While scanning the Internet for interesting sites I happened upon a little known

activist group called the Space Hijackers. Up until that time my political views and

general outlook had been founded on Punk ideology. This new group was a breath of

fresh air, a cure for the increasing number of banal left wing activists whose tactics where

far too radical and dangerous to involve concerned yet relatively conservative

individuals. The brilliant design of the Space Hijackers website helped set them apart

from their counterparts. Using the language and imagery of a top secret agent

organisation they had managed to add a sense of fun and humour to their cause. Indeed as

you will see later many of the projects that they have instigated have involved the

questioning of what it means to be an activist and the media’s portrayal of such

individuals. Each time you put on a garment switch on your television or surf onto an

Internet site you are making choices consciously or subconsciously which describe you.

Each choice is a bi product of the corporate consumer culture we live in. To a certain

extent it is inescapable and infiltrates so much of our daily lives that we have become

accustomed and blind to its strangle hold on our decisions. One of the reasons that

corporations have entered into our lives to this extent is the media, which sustains itself

for the most part on profits from advertising. The media now more than ever before, is

crucial in defining our opinions. It informs us rightly or wrongly about the world around

us. If we choose to ignore it we feel ostracized by our social groups which operate

through a narrative defined by consumer choices, choices that are informed by the media

and advertising campaigns.

“Neither consumerism nor television form genuine sources of identity and belief,
but since there are no dependable alternatives, popular culture and the mass media come
to serve as the only frames of reference available for the construction of collective and personal identities.”

The Space Hijackers and other groups which fit with what I believe to be a new

type of activism namely ‘Space Hijacking’, are attempting to break this cycle and help

people to perceive their environment, and the companies which seem to be controlling it

more so now than ever before, in a new light. These companies better known as

Corporations or Multinationals due to their size have found new and ingenious ways of

fighting and in fact embracing anticorporate culture. It is this new move by big business

to co-opt anticorporate culture that I hope to expose in this essay as well as explaining the

ways in which Space Hijacking is fighting to unmask co-opted corporate cool and its

increasingly invisible trajectory.

Many people are aware that corporations have been questioned over human rights

abuses that their contractors have committed in factories abroad. These corporations by

their very nature are increasingly putting the safety of their shareholders before the safety

of the people they employ. What I am attempting to identify is that these corporations are

at the same time developing relationships and deep rooted associations with what is cool

in youth culture in order to displace and disguise these issues. The more these

corporations develop and evolve the less room there will be for autonomous, independent

ideas to flourish and for dissident opinions to be voiced. Besides the Internet, one place

where opinion is still relatively unhindered by the encroaching corporate behemoth is the

underground 'Zine' scene, “…zines are non-commercial, non-professional, small-

circulation magazines which their creators produce, publish, and distribute by

themselves” Like other areas of underground culture though, ‘Zines’ have suffered at the

hands of the “sophisticated marketing machine which gobbles up anything novel and

recreates it as a product for a niche market.” Can we fight this systematic destruction of

genuine underground culture and if so how relevant is this struggle. Can a movement of

like-minded individuals under the Space Hijacking banner using 'Zines' and the Internet

really make their voices heard and save their culture from the dreaded influence of

corporate power?

SPACE HIJACKING and anti-corporate culture

The anti-corporate consciousness which has grown since the latter half of the

1990’s has seen many guises and includes a large number of “environmental, labour and

human-rights activists determined to expose the damage being done behind the slick

veneer,” of multinationals. This trend has produced a variety of groups many of which

can be found on the Internet and within the pages of ‘Zines’. Since 1998 the majority of

these groups and individuals have descended on London on May 1st to celebrate Mayday

and protest about the state of the world and the disparities that “informational

capitalism” creates. This is a type of capitalism, which is “relying on innovation-induced

productivity, and globalisation-orientated competitiveness to generate wealth, and to

appropriate it selectively.” Many of them protest because they are sick of the invasive

role multinationals are playing in our culture. They hope to raise awareness of the wrongs

being perpetrated by big business, which in their eyes have more sway than governments,

and change people’s attitudes to the system.

