Groundswell Talks: (RE)
Ryan and Phil are the two visual artists behind the (RE) campaign. Inspired to action by (PRODUCT) RED’s reprehensible use of consumerism to solve the world’s ills, the duo set out to respond directly to the popular campaign. By offering alternative strategies for participation in raising both funds and awareness for a cause, (RE) challenges the underlying philosophy of (PRODUCT) RED and offers a more responsible and ecological alternative.
We discussed the effort, including the cease and desist letter they were issued for their work, briefly via email.
Groundswell Collective: RE is an artful use of criticism. What are your backgrounds and why did you decide to take on the RED campaign in this way?
(RE): We are studio artists working both individually and together on projects. RE developed out of basic frustration with Product RED and an evaluation of the specific strengths we have as visual artists to respond.
GC: What is the most pressing problem with the RED campaign? Was it the consumerism, environmental impact, or something else?
(RE): There are a number of problems within the RED campaign, and different aspects are more or less pressing for different people. RE is a focused response that addresses serious problems we saw associated with marketing and consumption. At a base level, Product RED suggests that our response to a global problem should be shopping. It ties our interest to the cause through marketing. The reality is that HIV/AIDS is a very real struggle for millions of people and wearing a T-Shirt or using a certain phone or music player does not change this. It takes getting involved and making change happen on a very personal, intimate level.
GC: To what degree was subverting the brand an issue for you?
(RE): Subverting the brand was never an issue for us, rather a hope. From printing knock-off INSPIRED shirts, to encouraging people to make existing non RED products part of the campaign, a large part of the project is about challenging the necessity of buying into the RED brand. It is a way of taking back the cause, about showing that you don’t need to have the original to prove your commitment or donate to the cause. You can literally do-it-yourself.
GC: Have you heard anything further from the RED representatives since the cease and desist letter?
(RE): No.
GC: What projects are funded by RE?
(RE): So far we have committed all of the funds raised to the Stephen Lewis Foundation, primarily because we admire their focus on grassroots AIDS initiatives. As the project moves forward, we plan to work more with local AIDS organizations in the various cities the project is hosted in.
GC: The organizing focus for RE seems to be on auction events. Any plans to expand the campaign further?
(RE): Our hope for the future is to involve more organizations, groups, and people who are actively engaged in fighting HIV/AIDS in other ways. We would love to provide a venue for many different voices and ways of addressing this issue.
More on Activism, Art
While I’m all down for big brand subversion, the statement: “At a base level, Product RED suggests that our response to a global problem should be shopping. It ties our interest to the cause through marketing. The reality is that HIV/AIDS is a very real struggle for millions of people and wearing a T-Shirt or using a certain phone or music player does not change this. It takes getting involved and making change happen on a very personal, intimate level.” - they’re kind of leaving out the $100 million dollars that they’ve raised for treatment. I don’t think they don’t think it’s a serious problem. The satires are funny though.