Commodification Camp Concerns

Last night a couple of dozen interested Burners participated in the “Turnkey/Plug-n-Play Forum” discussion. It was organized by Travis Puglisi, who makes a (modest) living working on camps, art projects, or as a vendor at Burning Man, Coachella, the Joshua Tree music festival and others. BMOrg were invited to participate, but declined. I guess they’re too busy engaging the community in conversation about Turnkey camps to actually want to talk to anyone.

Kudos to Travis for making a genuine effort to connect with the community by asking: if he wants to make a living from festivals like Burning Man, then what is acceptable behavior, and what is detrimental to our values? [Travis later commented that he doesn’t actually care about this, even if the community thinks it’s wrong he’s still fine with treating BM as a commercial gig]. It’s more than BMOrg are doing: they are just defining Turnkey as any camp where some camp members arrive early to set up the infrastructure, whether paid or unpaid. By this definition, almost every camp is a Turnkey camp, so there’s nothing they can do about the problem. That’s why at Burners.Me we like “Commodification Camps”, because it highlights the main issue in reference to the 10 Principles: Commodification.

2014 psyclone medallionIn the past Travis has been one of the organizers of Play)A(Skool. He quit “declined collaboration” when they wanted to bring 80 RVs, considering that model to be unsustainable. This year he worked for camp Psyclone, ultra-wealthy Burners who were mostly from New York. Psyclone, located at 6:30 & A, scored a clean green on the MOOP map – except for a single red dot, which they have not yet received any explanation about. The camp conceived of and fabricated their own art, they make their own food (it’s not catered), sort their own trash and take aluminum to Recycle Camp.

This year the camp consisted of 17 RVs, 10 hexayurts, 2 tents, 6 yurt-like structures, and 3 inflatable prototype shelters. Travis was careful not to name anyone from the camp, but I’m guessing the latter were Clearchannel CEO and Billionaire Burner Bob Pittman’s Dhomes:

pittman dhome

Pittman (L) in front of one of his Spider Dhomes. Photo: Nellie Bowles

Inside the inflatable party pad. Photo: Nellie Bowles

Inside the inflatable party pad. Photo: Nellie Bowles

Pittman plans to bring 200 Dhomes next year, renting them for $5-10k per week. Read all about it in Re/Code. Travis demurred pled ignorance on answering how much Psyclone’s camp dues were for 2014.

Here’s some coverage of Psyclone from last year, from Modern Luxury:

…the anti-establishment art and music festival has really grown up. This year, the call of the Playa—the festival’s name for the stretch of Nevada’s Black Rock Desert that’s now its home—drew a crowd of bigwig burners, including Leonardo DiCaprio, Anne Hathaway, Sean Combs [P.Diddy], MTV founder Bob Pittman and two intrepid members of the Hamptons social set, who recalled the event for us.

Burning Man is a not-for-profit weeklong festival…

Remember when you were a kid at Disney World and were totally awestruck? When you’re a “virgin burner” you feel like it’s Christmas morning every morning of the festival. Burning Man is a big hippie commune where the ideals of the ’70s are vibrantly alive, if only for a week. No money, no red-velvet ropes; everything is shared and all are invited everywhere.

Burning Man teaches radical self-reliance with its “Bring what you need or find what you need, but give more than you receive” message. At the core of its values is the principle of taking care of the Playa. The worst thing you can do at Burning Man is to be irresponsible with your MOOP

This year, our 60-person camp was called PsyClone, and it was just about the coolest place I’ve ever been. I got to meet entrepreneurs, famous actors, people who work in politics, fellow doctors (I’m a psychiatrist) and amazing artists, all in one tented campsite. At about a quarter of an acre, the camp was very small, consisting of RVs and tents in the back and a central area for socializing, plus sofas, a refrigerator, a homemade shower and a barbecue. At the front of the camp, major pieces of art were set up to attract visitors.

2014 psycloneEach camp applies for space from the Burning Man administrators about six months ahead of time. The event organizers decide your location depending on how you plan to contribute and how clean you left your space the previous year. To attend Burning Man, you don’t need an official camp—you can just show up and pitch a tent—but know that you’ll likely be in a less-desirable location.

…There truly is no place like home.

– See more at Modern Luxury 

Last night’s meeting went for a couple of hours, and although some good points were made from different sides of the Commodification Camp debate, it was ultimately inconclusive. Some of the issues raised are worthy of further consideration and discussion by the community.

 

What Makes A Commodification Camp?

Is it employing workers, making a profit, or the level of camp dues provided? Or is it selling hotel rooms and services to “Safari tourists”? To me, it’s a Commodification Camp if its members don’t have to build anything, work any shifts, or pack anything up; they simply fly in and fly out without putting in any Communal Effort and Gift with their checkbook, if at all. You can’t call it Inclusion or Participation if it happens in a wristband-only VIP area.

The difference between Burning Man and many other events is that this city is built on the backs of volunteers. Those running for-profit camps, are therefore lining their pockets with the blood, sweat, and tears of the rest of us, for whom Burning Man has always been a labor of love. Why should everyone work for free, pay to be there, and pay to bring art and gifts – while a select few charge thousands or tens of thousands per head for hotels and pay slave labor wages for others to wait on them and clean up their mess?

Light sculptures at Psyclone

Light sculptures at Psyclone

Psyclone had 6 paid workers managing the build, logistics, operations, and tear-down. There was one person on shift at the camp at all times, not so much to be a sherpa but to help camp members with requests like organizing a group to move heavy objects. The lowest paid was making $150 a day, and the highest paid made $350 per day. Travis himself earned $13,450 for working May through September on the camp – hardly a fortune. Nevada minimum wage is $8.25 per hour; assuming Travis worked 40 hours per week for 20 weeks, for him that works out to $16.81 per hour. No-one could accuse him of trying to get rich off Burning Man – this is slightly above what he could get at McDonald’s. It is, though, significantly more than what most DPW workers earn.

Most DPW and Gate workers are volunteers. They get a free or discounted ticket, and food from the commissary – except once Burning Man actually starts. Then, they are expected to fend for themselves. This is pretty impractical, it’s not like people who are living on the Playa for a month can pop out to Whole Foods to stock up on supplies. BMOrg spends $1.4 million a year on food, so it seems a little stingy that their workers have to starve once the event is underway – while First Camp dine on fresh produce brought in every day.

There are about 400 DPW workers. If they were all paid minimum wage for an average of 4 weeks at 40 hours per week, that would be $528,000 – $7.76 per ticket. This is about the same as what BMOrg charge as a ticket processing fee, and less than what they charge to mail tickets or hold them at Will Call. It’s about the same as what BMOrg spend on travel and costumes for themselves every year.