“Already a common imperative is emerging from the disparate movements taking
on multinational corporations: the peoples right to know. If multinationals have become
larger and more powerful than governments, the argument goes, then why shouldn’t they
be subject to the same accountability controls and transparency that we demand of our
public institutions!”

The ways in which these individual activists and particular groups go about

spreading the hidden truths of such companies is in itself an underground culture. Being

an activist of sorts myself I have had the pleasure of engaging in various activities with

one specific group, namely The Space Hijackers. Unlike the other groups I have

investigated The Space Hijackers are far and away a completely different type of activist

organisation. Begun in 1999 by a gentleman who refers to himself as Bristly Pioneer their

first action became the now widely acknowledged and publicised Circle Line Party,

which in 2003 was repeated and drew around 600 party goers.(Fig 1)

“The plan for the party was to create an expression of freedom, a protest against
oppressive, repressive, war mongering policies of greedy white men that want to rule the
world. An attempt to promote DIY culture in an age of rampant consumerism. A space
for interaction between people away from the clutches of capitalism, and two fingers up
at the constant clampdown on civil liberties and un-commodified fun.”

The party was a fantastic success and served to demonstrate that it is possible to

utilise your surrounding environment for your own expressions. For the Space Hijackers

it became the centre piece for their organisation and a graphic demonstration of what it

means to be an ‘Anarchitect’

“The Space Hijackers are Anarchitects, we oppose the hierarchy that is put upon
us by Architects, Planners and owners of space”

It also opened the eyes of the party goers as to the possibilities on offer when the

urban environment is perceived in a different context and subsequently acted upon. The

party received a great deal of publicity due to its anarchic nature and number of

attendees. Indeed the very day on which the party took place the evening news ran a

story on it, “As the train pulls into Baker Street on the second lap of the line we’re

greeted by coppers…alongside a handful of officers and LU staff is a film crew from

London Tonight.” It then appeared in the Guardian newspaper and was ranked as the

most important action of 2003. The music press joined in as well running a double page

spread entitled, “Keep it Underground.” (Fig 2)

As the activist movement has grown stronger and become ever more publicised its

glowing radical lustre has faded it would seem. Significantly the activist group ‘Earth

First!’ put together a calendar detailing significant dates for protestors to take action. This

in turn caused a sarcastic retort from the mainstream media, which appeared in ‘The Wall

Street Journal’ entitled, “Hurry! There Are Only 27 More Protesting Days Until

Christmas.” As with all things radical and relatively new a certain degree of scepticism

follows a prolonged period in the limelight. What activists must appreciate is the need to

evolve and exacerbate pre-conceived notions of activism and its stereotypes. Stereotypes

which have been created by the corporate controlled media. “In Britain, for instance,

there has been something of a deliberate retreat from the crusty, eco-warrior image

recently.” In an attempt to rectify this flaw the Space Hijackers developed a separate

site under the name Not Cricket which directly criticised this subject in a somewhat

tongue in cheek manner.(Fig 3)

Other activists such as The Vacuum Cleaner, Ange Taggart and Reverend

Billy(Fig 4)are also bringing new expressions of activism to fruition, by experimenting

not only with their presentation but with different methods of protest in particular. A

recent article entitled “Civil Disobedience” which appeared in Front Magazine in July

2003 reads:

“Protests can be dull these days – we’ve become a bit numb. Every day there’s a
fresh gaggle of scruffy, angry types campaigning against the latest treachery. Whether it’s coffee houses or sweatshops, there’s plenty of marchers ready to wave placards at bored coppers. It’s become an institution, like bank holidays and late trains – predictable. Almost safe. It’s like someone’s running a timetable that reads: congregate,
walk about, get a few people to get carried away, disperse, buy new dungarees. But there is an alternative. A subtle choice of action.”

This article colourfully depicts the stale reality that these new types of protest are

attempting to reverse. Some now cross the boundaries between art, theatre and protest as

The Whirl Mart anti consumerism protest demonstrates.(Fig 5)

“Whirl-Mart Ritual Resistance is a participatory experiment. It is art and action. It came into being in 2001 as a response to Adbusters magazine’s call for foolish action on the first of April. What began as a single happening in Troy, NY has over the course of a year evolved into a ritual activity that is performed across the U.S., and known around the world. It is a ritual during which a group gathers and silently pushes empty carts through the aisles of a superstore. Whirl-Mart utilizes tactics of occupation and reclamation of private consumer-dominated space for the purpose of creating a symbolic spectacle.”

