I have tried to picture this recklessness, this willingness to subject those around us (often those with little power to resist) to the waste of our culture. Whether it is exploiting countries for cheap manufacturing, natural resources or simply dumping the wastes we create through those processes in poorer regions.
We are individuals and I am by no means suggesting that being so is a lesser existence than the feudal and toiling masses prior to the industrial revolution. Nor would I suggest that we discard the rich and vibrant identities we inherent from our respective cultures. Rather, it is a two sided coin, in which we must see how we are alike while simultaneously seeing how we are distinct historically and culturally, as opposed to distinction through product and consumption.
The development of the individual led to democracy, human rights and progressive societal forces like the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, gay rights and rights for the mentally and physically disabled. But inherent in each of these progressions and in the development of the individual itself is an obligation and personal responsibility, the ability to make choices and weigh their potential impacts, to act morally as one person instead of insulating oneself in the protective mentality of the mob.
So these works, I hope, are asking a question; how do we want to define our individuality. What does it mean? What and where does it benefit? How do we create our individuality and to what extent is it our creation? To what extent are our conceptions of it manipulations? Though these works do not answer these questions conclusively, I hope they can enter into the dialogue and participate in the continuing development of the individual.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Recent Comments