 

 

Camp Costs Are Increasing

Once Burning Man was sold out, and became the latest “bucket list” destination, the vendors increased their fees massively. A camp that provided a generator, kitchen trailer, and A/C unit, supporting 15 RVs, used to cost $5000 per head. The generator rental and drainage with United for this camp used to cost $7900 2 years ago, now it is $33,000. This means the camp costs are now $7000 per head. Renting a C-class RV for the week used to cost $3500, now it’s $5500. BMOrg implemented a Vendor Approval Process which was used by vendors as an excuse for massive price hikes.

Even camps that don’t make a profit, where everyone chips in to cover expenses, are faced with increasing costs due to supply and demand. Only a small number of vendors are allowed; the lack of competition means vendors can price gouge. One suggestion was that vendors should have to open their books and disclose their profit margins to the community – this would be a good idea for The Burning Man Project too.

 

Principles vs Laws

MOOP #fail

MOOP #fail

Back in the day, Burning Man had 2 immutable laws. “No Commerce” – you couldn’t buy or sell anything on the Playa; and “Leave No Trace” – you have to pick up after yourself. Violate either law, and you could be kicked out of the event. Since the Principles were introduced in 2004 as “guidelines”, the rules are now more rubbery. So we get multi-million dollar camps like Caravancicle/Lost Hotel leaving vast swathes of yellow and red on the MOOP map, and every year sees “commerce creep” with the introduction of a new money-making item – merchandise in 2013, gasoline in 2014.

Burning Man’s Chief Philosophy Officer, Larry Harvey, has spearheaded their “10 Principles” series of blog posts – 21 so far. The mere fact that they have to devote so many words to trying to explain these things, suggests that perhaps there are a better set of community credos we could come up with. I mean, “thou shalt not kill” is pretty frikkin’ clear. “Decommodification”, on the other hand, gets pretty confusing when the owners create a company called Decommodification, LLC to earn royalties from the event – potentially $1 million a year or more.

Here’s what Larry Harvey says about the Principles:

they utterly lack the imperative mood; they are not commands or requests—they do not give permission or withhold it. For example, Leaving No Trace is not a commandment. Although it speaks of what we value, it does not demand allegiance

…the Ten Principles employ the language of prosody. The principle of Participation states, ”We make the world real through actions that open the heart.” Such language often has the property of meaning many things at once, and this is because it is not produced by following a linear series of logical propositions. Instead of explaining, as if unfolding the planes of a box, poetic language does the opposite.

So the Principles aren’t commandments, mean many things at once, aren’t logical, and are deliberately designed to obscure, not explain. BMOrg can use whatever poetic language they like: Commodification of our culture for money is against Burning Man.

It seems that million-dollar camps are getting preferential placement, as many tickets as they want, and a blind eye turned to blatant violations of the 10 Principles. More than anything, I think this is the problem with Commodification Camps that upsets the community the most. If we’re going to have rules, they should apply to everyone equally.

 

Radical Inclusion Means Preferring Virgins and Shafting Burners

Back in the day, it was rare to meet a first-timer at Burning Man. There was a community of mostly hard-core Burners, people who went out there every year, spending all year planning what they were going to bring next time so they can give even more. These days, 40% are Virgins, and only 29% have been more than twice.

The problem with this unquenchable thirst for fresh meat is Burners who have been contributing for years no longer feel welcome. It’s hard for them to get tickets, and every year it will get harder.

If the population cap stays the same, and we continue with the ratio of 40% virgins, every year it becomes more difficult for people who’ve been to Burning Man before to return home.

virgins and non virgins

“% Non-Virgins” is calculated by comparing the number of non-virgins to the total number of Burners to date. A non-virgin means “been once or more”, as opposed to Veteran which we define as 3 or more Burns.

A city that truly valued the Communal Effort made by its citizens, would see the % Virgins decreasing every year. It should be a challenge to go to Burning Man if you’re not a Burner, and Burners who’ve put in the hours should have more chance to get a ticket than someone who has contributed a total of 0 to the community.

 

 

Self-Reliance Doesn’t Apply To The Wealthy

Some wealthy people will only come to Burning Man if they can be coddled. Driving their own RV from Reno is too much of a hassle for them, taking their own trash out is too much trouble, they need to pay someone else to do that so they can just fly in and out – or they’re not going to bother coming. I ask you: so what? Do we really need people who aren’t interested in Self-Reliance? How is that making the party better for Burners? There are plenty of rich people there who help set up or clean up their camps, pick up after themselves, and contribute to art projects. Why do we need those who don’t?

Some argue that it is so good for the world for the cash-rich and time-poor to experience Burning Man, that we should overlook all of the Principles for the sake of “Rule #1”: Radical Inclusion. A camp producer gave the example of a CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation who was inspired by Burning Man to donate money to arts programs for schools. Their camp spent $180,000 on donations to Burning Man art projects last year, and $230,000 this year. To put this in perspective, BMOrg themselves spent $800,000 – so just one camp can fund a third as much art as BMOrg who rake in $30 million annually. To make sure that money actually goes to the artists, this particular camp facilitated direct donations, rather than going through Burning Man Arts who absorb most of the money donated to them in overhead.

I can see that it might be beneficial for the world if powerful people have a transformational experience at Burning Man, and I believe that can happen. How many, though, just have a great time and then go back to their normal lives? 50%? 90%? P.Diddy – the world’s richest rapper – went last year for the first time, and had a life changing experience.

https://twitter.com/iamdiddy/status/375464997197189120

How did that help the world? Well, it inspired him to make a Burning Man-themed Fiat commercial.

 

need lsdIf they don’t experience Self Reliance, Leave No Trace, Gifting, Communal Effort, Participation, or Civic Responsibility, then how was it a transformational Burning Man experience? This is like saying “acid is great because people can get deep insights”. Maybe some do, but does that mean anyone can just ignore all the Principles and rules, because it is so important to the world for them to take acid?

The more staff that Commodification Camps hire, the fewer Burners get to go. They get replaced with minimum wage workers who barely get to leave their camp and whose very survival is threatened if they want to quit. Self-reliance means 1 Burner, 1 ticket; Radical Wealth Reliance means the tourists also need tickets for the sherpas who contribute to their burn, but not ours.

Here’s an idea: why doesn’t BMOrg throw “Radical Inclusion” events off-Playa? They can invite all the underage children, politicians, frat boys, and trailer park tourists they want – all 7 billion people in the Default World. Removing the need for Radical Self Reliance will make it possible to acculturate a much wider audience. They can use these “Rely On Others, Gift Nothing, MOOP away, Express Conformity” Commodifcation events to educate the masses. Maybe some of them will then want to become Burners and come out to the Playa to pitch in and create Black Rock City with the rest of us. BMOrg could take some of the profits made from commodifiying Burner culture and blending it with the Default world, and invest that into more art at Burning Man. I think most Burners are OK with the owners making a profit from the event (although they tell us it’s a non-profit), but not OK with less art every year.