It is a protest but not in the traditional sense, which means the usual rules for

combating such dissention do not necessarily apply, largely due to the fact that the

protestors are in effect doing nothing wrong. Similarly for the May day protests of 2003 it

was decided that the Space Hijackers would create a “Street Disco For Freedom,”

moving from place to place with a small mobile sound system and beginning impromptu

parties through out the day.(Fig 6)

The significant difference being that each Space

Hijacker involved, would be dressed in a suit to make businessmen and women feel

welcome and unthreatened as well as questioning the activist stereotype myth. Ange

Taggart a Nottingham based artist is “the founder of My Dads Strip Club and co-founder

of Fanclub featured in the BBC documentary series on consumerism Spend, Spend,

Spend.” Recently she joined forces with other activists with similar ideas to form the

“Stop Shopping Road show.”

“The Stop Shopping UK Tour is a temporary travelling intervention featuring
performance artists and anti-shoppers who question and interrupt the usual patterns of
consumption. Often they perform in contested public space or right in the heart of
corporate chain stores, where the “shopping experience” is most ritualised. The core
artists— Ange Taggart, William Talen and Andrew Lynn— intensify the secular rituals
of consumption to the point of ecstatic fervour. They pray to cat food, sermonize against
sweatshops, and solemnly push empty shopping trolleys down supermarket aisles.”

Most if not all of Ange Taggart’s work is based around consumerism and anti-

corporate sentiment. This example (Fig 7) shows receipts with hidden messages which

have been created using products from the ‘Nestle’ brand. The messages silently criticise

the products that have been purchased. This sort of protest is more likely to be viewed as

a work of art by most people but has the important element of humour which is

omnipresent in these new types of activism. Bristly Pioneer the man behind the Space

Hijackers explains, “… I feel you’re not going to win people over by shouting at them.

You’re going to win them over by doing something funny.” This humorous theme can

be traced back to Amsterdam and a movement called ‘Provo’ during the mid-sixties. “It

was the idea of Provo to provoke – spontaneously, flexibly, relentlessly – which meant

choosing hyper retaliatory situations and reaping the consequences, even if they proved

to be political.” Like Space Hijacking ‘Provo’ traversed the bridge between protest and

artistic statement as this quote from the movements ‘White Plans’ demonstrates,

“White corpse: An anti-automobile plan to dramatise accidents. ‘As soon as the
ambulance has removed the sad remains, the murderer himself, using the chisel and
hammer, must hack out the silhouette of his victim one inch deep in the asphalt under
supervision of police. Next he must fill the hollow with white mortar.’”

Humour also plays a large role in the more recent protesting genre known as

‘Culture Jamming’ which involves the subversion of corporate imagery in a deeply

satirical manner . It is most commonly seen on billboards to create a new “message

starkly at odds with the one that was intended.” However a great deal of debate has

focused around culture jamming and its effectiveness at changing peoples perceptions of

corporations and their brand imagery as we will see later. The same is quite possibly true

when contemplating Space Hijacking and its varied tactics. How much effect is this new

and relatively unheard of culture of activism having?

CO-OPTED CORPORATE COOL

One of the key objectives of the anti-corporate movement is to support and

promote autonomy in other words independent individuals, businesses, record

labels…Constellation (a record label based in Montreal Canada) embodies this type of

business completely. “Independence is to our minds the affirmation of real community,

real conversation, and real exchange of artistic work… We deal with bands face-to-face,

without formal contracts, on the basis of ongoing discussion and mutual decision-

making.” In the market place, companies appropriation of youth culture and

antiestablishment autonomy can be traced back to the late sixties and the marketing of Hippie ideas.

“Sensationalised love-ins erupted from venues as diverse as Alexandra Palace and the Duke of Bedford’s Woburn Abbey Estate… ‘The three day Festival of the Flower
Children faded out at Woburn Abbey, home of the Duke of Bedford yesterday, to the
tinkling of necklace bells and cash registers ringing up more than £20,000 profits.’” .

