Margin Release

8 responses so far ↓

• 1 matt // Mar 2, 2008 at 9:10 am

  Related to my other comment, I was relaly fascinated by the live nature of what NPR does, and what that means in terms of who can participate when the broadcast signal is only a few blocks long. The strength of the signal enforces the “neighborhood” aspect of the broadcast by confining ithe radio waves to a certain place. When there are live events being broadcast, the show becomes less about passively listening to a radio and more about taking part in something that is happening in the neighborhood. Since it is in the neighborhood, that means that a listener should theoreticlly be able to get to the place of broadcast pretty easily, enabling them to become a full participant in the show. It is also a method for making the show more of an “event.” Radio still thrives on giving you the “local” sound and feel of a place- even commercial stations still advertise as “the voice of pittsburgh,” “LA’s top hits,” etc. NPR is different because it actually is true- what you hear is actually coming from your neighborhood, in a hyperlocalized context. It also makes the event of broadcasting more of an event; by focusing on the hyperlocality of the broadcast, it assumes a listenership that is fully engaged and participating in the event. Once again, although other radio remarks on the weather, traffic, etc, stations like NPR are able to get the “feel” of the neighborhood (as Michael put it) and actually reflect back to the neighborhood in an intimate context- instead of commenting on the traffic on a highway everyone in town knows of, there is the ability to comment on something that all the listeners can look out their windows and see for themselves.

• 2 sara krugman // Mar 2, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  FMemory strung a string in my head about mental and physical space. How do the little dream bubbles and information that we carry inside our heads manifest in a physical space? How do we translate the physical information to mental bubbles? and what room is there for this process? At FMemory I was holding a medium sized radio, when the radio waves connected the invisible information streaming through the air walls and bodies clicked and became something palpable. The new physical (almost) representation of an otherwise invisible stream physically moved the radio when it connected and I felt it. The existence of feeling in our society is overlooked and thought of as unimportant. Dedicating a physical space for our thoughts and memories is a great way to integrate physical space with mental space. For me it also provided a powerful way of seeing these two kinds of spaces.

• 3 John // Mar 2, 2008 at 10:08 pm

  The FMemory event really made me think about the significance of broadcasting and of Media in general. I was listening to the memories on a radio that also had a CD player. So when I heard the memories being broadcast, I wondered, “what’s the difference between these CD-recorded memories being broadcast over radio versus it being played directly off the CD from the player in front of me?” As for the event, the effect would have largely been the same in terms of experience. Since only a few transmissions were broadcasted all within the small confines of the hallway, we could have heard the similar effect of memories overlapping and changing as we walked up and down the hall whether we were broadcasting the memories or playing them off CDs. So the significance of the event being on radio seemed to be mostly conceptual.
  To make the reality of transmission and radio more apparent, I thought the event needed more interaction with the radio itself. Necessitating the listener to fiddle with the tuning in order to find different memory frequencies would involve the listener more into the “radio experience” than walking back and forth.

  This ambiguity between the old media such as radio versus new media like YouTube, Blogging, and Podcasts made me question the relevancy of NPR using radio. Two arguments I’ve heard for NPR’s radio use are that it a) creates a neighborhood space by means of its limited broadcasting range, and b) is a traditional media that anyone can participate in (by listening or speaking/performing).
  However, podcasts are also limited in its reach and can also be open to everyone.
  The problem for both media seems to be in publicity. Every week people have to somehow find out the NPR frequency for that week. Podcasts also need to be advertised to let people know of its existence. But being legal, Podcasts don’t need to change. They can remain under the same name.
  Podcasts can also remain local by publicizing itself within the neighborhood. Radio’s neighborhood locality exists not by the fact that the neighborhood listens to it, but by its technical limitations (that also happen to make it more exclusive)….

  In short: I was not convinced by NPR’s insistence on its use of analog radio. The burden of having to change frequencies every week seems to be counterproductive to the “everyone and anyone can speak to anyone and everyone” idea. They could maintain their locality, their store-front window, and even their Live aspect by using current media while also having stability and not worrying about getting shut down by the law - like their other stations have. Though they do add a Cool factor in their being against the law and subverting traditional radio, it seems counterproductive to their claimed purpose. To their favor using radio definitely has an impact conceptually, but on the whole, their approach is a few decades too late.

• 4 anna // Mar 3, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  Although dubious at first about the installation, FMemory, I think it was most successful in provoking its audience (who were also collaborators) in testing their idea of radio as a medium. It was interesting seeing people assess radio as it was being used in an unconventional way. Although as Oberlin College students we are exposed to the freeform and community radio of WOBC, in general we don’t necessarily use it to test the bounds of radio as a medium, perhaps due to FCC constraints.
  I think NPR actively allowed us to express ourselves in the most free way possible. NPR raises quesitons about American society and what freedom of expression really means. It tests our complacent submissiveness to media and pushes us to be active participants. FMemory and NPR makes space, space that our government and The Media try to suppress by monopolizing the media. Rather than be subsumed by the overwhelming power the media holds in this country, NPR asks us to get involved; asks you to express yourself, even if you listen to the other, bigger NPR, that you still question information and how it spreads.

