The great thing is that she is obviously invested in the central concept, even still. To that end, it is ideal to have diverse critical opinions on something that is, of course, controversial. Optimistically thinking, her interview marks a divergence in schools of thought about art and activism, which is where it gets interesting and should draw the most attention, I think. I like the question, “What are you taking away from this experience about the current activist climate in the United States?” although I think you should address the direction of art, as well.

The question AEM throws back– how much awareness do we need to make before actually making change?– shows both that divergence in thought and a lack of understanding of the spirit of the project. In fact, this artifact is about more than awareness and she should know that as a zinester. It is embodiment. Perhaps she is experiencing doubts about the importance of embodiment in today’s cultural climate– not a bad thing to contemplate, but certainly something that needs to be made clear. Not only that, but clearly there is a difference between the artist or provocateur (a favorite word of Stephen Duncombe, I think) and the grassroots activist who goes in and does the dirty work. If one person makes a decision to become a grassroots activist working directly with the groups that they want to help, does it mean that the other endeavor is no longer important or necessary? It is always important; that’s art. It is also important to antagonize that binary. That’s what The Yes Men do, and that’s what this project does.

So yeah, The Yes Men specifically are branded and have a very specific approach and vision, and I think it is true that they are commonly misunderstood in their efforts (even by collaborators) because their message is often more complex and delicately balanced than a simple prank. It is my understanding that The Yes Men don’t simply create a capacity to deliver a strong message, a model that much participatory art never really surpasses. Instead, I think The Yes Men dream up narratives of the discontent and make them happen in real time through a collective effort, in order to create works that look like documentaries but are more like films. In terms of their work, I would say that people involved influence the story, less than create the story. And if you don’t know the whole story and you are somehow a part of it, that can definitely be confusing. In the end, their stories are powerful because they are extremely well thought out, cutting through the noise of more democratic yet inevitably more conflicted efforts to tell similar stories.

But obviously this project was created by many, not just by The Yes Men and that has been stated in almost every article. If I am correct, The Yes Men filmed some of this and staged some things for their upcoming film, but in no way was this project created for their film. Still, this idea of an overarching narrative unfolding in real time perhaps applies here, which, by the way, is also reminiscent of Steve Lambert’s work “Ronald’s Crisis.” For AEM, if she is upset that she got cut out of writing the story, isn’t it a matter of creative differences among cultural authors? I think that’s great and it’s healthy and it has nothing to do with the efficacy of this project. I would love to see how her story develops in her own work, especially addressing the disparity between art and activism, the problematics of culture-jamming, and the space of the female participant in contemporary public art.

Also, Steve Lambert asked me to make a graphic on short notice, and I admit I would have made something very different if I wasn’t sitting there and making it with him, sharing ideas and talking through exactly how the whole thing should come together in the end. What I would have made if left to my own devices would be self-contained and outside the realm of the narrative in fabrication, perhaps conflicting with the depth or scope of the work. Of course, in the end, what I made wasn’t included, but I have no hard feelings about that whatsoever. I understand that part of collaboration is caring for the efficacy of the end product, no matter what. I think most people involved had that same mindfulness and I personally don’t know anyone who participated that was bummed about how it turned out or went down. It was truely a very fun and empowering project.

I agree that a NYT spoof without critical engagement is not doing much to shift power structures, but I have to ask, does a celebratory street party do this? Does the limiting of a pull out in Iraq equalling success address power structures? Keeping the idea of success within a US paradigm of involvement, without addressing the long term consequences and accountability of our actions in Iraq, sounds like a complete maintenance of power structure to me. A pullout from Iraq seems like it ought to warrant somber reflection and new modes of action, rather than a smug, self congratulatory pseudo leftist celebration.