Independent companies within the fashion and music industries have seen a rise in

demand for their authentic wares through out the 90’s after the affluent and money driven

excess of the 80’s, but now large companies are learning how to mimic this type of

cultural exchange and are attempting to ‘keep it real’ as it were by aligning themselves

with independent businesses in a variety of ways.

“As Business Week reported in a special feature on new strategies in marketing,
advertisers are now looking to “hide their corporate provenance. ” The report continues:
“The idea is to fake an aura of colourful entrepreneurship as a way to connect with
younger consumers who yearn for products that are hand-made, quirky, and
authentic.””

We now have a situation were it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish

corporate brands from their authentic independent counterparts. This picture of a Diesel

Jacket emblazoned with band names graphically pronounces this point (Fig 8).

Of specific significance being the inclusion of the band ‘Godspeed you Black emperor’ who

are the most respected group on the Constellation record label, mentioned above.

Godspeed have intertwined their music with deeply held political views since their

inception in 1997. Their most recent album depicts on its reverse a painstakingly

researched diagram of links between record labels and arms manufacturers (Fig 9).

It is this type of anti-corporate sentiment that makes their inclusion on a supposedly

fashionable garment by Diesel so utterly ridiculous and is the pure embodiment of co-

opted corporate cool! Levi’s “ …the first company to adopt a corporate code of conduct

after some of its contractors overseas were found to be treating their workers as

indentured slaves,” opened what fashion savvy individuals would call a boutique near

the well known and subculturaly historic Carnaby street. Operating under the name Cinch

the store obliquely attempts to assume the identity of a trendy independent business with

all the correct trappings, in order to disguise its normally corporate edifice.(Fig 10)

The shop referred to by Levi’s as a concept store sells culturally significant items such as

obscure records and books as well as inviting young, upcoming artists to rework Levi’s

garments. What is wrong with this you may say? The problem is that by enticing young

artists to exhibit in such a place the value of their work is diminished. Levi’s have no real

interest in an individuals artistic capabilities what they want to achieve is an injection of

cool to their brand. Posing as a culturally aware and supportive entity is a superb way of

achieving this goal. Puma the well-known shoe and sportswear manufacturer has

followed suit and recently opened its own ‘concept store’ this time actually on Carnaby

Street. Topshop the well known and now revered high street store recently instigated a

consumer coup by inviting independent brands and fashion designers to sell their wares

‘in-house’ in special boutique spaces.

“The Boutique houses Topshop’s in-house ranges from TS Design, Unique and

also capsule collections from guest fashion designers that have included Sophia

Kokosalaki, Maria Chen Pascual, House of Jazz and Jens Laugensen.”

However once inside the store, it is easy to see the logic behind such marketing.

Most if not all Topshop’s garments are aimed at a similar consumer to that of the smaller

brands now inhabiting their branded space, which inevitably weakens the brand image of

these companies. What Topshop is attempting could be seen as a homogenisation of

contemporary labels under the Topshop brand. Another way to view it would be to say

that Topshop are simply making life simpler for the customer who shops in their stores

but also requires a specific one of item which could only be found in an obscure

boutique. However if this is the case then what will be the outcome of those designers

and independent brands not lucky enough to be associated with the Topshop deity?

Culture Jamming would seem to be the answer to this type of co-opted corporate

cool one might assume. However as mentioned earlier much debate has focused on the

actual effectiveness of this type of dissent. Corporations are becoming wise to this threat

some have even learnt to ignore it as Pepsi did when faced with a release by Negativeland

(the group who coined the term “culture jamming” back in 1984) called “Dispepsi – an

anti-pop album consisting of hacked, jammed, distorted and disfigured Pepsi jingles.” (Fig 11)

In fact the whole stunt turned into a farce when Pepsi declared in a

magazine article that the album was “a pretty good listen.” Alternatively corporations

have learnt to view the movement as a great advertising opportunity. As we saw earlier,

protesting in the traditional manner is viewed as dull hence it doesn’t take a genius to

realise that after a while the public will get bored of hearing about ‘naughty’

corporations. Nike in an advertising campaign that shocked activists everywhere, made it

quite clear that they were aware of the of the relative loss of public interest that the anti-

sweatshop movement was experiencing. The campaign launched in Australia featured a

new football boot with the words “The most offensive boots we’ve ever made 100% slave labour.” (Fig 12)

