# data[].attributes.body
Many people consider nudity to be inappropriate. I would agree that in most situations it is. However, in the context of this street art below (and other ACT UP art) it is really effective.  'Shocking' pictures such as this really grab the attention of the people who see it, and it can really make them think.

I like how the picture below accomplishes several things. First, it uses the "shock" value of an erect penis to get people's attention. Second, it serves as a public safety reminder for men to use condoms (with a masturbation joke thrown in there as well). Finally, it brings it all together to inform the public that women too can get AIDS. This advertisement grabs your attention, and is really informative

The only critique that I have about this art is that it may seem too "counter-culture" depending on the demographic that you're attempting to persuade. This can make the movement seem too "dangerous" for some people to want to join/listen. However, I still believe that if these 'inappropriate' ads used strategically that they can be very effective

# data[].attributes.body
The below picture is the most effective piece of protest art that I encountered. It's sleek, blunt, and incredibly powerful. It is brilliant in it's simplicity. It utilizes an effective color scheme (that black is really ominous) and slogan to convey the urgency of this cause. The directive of this art is clear; it is telling people that the only way to make change is to speak out.

# data[].attributes.body
Protest photos can be an immensely powerful tool for effectively framing the movement in an effective and poignant way. Often, it allows the movement to juxtapose the brutality of the oppressive force with the beautiful passion of the protestors. It may seem cliche, but a "picture is worth a thousand words" and one well timed photograph can become the symbol of a movement.

While the below picture isn't a "protest picture" per se (it is more so an advertisement/street art) it nonetheless depicts a protest act. In our heteronormative society, a queer couple kissing is an act of defiance. Doing this can simultaneously normalize queer relationships while galvanizing pride within the lgbtq+ movement.

# data[].attributes.body
"Subvertising" is the practice of social movements utilizing protest art that mimics or subtly copies themes from popular advertisements. This can be effective because it leverages the underlying capitalistic media indoctrination/conditioning (inundation of advertisements) to further your cause. Additionally,  "subvertising" can serve as a pointed satire of the absurdities of the current system, and if we've learned anything from Otpor, it's that humor can be a very effective tool. However, as the article mentions social movements must be careful that mega-corporations don't re-appropriated "subvertising" to appear "edgy" and "chic"

The below picture is a great example of "subvertising" it appropriates the classic coca-cola imaging to make a sharp satirical critique of the inefficacy of AIDS drugs (AZT). To frame AZT as an advertisement is in and of itself a critique on the capitalistic "profiteering" that big pharmaceutical corporations were making off the aids epidemic. I think this art is really effective.

# data[].attributes.body
Women joined ACT UP for many different reasons. Some joined because they had friends who were killed by the AIDS epidemic. Some joined because it provided an opportunity for effective advocacy on Queer issues. However, it's important to recognize, that many women joined because they too had AIDS.

Women played a crucial role in making ACT UP more 'intersectional' because they added perspectives and insights that were being ignored in a room full of white gay men. Merely educating the movement about the ways that AIDS affected women was an incredibly important contribution that women made.

Women didn't play one set role, they played them all (sometimes more than one at a time). Many women played leadership roles and they were instrumental in evolving the movement.

# data[].attributes.body
The anger in the ACT UP movement was justified.
Anger was important in "freeing" themselves of the false perception of acceptance from heterosexual society, which prevented them from pushing back too much (many were content the progress that they had made).
However, when the AIDS epidemic struck many people were "forced to become activists" because they were sick and needed a place to feel accepted and make change. This immediacy came with an understandable level of anger that was important to acknowledge as they advocated for their cause.
Their anger and hate was justified but they had to learn how to navigate it so they could critically analyze their own behaviors and strategically advocate for their cause.

The term "Queer" is important because it symbolized anger, and it provided a united front of lesbians and gays against the AIDS epidemic.

"Gay" is synonymous with "happy". This is not what the movement felt at the time. They wanted to capture the anger/urgency that they felt, and the label "queer" allowed them reflect their justifiable hatred into a productive, united front.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sickness/Grief as a Grievance, how does it differ? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Sickness/Grief as a Grievance, how does it differ? 