 

The Bottom Line

If a camp gets placement, it should have a public, interactive component. Each camp needs to gift something to everyone: all Burners should be welcome at any camp at Burning Man. I would rather burn with 70,000 Burners than 20,000 Burners and 50,000 tourists, no matter how rich or famous they are. If they can’t go without being coddled, then maybe we don’t want them – let Burners who get the Principles and make a Communal Effort take those spots. Making Burning Man into the Default world does not make it better, it makes it lamer.

What’s the point of Burning Man, anyway? Fun? Profit? Brainwashing? Building a corporate brand?

Dennis Kucinich lectures the IDEATEs

Former Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich lectures the village Ideates

Is Burning Man something provided by BMOrg for the purpose of acculturating strangers; or is it something Burners provide to each other by bringing the art, music, costumes, food, and drink? In the former scenario, experienced Burners just get in the way. Dennis Kucinich couldn’t even be fucked putting a pair of cargo pants on, but he had no problem giving media interviews and political speeches out there. How did that help make the world a better place?  At least Grover wore some kind of pouffy bandanna and a blinky light…and he’s been milking that in the press ever since.

I’ll leave you with a comment Mortician made at burningman.com, which I think is an excellent expression of the Commodification Camp problem:

Participants (and I am using that term loosely) who live in walled off camps, who do not interact – or negatively interact- with their neighbors, who have roped off VIP areas and private art cars which exist only to exclude, who use the Playa as a networking opportunity, a private nightclub or rave, a chance to package and sell the efforts of others, or a questionable employment backdrop within their camp create a negative experience for everyone around them.

I don’t personally think it matters one bit how much money someone has as to whether they can create positive or negative experiences for the community. I also don’t believe that everyone who comes has to participate in every single aspect of their camps to be a positive contributor. Its fine if a camp, say, has some people come early to set up and another group sticks around at the end to strike. The question in my mind is not related to someones net worth or how many rebar stakes they have pounded. It is completely about whether someone is coming to actively be a part of the city and open to interaction, or whether they are coming to violate the community by co-opting others contributions, treat those same contributors with active rejection, derision, and exclusion from behind velvet ropes and wristbands, and do everything possible to separate themselves from the general community via handlers, sherpas, and walls.

If the more egregious PnP camps need that much hand holding and separation from the general community, why don’t they just either go down to Vegas for their long clubbing weekend where the entire town exists to cater to that need level, or come out to the playa and set up their camp at some other time when there is no one else out they need to keep out?

 2014 laser harp psyclone tp drum wall psyclone tp psyclone front tp

Burning Man Introduces Censorship [Updates]

Did you know Burning Man has implemented a censorship policy? Me neither…until I fell victim to it this weekend.

Does BMOrg really want to get feedback from the community, and listen to our concerns? Or is this just a trick to make it appear like they’re listening to the community, as a way to support decisions they’ve already made and stubbornly refuse to go back on? If you censor customers who ask difficult questions, can you really claim to be open, transparent, and equitable – a “social experiment”?

Rosie Lila, who sources tell me is now in charge of Burning Man’s Commodification Camp business unit, wrote a post on burningman.com (it’s a re-post from her own site from Sep 3)

Radical Self-Reliance and Rich People at Burning Man

[This post is part of the 10 Principles blog series, an ongoing exploration of the history, philosophy and dynamics of Burning Man’s 10 Principles in Black Rock City and around the world. We welcome your voice in the conversation.]

In the two weeks since this year’s Burn I’ve noticed a fair amount of press claiming “the rich are ruining Burning Man” and I’ve seen a handful of stories on Facebook about confrontational run-ins with people at so-called “rich camps” in Black Rock City. I hear a growing conversation around radical self-reliance and the perceived threat to Burning Man culture posed by “turnkey” and “plug and play” camps on the playa. I’d like to offer the following perspectives to help inform your own conversations and dialogues on these topics.

First, let’s talk definitions:

Turnkey Camp: A Burning Man camp built by a production team where (generally) paid staff members create the infrastructure so that camp members don’t have to.

Plug and Play Camp: The older term for turnkey camp.

Radical Self-Reliance: One of Burning Man’s 10 Principles. Radical Self-Reliance states: “Burning Man encourages the individual to discover, exercise and rely on his or her inner resources.”

The Ten Principles: The Burning Man 10 Principles were written by Larry Harvey, at the request of the other Burning Man founders, in 2004 to help support the demand of the growth of the Burning Man Regional Network. They were written to be *descriptive* not prescriptive. They are not intended to be dogmatic. They form a cultural guide map that is aspirational, not absolute.

 …The solution to this problem is around us educating each other. It’s going to take those of us who are experienced, whether jaded or not, deploying our best human connection skills to talk about this culture that we love so much.

Have you considered that maybe the producers and owners of the turnkey camps are interested in sharing ideas on how to make better camps at Burning Man? Have you considered that maybe there might be something that you can learn from each other? Have you considered that no one has all the answers?

If you’re someone who loves Burning Man passionately, if you’re someone who likes to get involved in making solutions, recognize that solving this problem is going to take us reaching out to others

…the more courageous choice, the more powerful choice, requires you speaking up in kind and patient ways. Be hospitable. Be generous. Be creative in your interactions. Isn’t this why you love Burning Man?

The post asked for comments, welcomed our voices in the conversation…and seemed to be genuine about that. Their words create the impression that BMOrg wants to listen to community concerns about Commodification Camps, that our voices will be heard, that our opinions might matter…that maybe Burners have something of value to contribute to the social engineering of Black Rock City.

censorUnfortunately, like so much that comes out of this organization, it is bullshit. Propaganda, spin, damage control. We can talk all we want, but that ain’t gonna make them listen. Read the post and the comments for yourself, it’s been 4 days so far and there are no replies from BMOrg to anyone.

They are making the definition of turnkey camps as broad as possible: any camp where the infrastructure is not created by every camp member, whether staff get paid or not. Unless every member of your camp gets an early access pass and arrives at the same time, every camp will encounter a situation where members arrive and the infrastructure has already been built. Defining the issue this way then makes it easy for them to say “oh well, we can’t do anything about it, because most camps are turnkey camps”. Yet again, it is deceptive use of language for societal control.

From the Burner community’s perspective, the issue is not “camps where some camp members get paid to build the infrastructure”, or where some camp members arrive after the building is done. The issue is Commodification: tourists coming on safari, paying massive amounts of money to watch us perform a spectacle that they don’t participate in. And, mistreatment of workers, either DPW who don’t even get minimum wage, or sherpas who don’t get safe working conditions. I haven’t seen anyone saying “no-one who works at Burning Man should ever get paid”, but I’ve seen plenty saying “no-one should be trying to profit from Burning Man”.