The billboards which featured the ad were “Then postered by

“saboteurs” – Fans For Fairer Football fff.com.au, complaining that the new Nikes gave

wearers an unfair advantage.” It then emerged that the “saboteurs” were in fact part of

the campaign and the website was taken of line. Kalle Lasn who personally attacked this

campaign in an article entitled “The Smell of Swoosh This is not an Art Project” sited that

“Culture jamming can do serious damage to a corporation’s brand. It can also, as Nike is proving, become a marketing hall of mirrors. Nike new that its “Offensive
campaign would trigger a backlash. They were counting on it. And now they’re back in
the spotlight, this time on their terms.”

Although Nike are guilty of crimes against human rights it is hard not to be in

some way impressed by such a campaign and its bare faced blatancy. In a way Nike and

other brands who have moved towards this type of campaign have simply raised the bar.

This change in brand advertising will hopefully draw out new methods of combating

corporate ads in the future, something that groups within the Space Hijacking genre are

already flirting with, though the stakes are high.

A POSSIBLE SOLUTION OR A POINTLESS EXERCISE?

Diesel the jean and casual clothes manufacturer have been at the forefront of

radical brand placement for some time. It is Diesel who “have gone furthest in

incorporating the political content of Adbusting’s anticorporate attacks, ” their

campaign which juxtaposed a fictional first world brand against a third world reality was

particularly galling for activists in general as this is a popular way for 'Jammers' to

demonstrate the disparities that corporations are fond of hiding.(Fig 13) Here was a

corporate brand using sharp emotional anticorporate critique to co-opt anticorporate

ideals. More recently Diesel ran a campaign which uncompromisingly used the imagery

of protest and protesting individuals as its underlying theme. The ‘Action’ campaign ran

with the slogan “protest, support and act at www.diesel.com.” Intrigued by this advert

and wondering what the motives behind the campaign were exactly, I visited the site.

What I found was a well-designed flash site that unapologetically plagiarised the ideas

behind anti-corporate activism. However rather than attempting to further the theories

behind the organisations that the campaign was co-opting, the campaign was

undermining them. Slogans such as “Share your bath water” and “More green traffic

lights”(Fig 14) were insulting not only to activists demonstrating about important social

issues but also to consumers who were being encouraged to dumb down their political views!

The website also encouraged visitors to submit their own protests, which would

then appear on the site, or rather seem to. The designers of the site had created it in such a

way that the board showing new submitted protests was saved onto the participants

computer, in other words any protests that an individual submitted were not broadcast to

other web users although the website gave the impression that they were. The site also

featured a ‘Placard Printer’ (Fig 15) again encouraging visitors to come up with their own

protest slogans which could then be printed out and used. The printer featured clichéd

stencil style text and images to highlight the slogans.

The Space Hijackers own website features a projects forum for sharing ideas for

possible Hijacks. Using the info I had gathered I placed a message in the forum asking

for help and ideas. Within two weeks and with the help of other Hijackers a plan of action

emerged. It was proposed that we should use the Placard printer on the Diesel website to

print out placards and flyers with slogans aimed at companies competing against Diesel

for sales, the best candidates being Levi’s and Gap. We would then dress up to look like

guerrilla Diesel activists and protest outside Levi and Gap stores on a busy Saturday.

Web junk such as Diesel’s web address was also superimposed onto each flyer and

placard so that there would be no doubt as to their origin when picked up. The intended

outcome being to antagonise consumers and Levi and Gap representatives and hopefully

damage relationships between Diesel, their competitors and their consumers.

Donning our homemade outfits complete with Diesel motifs and suitably

distressed trousers we set about our task, as well as the placards we also took a ghetto

blaster to attract more attention which worked rather too well at our second port of call,

the Levi’s flagship store on Regent Street, causing the store manager to come out and ask

us to move off. (Fig 16) The reaction from the public was mixed,

“some thinking that we were simply a group of anti-capitalist protestors. This was
fine, as we managed to stop a good number of people entering the stores and raised a few
anti-Gap cheers from the public. Others saw through the mask and assumed that in fact
we were Diesel fans (and perhaps actually Diesel sponsored), this group were generally
suitably annoyed, and seemed to develop a new dislike for Diesel.”