# data[].attributes.body
Sickness/Grief is definitely a powerful grievance, and one that is unique from any other. There is a heightened sense of urgency when it comes to advocating for something that is actively taking ones life. It makes one want to take immediate action against the oppressive institutions that are stagnating progress. Of course, the advocacy of ACT UP in response to the AIDS epidemic would fall into this sickness/grief grievance. This is not to say that other grievances aren't as serious or imminent, rather, that "sickness/grief" grievances , because of how people perceive them, creates protest behavior that is more urgent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tactics of ACT UP in comparison to other case studies (India, Denmark, American Civil Rights movement)

# data[].attributes.subject
Tactics of ACT UP in comparison to other case studies (India, Denmark, American Civil Rights movement)

# data[].attributes.body
An important similarity between ACT UP and the other case studies was the commitment to strategic activism. In Denmark, their movement aimed to strategically inconvenience the Nazi's to dismantle their legitimacy. Both the Indian revolution, and the American Civil Rights movement utilized strategic non-violent protest to effectively achieve their goals.

For example, a striking similarity between ACT UP and the American Civil Rights Movement was in the training of the activists. Both movements taught their protestors how to be arrested and handle the harassment so that they effectively get their points across (about the movement to the larger public). Although the strategic directives of ACT UP don't appear to have as much of an emphasis on non-violence as the other case studies, they nonetheless took measures to ensure that their protestors behaved in a certain way.

Another key difference between ACT UP and these other case studies was in their organizational structure. ACT UP operated under the "affinity group" model (which is decentralized), where the other case studies were much more centrally organized. The "affinity group" model is a mode of organization where many smaller groups make up the larger movement. Within ACT UP this allowed for a free exchange of ideas and helped maximize the agency of the people in the movement. However, it also may have caused a lack of direction and an inability to optimize the full strength of the movement.

An interesting thing to consider how ACT UP served as a community for Queer people, and the subsequent impact on recruitment. This may not have been a volitional goal of there's (they just wanted to be accepted), but it was nonetheless immensely important in getting people to join the cause. It was "cool" (in their social circles) to be a part of ACT UP and it provided a space for young people to explore their sexuality. This dynamic reminds me of the Otpor movement in how it was "sexy" and "cool" and "raw" to be a part of the movement. However, the ACT UP movement used this newfound "coolness" as a way of self-empowerment, in a way that Otpor really never had to do. The Queer folx in ACT UP needed to recognize and have pride in their identity which galvanized them at a difficult time. To some extent, Otpor had this dynamic, but for them the "coolness" was a by-product of their revolutionary tactics, and to a large degree was a strategic presentation. Simply put, ACT UP was "cool" to the LGBTQ community (and vilified by the larger society), Otpor was "cool" to all dissidents of the Milosevic regime (which was larger percentage of society than what supported Otpor).

# data[].attributes.body
The AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power (ACT UP) initially formed in the mid 1980's in response to the abhorrent government indifference to the AIDS epidemic. There initial priority was "getting drugs in bodies", because so many of their friends in the community were dying of AIDS. They blamed governmental agencies such as the FDA and NHI (National Institute of Health) for not acting with enough urgency on these issues. They wanted them to approve more drugs that could save their lives and the lives of their friends. To accomplish these things they staged high profile protests at the offices of the offending government agencies to pressure them into action. They were especially cognizant of how the media would cover their protests and were very strategic in their organization.

As the movement grew, they started to adopt a more intersectional approach. Instead of just being led by white gay men, they started to take leadership from people of color and women, and shifting their agenda accordingly. For example, they started to organize and educate people on how AIDS affects women. Additionally, they protested how government agencies weren't including certain marginalized groups (women, poc, drug users) in their testing of AIDS drugs. This exclusion from testing prevented many PWA (People With AIDS) from receiving a drug that would work for them.

As the film details, there was an interesting dichotomy between these two approaches ("drugs in bodies" v. Intersectional approach). One wanted immediate change, which is understandable because people were dying. The other wanted the deconstruct how the movement was organized. Which needed to happen because they were dying as well, but didn't have anyone to advocate for them. The "drugs in bodies" approach favored the white men in the movement because they had the 'privilege' to leverage an existing system to get more medicine for their friends. The intersectional movement needed to overhaul the system because the system wasn't producing drugs that were safe for their consumption. The AIDS epidemic forced an immediacy that certainly was necessary, but fortunately they were able to grow and acknowledge that their advocacy need to change to accommodate other marginalized groups.