The definition BMOrg wants us all to use eliminates these extremely key issues from any discussion. So I dared to question their definition.

Here’s what they say:

You’ll never find one of your posts removed if you remain true to the policies and guidelines posted here. You won’t ever be censored just because we disagree with your opinion

Here’s my comment:

The name “Turnkey” is confusing. “Commodification Camp” is better, because isn’t that the issue? These camps are selling Burning Man as a packaged tour experience, rather than opening their doors to participation, and Gifting to the rest of us.

The problem is what Commodification Camps are selling is NOT the trash fence, the signs, the cops, and the porta-potties – the infrastructure paid for by the ticket sellers. It’s the art, the costumes, the music, the beautiful people – ie, OUR participation and contributions, which have been given freely and paid for personally, because everyone thought that this party/festival/city/experience WASN’T for sale to strangers who didn’t share our values. Burners don’t want our self-expression to be commodified so that a select few can package it up and profit from it.

I think that BMOrg should disclose to Burners what the commercial deal is for these camps. Does Burning Man get a cut? How do they get so many tickets, when the event is sold out and people wait in STEP but get forced into OMG? How do they get priority placement? How come they don’t have to clean up their camp by Tuesday?

It appears that there are different rules for these camps than for the rest of us. If that is untrue, then let’s see a formal statement of denial. If it’s true, then it is segregating the Playa, and that’s not the fault of the rich customers who can afford a luxury experience, it’s the fault of the Commodification promoters and the rule makers.

I gave them 24 hours, just in case no moderators were working because it’s Sunday. Then I tried re-posting my comment again on Monday, just in case it mysteriously disappeared. No luck – the comment was gone. So I tried a trick – posting it in a different name not associated with Burners.Me. And then, it went straight up. To me, this shows that they’re not even reading the content – they’re just banning comments from people they don’t like.

So why ban it? Here’s their policy [with my comments]:

Comment Policy for Burning Man’s Blog, Facebook Page & Galleries

cartoon-of-head-with-many-hands-over-mouth-censorship-1s8do9xBurning Man values the spirit of a civil community discourse. We think that a lively, on-topic public conversation is one of the best reasons to write and host a Facebook page, a blog, and image gallery, and that without comments, they’re more or less just another webpage. [Yes, my comment was very much on-topic]

That said, we also have a responsibility to maintain this space for the benefit of all our visitors. The comments made on these services will have the power add to or detract from the their general vibe, and it is our responsibility to see to it that they serve to enhance the experience of our visitors, rather than chasing them away. [that’s what I’m talking about: enhancing the experience of Burning Man]

That means that we expect commenters to identify themselves in their posts, and conduct themselves as they would as guests at a party, where spirited conversation is welcome, but unruly and rude behavior is not. It also means that our moderators can and will remove posts that they believe run counter to the spirit of civil discourse. [not rude, not unruly, not even spirited; definitely civil discourse]

This page is our attempt to give you some idea of what we mean by “civil discourse” on the Burning Blog, our Facebook page, and image gallery.

Registration/Anonymous Comments

Anonymous comments are not permitted here. Our contributors will identify themselves when we write Burning Blog; in turn, we want to know who you are and that there’s a real person behind the words you post. We’ve seen what can happen in spaces that make it easy for “hit and run” comments: things can go completely septic, fast. [while my comment was not in my real name, it is what I write on the Internet as. The other commenters on the post are: DustyRusty, Wrath, Rich, Corvus, Janus, Rio …these appear to be pseudonyms or nicknames too]

Comment Censorship (There, We Said The C Word)

censorship-2Trust us: we will not censor comments because your point of view is different from ours. [No, I definitely don’t trust you, BMOrg] We will, however, censor comments that we believe run counter to the spirit of civil discourse. [since when did questioning authority become outside of the spirit of civil discourse? Isn’t it the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT? Otherwise it’s just a lecture from the Rulers] We also may choose at times to turn off the comments feature on a specific post (before it’s posted), due to a variety of factors including subject matter, web traffic patterns and timing, or the author just plain not having the ability to engage in the dialogue at the time of the posting. Feel free to trackback and post your thoughts wherever you like. (We may turn comments on that entry later. We also think it’s bad practice to turn comments off mid-conversation, and will avoid doing so if we can.) We also turn off comments on posts after 2 weeks so that we can focus our moderator efforts on contemporary conversations, not on nuking the piles of  spam (and little else) that get posted to old conversations.

When We’ll Moderate

If you’re aware of expected behaviors in this forum and make an effort to be polite, you’ll never find one of your comments removed. [Polite, meaning, toe the party line, don’t question BMOrg] The spirit of civil discourse, however, might be different to everyone, so here, as we see it, is a partial list of violations of that spirit (and possible causes for a post’s removal). The list includes, but is not limited to:

Overtly off-topic posts. [no, was 100% on topic]

Intentionally disrespectful or disruptive behavior. [no, was polite, respectful, and not disruptive in any way]

Spamming: our linking policy can be found below. Posts containing more than one URL, or any URL not relevant to the conversation, will be considered spam. [no URLs, although I did fill in the “website” field they provide]

Snide, rude, threatening personal comments about or directed at any person, be they other users, the moderators, Larry Harvey, other Burning Man staff, Burning Man volunteers, your own mother…we don’t care if you have a low opinion of someone — that’s your business. But this isn’t the place to get personal about it. [no, nothing personal anywhere]

The above applies to the Burning Blog authors too. If you’re going to talk smack about an entry, talk about the entry. Don’t attack the author. [no, said nothing about the author]

Impersonation of a member of the Burning Man staff. It’s one thing to produce satire – we get that – but another to falsely impersonate another person with the intent to mislead people who trust our website for information from us. Impersonation posts will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. [no, no possibility of mistaking me for a member of BMOrg]

Unnecessarily attitudinal or inflammatory language, or posts that attack a point of view without explaining why. Again, disagreement is okay, but there’s a difference between saying, “That idea will never work because I don’t think people will clean up after themselves the way you think they will,” and saying, “That idea will never work. It’s stupid, and anyone who believes that is an idiot.” [no, no inflammatory language, no attitude, no attacking any viewpoint…just politely asking questions]

Posts that contain vulgar or abusive language targeted at any group, be it ethnic, racial, religious, class-related, etc. We hope this goes without saying. [no, no such language]

Conversation killers. A comment that doesn’t add to the conversation because it changes the subject, wanders off onto a tangent, or attempts to bait readers into an off topic discussion may be removed. [no, post was on topic and didn’t change the subject]