Unfortunately through out the protest none of the participants managed to enter

the stores and hand out flyers to shoppers within, which would have had a far more

pertinent effect. In the aftermath of the protest the question of whether we actually

affected the target stores was raised, as it seemed to be shoppers who bore the brunt of

the action. One member of our party was even of the opinion that we had just completed

a marketing campaign that would help Diesel. That seemed to be the problem with this

protest, there was no way of telling whether it had achieved its desired effect although

every one involved agreed that it was definitely a new experience and worth exploring

further. Another organisation which comprised members of ‘My Dad’s Strip Club’ and

friends (mentioned earlier) having read about the protest decided to take action in a

different but equally theatrical way, this time entering Diesels flagship store in Covent

Garden en masse. Once inside they began trying on clothes and asking Diesel employees

“Do we look like the black block yet” (Fig 17). After being asked politely to leave they

then staged a silent protest outside holding up blank placards and shouting slogans such

as “ Fight errr” and “Stop errr” which bemused shoppers and attracted attention to the

Diesel store. (Fig 18) Again with such protests it is hard to tell whether this action had

any effect on Diesel and their consumers. Whatever the outcome Diesel were made aware

that there were indeed people out there that did not approve of their advertising!

Moving the benchmark for bad taste advertising that one step further were

“BoxFresh” who attempted to align themselves with consumers by proudly pronouncing

on their store windows that “we are you” (Fig 19). This statement becomes heavy with

irony and couldn’t be further from the truth when you consider the Boxfresh Zapatista ad

Campaign of 2001 which ran with the same statement but under a picture of the iconic

Zapitista figure. Pictures of the balaclavered Zapatista revolutionary began popping up as

stencils on walls all over Covent Garden with the aim of cross referencing their

revolutionary struggle with the Boxfresh brand.(Fig 20) When investigated further by the

Space Hijackers though, it emerged that none of the profits from the campaign were

being used to help further the Zapatista struggle. The fact that a company believes it can

use the imagery of a serious politically revolutionary group, demonstrates that without

such organisations as the Space Hijackers the fashion for co-opting “cool” political

movements would go unchallenged. Surprisingly the Space Hijackers attempts to coerce

Boxfresh into pulling their Zapitista campaign worked incredibly well and ended with

them promising that:

“1. - They would from this moment on donate every penny of profit from their
Zapatista merchandise to the Zapitistas themselves”
2. - They would install a computer in the shop with a range of Zapitista sites on it.
3. - They would no longer put their logo on the adverts with Sub Commandante
Marco’s words on them.
4. - They would have a leaflet in the store explaining the history of the Zapitista’s
and in all further marketing attempt to spread information about the Zapatista cause and
their ethics as opposed to simply using them in sound bites and as an aesthetic.”

The Boxfresh campaign utilised a new and relatively inexpensive type of

advertising. Stencil graffiti has emerged as one of the new antiauthoritarian statements

for today’s youth and complements the huge growth in music styles such as ‘Hip-Hop’

and street/urban fashion trends. Quick to jump on the bandwagon to mainstream abandon

corporations such as Puma have capitalised on this trend by appropriating stencil graffiti

as an advertising technique.(Fig 21)

Quick easy and relatively inexpensive this is another

direct example of co-opted corporate cool. Eager however not to be seen as simply

appropriating another individuals idea Puma appeared to have actively sought out the

originator of Stencil graffiti namely Banksy. Banksy is renowned for his anti

establishment stance and has garnered a great deal of support in promoting and

illustrating anti-corporate views. I was therefore personally shocked to see his work

adorning the windows of Puma’s concept store as these pictures illustrate.(Fig 22)

Further investigation revealed that his work was apparently there to advertise an

exhibition of graffiti artists work in a gallery not more than 200 yards away. The

exhibition was a pastiche of the widely ridiculed Turner Prize called the ‘Burner Prize.’

