Last night I drove an hour and a half in a mostly east direction, and found myself standing at the base of a giant egg. I scaled the base of egg because, well, if one should find oneself at the base of an egg, the only sensible thing to do is climb it. Having conquered the giant egg, I turned my attention to the giant elk that was awaiting mounting not a block down the road. As you can see, I captured both of my conquests last night on film. Do my acts last night count as the politicization of art?

Benjamin argues that art can be revolutionary. Art, specifically sound film and photography, serves to distract and shock us in such a way as to hit and register on our bodies. Though my pictures may be somewhat shocking or distracting, I hardly think they have the tactile impact that Benjamin was talking about. John Fiske, however, argues that popular culture, as an act, is excessive. When considered as excessive then, popular culture becomes revolutionary in that it shines light on dominant ideolgical discourse, preventing it from being so sneaky. Which brings me back to my original question, do my acts last night count as the politicization of art? I think the obvious answer to that is no, my acts, individually, do not. But, further consideration of the images of last night's jackassery might be in order. Does using the pictures for a political end draw pop culture/revolutionary status?