Content that knowingly violates the copyright, trademark, or trade secret of any individual or entity. [no, possible violation by using Nomad Traveler’s term Commodification Camps, but I’m sure he would approve]

Spam-whinging. We made that word up. By it we mean, “The same exact whiney complaint, repeated ad nauseum as often as possible, with ‘fingers in ears,’ no matter what anyone says to you, at the expense of evolving dialogue.” Dissenting opinions and debate are absolutely welcome here, but dead horses should be tied up outside. If your fellow commenters express that you sound like a broken record, they may be right. Hey, we know it sounds like something nobody would ever do on purpose, but you’d be surprised… [no, only posted once; hardly a dead horse, since it’s about the post itself]

Note: repeat offenders and known trolls may find their IP addresses banned. [I don’t think BMOrg really understand how the Internet works]

Appeal/Reposting

All edits, post removals, and user actions are at the sole discretion of Burning Man and its moderators, and are subject to appeal only if you can somehow establish that you’ve seen the error of your ways AND if we are feeling particularly magnanimous and/or perky that day. Otherwise, post-removal decisions are final. [I don’t see any error in my ways]

Usually if you find yourself moderated, you’ll find that if you go back and attempt to say the same thing while trying to be a bit nicer (gasp! yes, nicer!) that very same opinion will be entirely welcomed. (Go ahead, make fun of us for saying this. We don’t mind.)

“Hey, I was just ‘expressing myself’! What about Free Speech??”

Burning Man supports the right to free speech. [yeah right!] We firmly believe you have the right to host what you want on your own website (so long, of course, as it doesn’t violate anyone else’s legal rights) – and we have that right too. Thus, if one of the things we don’t want on our site is your comment, we reserve the right to simply remove it. [now the truth comes out!] Our aim is to be as hands-off as possible and let you enjoy a spirited dialogue, but we retain the right and the responsibility to maintain this space in the manner consistent with the atmosphere we hope to create for our visitors.

You’ll never find one of your posts removed if you remain true to the policies and guidelines posted here. You won’t ever be censored just because we disagree with your opinion. If you find you ever do feel you were unduly censored from posting your opinions to the Burning Blog comments forum, please do feel free to start your own blog to talk about those feelings.

 

stop_blog_censorhip01See, the thing is, I did exactly that. I started my own blog, and 1300 articles later, I can now talk about my feelings to hundreds of thousands of people. But what about everyone else? Is it only Burners.Me that gets censored? Most of the posts on burningman.com now have very, very few comments – so how many are they actually censoring? There doesn’t appear to be any oversight of the censors, and “if you don’t like it, start your own” continues to be their policy.

In the last JackedRabbit, Will Chase said:

Turnkey camps in Black Rock City are the talk of the community lately, and understandably so. Theme camps that provide all-inclusive camping services for (sometimes large) fees mean that many people visit Black Rock City who wouldn’t otherwise experience Burning Man, but they also raise questions about Radical Self-Reliance, Communal Effort and Decommodification that challenge our core values.

While this is going to be an ongoing conversation, we wanted to let you know that we share your concerns. Right now we’re taking in your feedback, looking at the situation carefully, and talking to the parties involved. We’re trying to create an accurate picture of what’s happening – we are gathering facts to understand the scope and nature of the problems associated with Turnkey camps. This is a continuation of a process that started with a round table discussion with Turnkey camp organizers two years ago, and included the creation of Turnkey Camping Guidelines.

Right now our various teams are deep in their debrief processes for the 2014 event – what worked, what didn’t, and what changes should be made for next year. Turnkey camps are currently being discussed at all levels of the organization and we are reviewing the options available for making positive changes.

And, we’d appreciate your formal input. If you have had a first hand experience with a Turnkey camp – either as a producer, a staff member, a participant or as a community member, please let us know about your experience through our feedback form.

We know that if we all work together as a community, we can find a way to stay true to Radical Inclusion without undermining the rest of the Ten Principles. This community has faced similar challenges throughout its history, and this probably won’t be the last one. Indeed, our society would not be a real community if such challenges did not occur.

We’ll figure out the way forward together.

Stay tuned for more on this topic in the near future!

ostrich cartoon

I think the key wording here is “create an accurate picture”. They’re not trying to understand, they’re trying to shape the discussion into an image that suits their goals. And it appears that welcoming Commodification Camps is very much a part of this picture they want to paint for us.

Rather than engaging the community, like they pretend they’re doing, in fact BMOrg are sticking their heads in the sand. They hope they can just keep bullshitting everyone and get away with it, while they commercialize the Playa step by STEP. They want feedback through a form, not publicly visible comments. They have been directly approaching commenters who criticize them online, asking them to come into HQ for a face-to-face chat. One of our readers shared this with us:

———————-
April 25th, 6:54pm
Hey there … Will Chase from Burning Man here.

OK so we have no problem at all with constructive criticism, disagreement and dissent — hell, yell it from the rooftops if you want — but we DO have a problem when it’s based on misinformation, because that doesn’t serve anybody.

Where do you live? Because I’d like to invite you to the Burning Man office in SF to meet with me, and you can tell me everything you think is wrong with what we’re doing, and what you think our intentions are, and I can set you straight, person-to-person.

I’m quite serious about this, because I’m frankly sick of your sniping on our posts, implying that we’re a bunch of greedy nefarious assholes and that all we’re trying to accomplish here is to get one over on people and cash out. Because I’ll tell ya what, you couldn’t be more wrong … and it doesn’t serve our community for you to be spreading BS.

Also, you seem like a smart guy, and maybe you’ve got some good ideas about what we could be doing better. And I’d be happy to learn from you.

Whaddya say? You willing to step out from behind your anonymity and have a conversation?

-Will

Thank you for reaching out, but I have tried to be pretty clear on my advice in the past. Would be glad to have reasoned dialog on any and all topics. However, I fail to see why the ad hominem aspect of a personal meeting is necessary. Though not as auspicious a dialog, the anonymous Publius was a good advocate in the Federalist Papers. As Oscar Wilde said, “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”

Would you like my email address?

———————-

Will Chase
Nope, that’s now how this is going to work. Anonymity may be beneficial for some things, but not this. We have the principle of “immediacy”, pretty much for this exact reason … because there’s no substitution for face-to-face, personal interactions when it comes to interpersonal understanding. You seem to have some interesting ideas that we could learn from, along with a number of misconceptions that I’d love to clear up for you. The offer stands to come in and meet with me. Let me know if you’re interested.

No matter to BMOrg that this reader doesn’t live in San Francisco. They didn’t even bother to ask.