In an effort to find a solid link between Banksy and Puma I sent an email to Puma

politely asking them about their window display which included Banksy’s work, this was their reply,

“Thankyou for your email. Unfortunately i am unsure which pictures you are
looking for, as they are not part of our current point of sale I recommend you
contact the concept store direct on Tel 0207 4390221.
Sorry I cant help you further.
Regards
Claire
Claire.Coles@puma.com”

Having read this email I became even more confused when with the help of a

fellow Space Hijacker I was sent to a web page which showed a pair of Puma trainers

which had been produced in partnership with Banksy with the embroidered slogan “Turf

War”(Fig 23). Armed with my evidence I decided to email Banksy himself who states on his website that

“The graffiti featured here is NOT a guerrilla marketing campaign for a clothing
label. There are NO Banksy t-shirts or other fashion items available to buy.”

I am still awaiting a reply! Undeterred and desperate to voice my sentiments, I

again enlisted the help of the Space Hijackers. The idea that emerged was to attack the

Burner Prize exhibition, which was selling Banksy graffiti artwork, which in itself is an

oxymoron, and to comment on the hypocritical prose used to promote the exhibition on

the Internet. This stated that the exhibition is a reaction to a government campaign to

“inform on graffiti writers” and went on to inform people that the Burner Prize was,

“An award that recognises public space should not only belong to large
companies able to buy advertising and repeatedly punch you in the head with images you
did not ask to see…”

The result was a voucher which would be handed out to people attending the prize

giving event informing them that it could be used to get a 10% discount on all

purchasable artwork, as well as attempting to subvert the language being used to promote

the event.(Fig 24) The action worked well however access to the event after the vouchers

had been handed out was impossible. The ensuing chaos when people attempted to use

them can only be assumed.

CONCLUSION

These actions show that anti corporate culture is developing and that perhaps

Space Hijacking as a new protesting genre will find its feet. But if this happens the

question is obviously, will Space Hijacking like the ideas before it become another

passing fad that can be co-opted and used to support the system it opposes. Already as I

have mentioned the media have shown a fair amount of interest but instead of being a

hindrance they have continually criticised the Space Hijackers and there counterparts in a

positive fashion. This may have something to do with the movement’s multi faceted

nature. The best expression of this being that there is no specific style category to single

out individuals involved - as well as Space Hijackings questioning of corporate culture in

humorous and inventive ways - opening it up to a much wider audience. Corporate

consumer culture is most important to criticise because “ we make sense of our world

and construct our identities, in significant measure, out of the physical and cultural

materials that surround us.” Today the products we buy are designed and marketed to

compliment the way we now live our lives and help us to create a sense of self, belonging

and purpose. ‘Zines’ as mentioned at the beginning of this essay are for the most part

starkly at odds with corporate culture by their very nature, they originally helped to break

down the solitude which it breads. They did this by creating an outspoken and unhindered

platform for individuals to voice their ideas, beliefs and varied personalities. However it

is this very point that made ‘zines’ and underground culture so attractive to the mass

media as Stephen Duncombe sites in his book “Zines notes from underground”

“Ironically, it is underground culture that offers one of the antidotes:primary connections between individuals and their lives, passions and desires; home-grown, do-it-yourself authenticity.”

The problem with ‘zines’ and underground scenes is that they attempt to distance

themselves from corporate culture ignoring the fact that without it they would not exist.

“...zinesters are searching for something they can never find – not within a larger

capitalist society, maybe not within any society at all. The underground‘s search for

authenticity is a failed project.” If this is the case perhaps one of the answers is to

mimic and embrace the enemy in a satirical manner. This is the tactic being used by

‘MUTI’ a fake multinational organisation created by a member of the Space Hijackers.

Using his knowledge of building websites and graphic design he has created a site and

leaflets that realistically encourage people to “Save The Virgins” and “Destroy the

Internet”(Fig 25 and 26) with a deep sense of irony.