• 5 Lauren // Mar 3, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  Michael’s lecture was a great way to pass my usually unproductive lunch hour. The talk was jovial and entertaining while still managing to present lots of facts on radio and the FCC. I learned a lot during the talk. I really appreciate Neighborhood Public Radio’s mission to broadcast radio shows about truly anything. When Michael played the clip of the interview with the sex columnist it raised some interesting issues about censorship. I knew that one could not curse on the radio according to the FCC but I didn’t know that describing sexual acts and talking about sexual behaviors without using those specific ‘profane’ words was also forbidden. I do not listen to the radio regularly but it was news to me that there are entire areas of subject matter that are banned from the radio due to FCC regulations. Thinking about the real absence of free expression through the radio was quite sobering for me and I really appreciate the forum that Neighborhood Public Radio creates, allowing anyone to discuss what is on his or her mind.

• 6 max theodore kotelchuck // Mar 3, 2008 at 7:20 pm

  The installation, FMemory, was a total success! I am really glad we had a chance to work with Michael of NPR, it was a great way to kick off the Margin Release lecture series. As others have mentioned already, Radio is a medium, not just a sterile FCC-approved institution. FMemory and the work of NPR really speaks to that, giving audiences and participants a chance to play with radio waves, and revive/make use of a government-hijacked media.
  I also have to say that I was really happy to see so many people at the event. And more than the physical numbers was the general attitude. This was a fun, exciting event. There was nothing esoteric, inaccessible, or exclusive about it. FMemory was an opportunity for a community radio experiment, one in which participation, in some respect, was mandatory. It was cool to see everybody coming together and mulling about in the hallway. Some people clearly didn’t know exactly what was going on, but I felt like there was the underlying feeling that, this was okay, that something involving the radio was happening….and it was EXCITING.
  Its only too bad that other art (or non-art departmental) faculty weren’t there. I think we will have to do more coordinated and better organized advertising, maybe targeting places or communities on campus we wouldn’t normally go to.

• 7 hannah // Mar 3, 2008 at 9:53 pm

  Michael Trigilio’s work with Neighborhood Public Radio and his Radio Instillation piece with Julia Christensen’s Oberlin Classes in the Art building are fascinating examples of communal and community based art. In projects at Oberlin I have struggled with the difficulties of communal art and the balance of the viewpoints of the original founding artists and the continued work by members of the community. I found Michael’s talk at the Cat about his own struggles with being part of a communal art project in which he didn’t personally respond or particularly like all the radio pieces particularly illuminating. Communal art is a constant struggle between the initial founders of the work and their ideas about the project and the ideas of the community who are encouraged to become part of the project. The fact that Neighborhood Public Radio has lasted so long and has become entrenched in the bay area community while retaining its ideological and artistic roots is pretty astonishing to me and I think speaks to the professionalism and drive of the founders and leaders of Neighborhood Public Radio.
  In particular I think the collaborative radio project, FMemory, that Julia Christensen’s Classes pulled off on Sunday was an amazing and fun short-term experiment in collaborative art. The ways in which I think it worked so well was one, the structure of the assignment given to the classes, two, the freedom allowed during the progress of the event, and three, the personal involvement each member of the classes felt towards the event. Michael Trigilio came up with the idea of constructing radio transmitters, recording memories and broadcasting them around the Oberlin campus for people to listen to. The event itself developed in an almost organic way, evolving from one or two radios transmitting through the halls, with people working away in the class rooms, to lots of radios, often interrupting each others signals, and many people all with a great variety of radio transmitting devices. The individuals in each class felt a personal connection to the piece because they were the ones who were actually building the radios, discussing memory and choosing topics to record, and finally assembling the piece. We were all part of the piece and therefore we had a personal investment in its success. I thought it was quite a brilliant orchestration of collaborative art, and was very satisfied and encouraged by hearing the trials and successes of really interesting communal art succeeding in a big way.

• 8 arden // Mar 4, 2008 at 6:15 pm

  When we were first introduced to Michael Tragilio during the FMemory piece I assumed he was fairly quiet or reserved. However, once I was able to hear him speak during the Cat and the Cream lecture I suddenly realized what a radio character he is. Not only was it clear that he was comfortable and confident in front of an audience, but also how much he believed in the cause he was defending. While NPR may only be able to transmit their station within a small radius compared to other, legal stations, it was obvious that this had not affected the success of their mission. If anything the question of the radio’s legality has also brought an attractiveness to the station. In this way, NPR and Tragilio, in particular, have also raised many important issues we should consider about censorship and accessibility to a public audience. Why is censorship necessary, what is it sheltering us from? Why has technology progressed, but our notions of free speech not? Although I had never considered these issues before I took this course, it is clear that tackling even some of our basic forms of entertainment is necessary.

Leave a Comment