Tell them, not the community, because only they matter, not the community. Rather than “figure out the way forward together”, they’re going to make decisions away from the public and tell us that it’s for our own good. These will be decisions that suit their interests first, and the community second. How much do you want to bet that the decision will be “Commodification Camps can continue, and can get whatever placement they want, and all the tickets they want, and leave tons of MOOP”?

I don’t really mind that my comment got censored, because I can just go and post it here to a MUCH bigger audience – and in the process, further raise awareness about the disconnect between BMOrg’s words and their actions.

What about everyone else, though? What about Burners who have intelligent opinions, but don’t have a highly visible blog? Isn’t Burning Man supposed to be an experiment, in new ways we can live together without commerce or commodification? Don’t BMOrg have a Civic Responsibility to do what their citizens putting in the Communal Effort want…rather than what is most profitable for themselves?

One commenter on Facebook coined the phrase “social capital Ponzi scheme”, which I think is a great analogy:

A while back the phrase “social capital Ponzi scheme” came to mind.

We who gifted their love, time, energy, capital towards the “community” over the years had an expectation that that community would still be there, to enjoy. We expected it to be valued and perserved, not exploited for crass commercial gain.

It was OUR collective investment. No amount of quibbling about trademark and LLC and whatnot will make this any less true. Now the scheme needs fresh-meat gullible social capital “investors” to keep the whole thing from imploding. It’s sad to see so many “much ado about nothing” types either naively or willfully ignore the cancer. The cancer is the very real possibility that the passionate volunteers — those who helped create the vibe of BRC — will get fed up and quit, because they realize they are no longer contributing to an actual investment in community over the long term.

Black Rock City today seems to be run like a tyrannical dictatorship, exploiting its volunteers, exploiting its customers, suing charities, and telling us they’re saving the world while lining their pockets via complex tax shelters. We pay them for the privilege of going to their party, which makes us customers. We pay to bring our art and music, which makes us contributors. We participate and put communal effort in, which makes us citizens. We get no vote, we get silenced if we speak out, we get ostracized and prevented from buying tickets through their profiling system. Only they can make money, if anyone else tries the legal team comes down on them like the Hammer of Thor. Radical inclusion, my ass. If you’re on the board, you can produce all the promo videos and multi-million dollar Commodification Camps you want.

On that, here’s what they say about using videos of Burning Man to promote your brand:

in concert with our principle of Decommodification, Burning Man takes a strong stance against any images, video, or audio from the event being used in any type of commercial manner. You can’t use Black Rock City as a backdrop for a music video or a fictional film. You can’t use Black Rock City for a product promotion, for any kind of commercial, or for a fashion shoot. Not even if you’re from VOGUE. Seriously. Next to violating the privacy and other rights of participants, nothing is as degrading to the future of our city and culture as using Burning Man to sell something, and we stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation.

And here’s one of their director’s commercials promoting his brand:

And here’s one of VOGUE’s fashion shoots, which BMOrg charges $150,000 for according to SFBG. Seriously.

bm french vogue 2010

vogue 2012 bm

fish tank vogue

Is this the society we want? We have to live by the rules and shut up, while their directors get to ignore the Principles and do whatever they like to monetize the Playa. If we speak up about things that concern us publicly, we get summoned into headquarters for The Questioning. Is this really something special that we should export around the globe, and bring millions of virgins into for the purposes of “acculturation”?

It’s hard to see how Burning Man can get better if BMOrg take the public position that there’s nothing wrong in the first place, and only ever have to consider viewpoints that agree with the decisions they’ve already made. OK, fair enough, they have the right to delete any comments they want on their web site: but don’t feed us blatant lies like “You’ll never find one of your posts removed if you remain true to the policies and guidelines posted here. You won’t ever be censored just because we disagree with your opinion.”

I see through your hollow words, BMOrg, many others do too – more each week. I didn’t really expect you to consider my post, or answer my very reasonable questions; but I also didn’t think things have sunk so low that you censor anything that doesn’t fit the Corporate Speak. Why not just ignore questions you don’t want to answer, like you’ve always done in the past? Like you’ve done with the other commenters to this post? [Update: that’s exactly what they did, once I tricked them into thinking it wasn’t Burners.Me commenting – they ignored it. Are they really having a conversation with Burners via social media?]

Maybe you’re still fooled, dear reader…but the Kool Aid has well and truly worn off here.

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. -Abraham Lincoln

ME_402_CensorshipVsCopyright1

 

 

[Update 10/7/14 5:30pm] – Will Chase from BMOrg has responded to this article, see comments. They claim my comments somehow got caught in their “spam filter” – which makes no sense given that the exact same content went straight up when I said it was from someone other than Burners.Me. Anyway, they have published the comment, but have still not answered any Burner questions on their post. I asked Will when we might expect a response, he said “I don’t know when for sure, but I know that we will”. Coming soon…

[Update 10/7/14 6:24pm] In tracking down a troll comment to this post – which appears to have come from Burning Man HQ, like several other troll comments hiding behind fake names – I came across an old message from Burning Man CEO Marian Goodell that I had not seen before. It was sent on February 17, 2014, answering a question I asked her on December 16, 2013. Make of it what you will:

Steve Jones quoted me out of context, and it’s picked up here as if it’s true:

http://burners.me/2013/12/05/not-so-vogue/  [NOTE: this link she posted actually says the story is NOT true]

We NEVER ever took any money from Vogue to do a shoot. There has yet to be a shoot at Burning Man with our permission. What I said was that we always say no, and sometimes they come back and ask again…and that we sometimes use a high fee to just dissuade them from further conversation if they insist on being pushy. $150,000 site fee is absurd. And, if anyone said they’d do it, we’d just laugh. It’s like a dumb game with some of these companies, so we play along sometimes to just see how far they’d go.

When we say NO we mean no, and so many of them say: “pretty please”, or “why not”, or “for how much”….i mean really.

There seems to be a Vogue photo shoot in the 2010 November (or 2011?) French Vogue magazine that looks like Burning Man. If it is, we didn’t approve of it, and have scratched our heads internally about it since it was spotted several years ago.

There have been other Vogue photo shoots:

September 3, 2014 http://www.vogue.com/1067007/burning-man-festival-fashion/

August 29, 2012 Paris Vogue http://en.vogue.fr/fashion-culture/fashion-exhibitions/diaporama/burning-man-1/9498

November 2010, Paris Vogue David Mushegain http://soyons-ouf.blogspot.com/2010/11/burning-man-in-french-vogue.html

May 2010 British Vogue: http://www.ramshacklechic.com/2010/05/british-vogue-does-burning-man-yet-another-hit/

Sep 2009 US Vogue: http://www.vogue.com/871783/vd-true-original-yvonne-force-villareals-desert-couture-at-burning-man/

 

 

Embattled Burners Ask Community for Support

[Update 10/1/14]: please help with the modest amount they are raising to mount a defense.