Corporations as I have explained have such a strangle hold on cultural exchange

and exceptional prowess in understanding our society that drawing a line between

corporate and underground culture is now practically irrelevant. What is more important

is understanding how to supplant the ways in which corporations go about ““neglecting

content but pushing style until it fizzles out as nothing more than a passing fad””

Communities of like minded individuals that actively support and promote each other

through the internet, ‘zines’ and Space Hijacking activities while placing content on a

level footing with style in any products that they produce may have the capacity to be self

sufficient and negate the need for corporate intervention. Most important though is the

fact that such communities would be difficult to co-opt, as they would not be based upon

an underground ideal that wishes to be secular and alienated.

“…with the mainstream discovery and celebration of zines and the underground
the struggle between purity and danger was pushed to the fore.”

In contrast they would attempt to promote and coerce real critical exchange and

welcome individuals without bias.

It was this line of thinking that helped me to create a ‘zine’ of my own under the

name Look Left and Right (Fig 27). Inside I attempted to present writing by myself and

individuals who wanted to comment on society, regardless of their political or cultural

stand points. Next to these pieces were placed adverts for autonomous organisations and

pictures that I felt had cultural significance along with reviews of actions by people

evolving the Space Hijacking scene. By allowing people to have a free reign on what was

said in the magazine meant that it could not be categorised as being blinkered. And by

only advertising autonomous organisations, readers were exposed to an environment

where content and style were equally important. Added to this, the use of the Internet as a

secondary format for publicising the zine meant that the network and understanding of

those involved could increase.

Underground culture now exists within a sterile slipstream of commercial facades

making the line between real alternative culture and its moonlighting corporate cousin

practically impossible to define. Indeed the extent of co-opted cool has grown to such a

degree that its relevance to most individuals is now irrelevant. If this is true then there

must be hope for Space Hijacking, if it exists in a state of continual change whilst

humouring and satirizing a mainstream culture industry that has devalued hardcore sub

cultural mores.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS
1. Dominic Strinati. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture: Routledge. 2003
2. Stephen Duncombe. Notes from Underground, ‘Zines’ and the Politics of Alternative Culture: Verso 2001
3. Naomi Klein. No Logo: Flamingo 2000
4. Roger Scruton. A Dictionary of Political Thought: Pan Books Ltd 1983
5. George McKay. DIY Culture, Party and Protest in Nineties Britain: Verso 1998.
6. Dick Hebdige. ‘Subculture’ The Meaning of Style: Routledge 2002
7. Alissa Quart. ‘Branded’ The Buying and Selling of Teenagers: Arrow 2003
8. Richard Neville. Play Power: Richard Neville Jonathan Cape Ltd. 1970

MAGAZINES
1. Mixmag. June 2003: EMAP Performance Network Ltd.
2. Adbusters Magazine. November/December 2003, Vol.11, No.6. ‘You Lose, You Win’: Adbusters Media Foundation.
3. Front Magazine. Issue 58, July 2003: Cabal Communications Ltd.
4. The Face. February 2002: emapelan

WEBSITES
1. spacehijackers.co.uk
2. mydadsstripclub.com
3. cstrecords.com
4. topshop.co.uk
5. adbusters.org
6. diesel.com
7. thevacuumcleaner.co.uk
8. banksy.com
9. oneandoneshop.co.uk
10. puma.co.uk
11. lookleftandright.com

FIGURES
1. http://www.spacehijackers.co.uk/html/projects/circle2/party.html
2. Mixmag June 2003 P60
3. www.spacehijackers.co.uk
4. www.revbilly.com
5. www.thevacuumcleaner.co.uk
6. www.spacehijackers.co.uk
7. www.mydadsstripclub.com
8. The Face. February 2002.
9. www.cstrecords.com
10. Pictures taken by the author
11. www.negativeland.com
12. www.adbusters.org/creativeresistance/36/1.html
13. www.diesel.com
14. www.diesel.com
15. www.diesel.com
16. www.spacehijackers.co.uk
17. www.thevacuumcleaner.co.uk
18. www.thevacuumcleaner.co.uk
19. Pictures taken by the author
20. www.spacehijackers.co.uk
21. Pictures taken by the author
22. Pictures taken by the author
23. www.govacant.com/vacantblog.html
24. www.spacehijackers.co.uk
25. www.spacehijackers.co.uk
26. www.muti.tv
27. www.lookleftandright.com

Written by Stephen Jewkes aka Litost

Copyright lookleftandright 2005