Napalm Dragon, who is being sued by BMOrg who never registered their trademark in Canada, has asked for help on Ello. It seems threats of leaking emails have not dissuaded Goliath from trying to demonize David’s dissent. Is there a lawyer in the house?


Written by Napalm Dragon:

I am one artist defending my right to practice my art and culture that is being converted into a global brand exclusively owned by an American Corporation.

In 1995 I developed a form of art, in relation to a culture here in British Columbia Canada. Much of our inspiration was in relation to a free and open culture that was not owned or controlled in any way by Corporations. This happened because we were not a commodity, and because we’d never really allowed ourselves to be named for fear of being turned into a commodity. It was the cultural engine that fuelled the free parties in England that the Spiral Tribe were involved with, it was the culture that produced the expressions of art and fire that have become synonymous with the Burning Man Culture.

I have documented evidence that shows me and my peers here in British Columbia developed a style of fire and in relation to a free and open culture that the Decommodification LLC is now claiming was invented in the Nevada Desert.

The reason this is important is that even if I decide I no longer want any association with the American Corporation claiming my culture as something they created, I risk litigation for practising my art and culture, because my Art and Culture were absorbed under that generic term of “Burning Man”.

People have said to me “Just don’t use the name, do something else”. But I’m not a party head that just dropped in on an event in Nevada that my culture descended on in the mid-90’s. I’m not just a person who got my ideas from going to that event, created by my culture, who gathered in the Black Rock City and called the culture by the same name as the event they created around the burning of a man sculpture.

It’s a different issue for me. I created my own culture and art in BC in 1995-1997. I never knew about the desert. My art reflected my culture, and our attitude of generosity, collaboration, self-reliance, inclusion, and mutual respect, completely independently of any guidance or control from corporate interests.

While I have no issue with Corporations and their need to do business as the economic engine of Capitalism, what I did in relation to the people I associated was outside the domain of corporations, and religions. It was all our own. A free and open culture. When that culture descended on the desert in the mid-90’s and shaped what we came to know until 2003 as the Burning Man Culture, we did so for each other. We spent our own money and time doing this for ourselves.

When we heard that people like us had set up a kind of Temporary Autonomous Zone in the desert, we went to meet our peers at a gathering point for our culture. When we heard that a city had been set up as a home for our culture, we went to that city to express our culture unfettered by pressures imposed on festivals that receive Corporate Sponsorship, and Sell Everything.

This pace was not a festival. It was a city, and the event was the burning of the sculpture at the gathering of our tribes.

Immediatism, a core element of our culture as described by Hakim Bey existed in a space somewhere on this planet, on a grand scale. The city did not interfere with our culture as it went to the desert and associated with cultural peers who lit the fire, and sounded the all clear through the explorations of the Suicide Club, the Cacophony Society, and Zone Trip #4.

We helped them run the city, we struck a deal. You do what you need to make the city happen, and we’ll pay a tax for using this city. Just be honourable, and use any money left over for the benefit of the city and the communities who self-identify with our culture and bring it to the city. This reflected the attitudes of our culture. That anyone who makes money on our culture aren’t just using our culture as a cheap promotion gimmick like what rave promoters had done with our culture.

I DID NOT get my ideas to Burn from the Desert. I DID NOT contribute to my culture before it became known as the Burning Man Culture to build a global brand owned and controlled by a corporation.

I had learned to breathe fire through a hard-core heavy metal underground musician who had a band called BLAMO. He used was pure fun and pure renegade. He blew up toilets with home-made pyro, for fun. He taught me much of his renegade art, because he liked my renegade attitude. When he connected me with a circus group called Zero Gravity, I met a woman named Jill who’d already been practising her art and culture in Winnipeg, Manitoba. She had also been involved with a local underground arts scene that burned a wicker Bunny on the local beaches, because it was Easter and they’d just watched the old wicker man movie.

The Fire Style started at a show put on by Zero Gravity and was the first time traditional fire associated with tribal cultures in New Zealand and Hawaii had appeared in North America. What we did with it over the next few years travelled down the West Coast and was brought to Burning Man (from Vancouver) for the Pepe Ozan Operas at the Nevada Burning Man event around 1998 or so.

We had fun for the next few years, fully immersed in the culture that was well developed here. We did it for fun, we had no grand design, we just knew it was an amazing experience, and visited many events for little or no cash to explore the full scope of this underground experience and just enjoy it.

Somewhere along the way we started Burning Sculptures as an expression of our free and open culture. Inspired by underground groups in Europe, and as a natural extension of all the fire we’d been playing with. Fire wasn’t a thing at the time, we literally made all our own torches. We just made it up as a creative self-exploration, and shared it openly with mutually respectful peers.

Then at one event, we decided to dispose of some 15 foot tall giant puppets by breathing fire onto them and diving through the flames as a performance. The following year I built something with the expressed intent of burning. I called it a Baboon Robot, because it just happened to look like a Baboon Robot.

We performed “The Burning of the Baboon Robot”

My art involved fire and burning sculptures, and it was an expression of my culture which would later that year start heading to the desert and adopt the Burning Man name.

By 2001 our culture adopted the Burning Man name. We were the Burning Man Culture, and we called ourselves Burners (people who self-identify as the Burning Man Culture). It was a widely used term.

Now an American Corporation is coming to Canada and claiming exclusive rights to the very same culture we developed here, took to the desert, shared with our peers who were doing the same, and called themselves Burners (people who self-identify as the Burning Man Culture), and claiming exclusive rights to the culture we developed.

The American corporation Decommodification LLC knows they did not create the culture in the desert. They know it came from somewhere else, and now they are claiming that the form of fire that emulated from what was developed here in BC, was invented by them in the desert.

This is incredibly disrespectful to the amazing and talented people around the world who fostered, embraced and celebrated this culture, before and after it adopted the Burning Man name.

Now it’s a problem for me as an artist expressing my culture.

Even if I have no desire to be associated in any way with the Nevada people, I can’t change that my culture was absorbed by the Nevada event my culture created and adopted the Burning Man name as the Burning Man Culture.

This corporation is now trying to convert our independent communities and culture into a global brand that they have exclusive rights to decide who can and cannot express it. They are laying claim to not only inventing my culture, but even the very style of fire dancing we created here in Vancouver and brought to the desert around 1997-1998. They are claiming every expression of our culture as a proprietary Global Brand and Communities they own and control exclusively. Communities that developed independently to foster local Burning Man Culture.

You might say “So what call what you do something else?”

But, I’m not a party head. I did not get my idea to participate in my culture or express an art form now synonymous with this culture from the Desert. I created it COMPLETELY independently. Because my culture adopted that name in association with all the expressions of that free and open culture, I can’t practice the independent art that I developed in relationship to my independent culture without fear of litigation.

I DID NOT get the idea to Burn from Larry Harvey’s hat, or Marian Goodell’s corporation. My organisation, Burn BC applied for a mark that is in the public domain to protect my right to have free and open access to the culture that this new American Brand is based on. Burn BC did so, to give it to the Canadian Burning Man Communities so that no one can stop us from being who we are.

This was wrong, NO ONE should have exclusive rights to what has become a generic term to describe the people, art, and culture that created the Burning Man Culture in Canada, and shared it with our peers in Nevada.

Burn BC has already dropped the name, and they can drop the case. But they’re using the case to frighten me and my organisation into complete silence and isolation.

They know they DO NOT own anything in Canada. They know Canada has a right to express its culture. It is not my fault our culture adopted that name and spent countless hours and resources making our culture notorious.  It’s not my fault that the notoriety of our culture and the event that has capitalised on our culture genericised the name to describe a type of art and culture. It’s not my fault that in 2004, they chose to create a new brand based on our open and collaborative culture of self-identifying Burners.

It’s not my fault that they (and their subordinates) are now turning around and telling those of us who do not identify with this new brand, that we are not really “Burning Man” or not really “Burners” or “Not part of the Community”, and insisting that we must adhere to this new brand or essentially abandon our culture.

A culture that existed as a free and open culture, before it went to the desert, and before it created the most notorious event our culture has ever produced.

I don’t want to be associated with this new brand developed in 2004.

I want my art and culture that I already knew and loved, before it ever went to the desert, and I want to be free to express it under any name regardless of what it chooses to call itself in the
future. I want to do this free from the fear of litigation, and I want the same for anyone else who hosts Burning Man Events that celebrate the culture that adopted the Burning Man name…and I want to retain the truth of my life and its relationship to my art and culture. Both if which WERE NOT inspired by the event my culture gathered at and created in the Black Rock City.

I’m begging for help, I’m just one guy refusing to sign away my rights to my arts and culture.

Because whether or not I want to use that name to describe my culture, the media, and people in general now refer to my art and culture as “Burning Man” whether or not I like that. And now, to say “no it’s not Burning Man” is a lie. It’s a lie because the Corporation is claiming my culture as a proprietary thing invented in the desert. That they, and their ceremony on Baker Beach is entirely responsible for evangelising something they created.

I’m at the point where I cannot practice my independently developed PUBLIC DOMAIN art or culture without fear of litigation.


PLEASE HELP ME GET THE MEDIA ATTENTION ON THIS SO I CAN FIND A LAWYER TO HELP ME.

Napalm Dragon

546020_480650848718997_467030332_n.jpg

Burning Man is a Culture:If you want to understand the issue with this, consider the first line of this article.The vibrant and expressive culture of immense generosity and collaboration didn’t originate in the desert. The Black Rock City was just the place that the culture descended on, as it adopted the name of the event that happened in the desert. That event was the burning of a sculpture at the end of the gathering of that culture. The Burning of the Man. The Burning Man.As the culture adopted the Burning Man name as Burners (People who self identify with the Burning Man Culture), a funny thing happened. All the art, style, and format that this already existing culture expressed at the desert event became synonymous with the Burning Man Culture.So you might say “Hey artists don’t have to use the name”. But this is the problem, Artists live in the domain of culture. If they are little more than the “Cultural Engine for a Global Brand”, that’s usually something they get paid for by corporations, and the style and format of their art will reflect this. Many Artists will not sell certain types of work to the corporate brand. That’s why it’s art and not just design.But when a corporation creates an exclusive brand with the same name as a culture, they run into problems, even when artists are not trying in any way to be associated with that corporation, or their brand name. Because, culture is the driving force of art.Here is one of my favourite art projects to emerge in the last 5 years. A fantastic piece of creativity that is in no way related to a brand. Yet, because a culture emerged that adopted the Burning Man name, a culture that had been emerging and re-emerging for decades, no matter how hard an artist chooses to express their culture separate from the brand based on their culture; the culture is used as a comparison.It’s not a bad thing. The Culture, and the people who have offered an immense level of generosity to each other as cultural peers is to be respected.But when these comparisons are made under the looming threat of litigation from a corporation and brand control; the artists are stuck. They can’t express their culture without fear of litigation under any choice to use or not use the reference to a culture that is being converted into an exclusive global brand.Inevitably, like the first line in this news story, the comparison is made, not because the Artist is copying the brand, but because the brand is an emulation of the culture that goes by the same name.

http://www.visualnews.com/2013/07/24/water-gypsies-take-new-york-and-venice

water-gypsies-2.jpg


Now back to Burners.Me:

The case is being tried now. We’ll find out soon what the Judge thinks. BMOrg have presented a 1076-page complaint, which seems like an attempt to out-lawyer the other, much smaller, charity. The Burning Man Project’s stated mission is to spread Burner culture around the world, but clearly they need to be more specific. What they really mean is all Burner culture in the world is “theirs”. If you want to help spread it you need to get a license from Decommodification LLC and obey their rules – one of which is “do not criticize BMOrg publicly”.

Those familiar with BMOrg’s views on Intellectual Property and crowd-sourcing might be interested in this week’s brand new South Park episode, “Go Fund Yourself”, which is about cultural appropriation by corporations who do nothing and make all the money from culture that is sacred to others:

The boys from South Park decide to create a start-up company funded through Kickstarter so that they never have to work again. In the process of deciding on a name, they realize that the Washington Redskins football team have lost their trademark to the name due to it being considered by some as offensive to Native Americans, so they decide to use that name for their company. The new company receives enough money that the boys running it can live luxuriously without doing any work until the football team destroys Kickstarter during a raid.

The episode is about the absurdity of corporations trying to own culture through trademark law. Check out the “Goodell-bot” and the bug-eye guy. The South Park creators are Burners, we hope they’re Burners.Me readers too.

http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s18e01-go-fund-yourself

Although Larry Harvey has claimed he wasn’t influenced by the movie The Wicker Man, he hasn’t said anything about The Legend of Billy Jean, which came out the year before he and “Air Force brat” Jerry James took their effigy to the Presidio’s nudist beach for a pagan ceremony.

They have been burning a Man called “Old Man Gloom” at Zozobra in Santa Fe, New Mexico, since 1924.

1-Zozobra 4-Zozobra_burning

Fans of Pink Floyd will no doubt be familiar with Storm Thorgerson‘s image “Burning Man”, which appeared as the cover of the Wish You Were Here album in 1975.

"Burning Man", by Storm Thorgeson

“Burning Man”, by Storm Thorgerson