Visionaries

My Own Logo

2007-05-27T17:59:42Z

Pro Logo (1999) and No Logo (2004) are a thing of the past, it’s time for the reign of My Own Logo, a vision developed by me.]]> Pro Logo or No Logo? I’ve emphasized that I cannot choose between no logo or pro logo. That is why I want to construct My Own Logo, my own vision on logos. I was born in November 1985, which means I’m a child of this modern, contemporary world which is supposedly ruled by brands as Klein (1999) puts it. I was raised in this world and I wouldn’t want it any other way, I can’t imagine a world without logos. The world or rather the commercial industry works with logos and they brand every product, I have no moral objections to this. My, perhaps somewhat laidback, attitude towards this is partially caused by my awareness of the influence branding, commercials and popular culture on society. My fascination with popular culture started at a very young age and I always have had a passion for new trends. I notice trens very quickly, I know why certain products are hyped at a certain time or why certain TV-shows are broadcasted in certain periods. This interest of mine has only been nurtured and encouraged by my education and particularly my studies in Arts and Culture. I’m very aware of the world around me and the tactics of the brands. However, I also am very aware of the fact that most people don’t see this or simply don’t care. That is why I have a problem with Chevalier & Mazzalovo’s Pro Logo (2004). They give too many responsibilities to the consumers. Regular people don’t care about what they buy, they only care about their own needs. They do not think of the moral implications of buying certain products. I often don’t either, because I have a busy life. I don’t have time to think over every purchase I make. Just like a lot of consumers in this contemporary society. Consumers do have some responsibilities, but I don’t think they should have as many as Pro Logo suggests. In my article How ethical are you? I’ve emphasized that we can’t judge advertisers for the tactics they use, because we do the same. It’s a code I live by: treat people the way you want to be treated. If you are applying the same tactics as brands do, you can’t blame them for it. This is a fundamental mistake Klein (1999) makes in her book No Logo. Brands aren’t evil or good, they are what we, society, have allowed them to become. Culture regulates brands and brands have to live by the norms the culture holds. That’s why we can’t condemn brands, it is society’s own fault that they have become the way they are. If we want brands to change, because Klein and Chevalier & Mazzalovo have both admitted that we can’t get rid of them, we have to change society first. And I do want brands to change. I’ve emphasized in many articles the importance of creative (fan) culture and on this critical point I want brands to change their policy. Brands, which are an inherent part of popular culture, can stimulate creativity tremendously. They can inspire many fans and young artists to reflect on their own culture and create art, like they have done with me and many others. They can also be a strong force in cultural innovation, not progress as Pro Logo puts it. However, first brands need to be limited in this way that they give away more power to the consumers. And I think this is already happening. Brands don’t have full control over their image and this is mostly caused by the internet. The internet, as Jenkins (2006) describes it, has become a public space where fans and artists can create public movies for global audiences. The media industries can’t ignore fan fiction any longer, because it generates a lot of publicity. Brands need to be aware of this and stimulate, not prohibit, young artists to produce this creative culture. To conclude, Chevalier & Mazzalovo think brands can be a positive factor of progress, I believe brands are a positive force in our cultural development and they are an inherent part of contemporary society. I wouldn’t want a world without them. Yet this does not mean that we should let brands do whatever they want, but they can’t do that anyhow. They are limited in their power, because they are regulated by the norms of the culture they are a part of. They can never overpower culture, like Klein suggests. That is My Own Logo. Literature Chevalier, M. & Mazzalovo, G. (2004). Pro Logo. Brands as a factor of progress. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. Where old and new media collide. New York: University Press. Klein, N. (1999). No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs: taking aim at the brand bullies. New York: Picador.

Pro Logo or No Logo?

2007-05-26T16:29:07Z

If I have to choose between Pro Logo and No Logo, I’d rather go with My Own Logo. Both views do not cut it for me!]]> No Logo According to Naomi Klein (1999) logos have become more dominant than the products they represent. They have “grown so dominant that they have essentially transformed the clothing on which they appear into empty carriers for the brands they represent” (Klein, 1999, p. 28). However, the brands go even further and want to give meaning to their existence by “branding the outside culture as well” (p. 28). They adopted a certain culture and made it an extension of the brand. Klein refers to this as the cultural expansionism of brands (p. 29). She explains that this cultural expansionism started with innocent corporate sponsorship, but that brands eventually wanted more power over the culture they sponsored. And even in this state of corporate sponsorship the brands strived to be the centre of attention. Their logos were the central focus of the events they sponsored. The brands then developed an important new strategy: logos became part of certain cultures. Child actors started drinking coke on TV. This way the logos and brands became an integrated part of the culture they sponsored and the brands associated their product with “positive cultural or social experience” (p. 29). The intention of the brands, according to Klein, was never to promote a certain culture, but to push the culture in the background and “make the brand the star” (p. 30). Corporate sponsors and sponsored culture became one and the same. There was no difference between them any longer. Brands have a tendency to expand their role as sponsor. An important cause of this is the competition the brands have towards other brands, but also towards the culture they are sponsoring. Klein even suggest that the brands will eventually use the culture to strip it from "its inherent value” (p. 39). Although Klein emphasizes the dangers of branding, she also sees that a brand-free world isn’t possible: “there is little point, at this stage in our sponsored history, in pining for either a mythic brand-free past or some utopian commercial-free future” (p. 39). That is why there needs to be a balanced relationships between the brands and the sponsored culture, wherein clear boundaries are determined. Pro Logo Chevalier and Mazzalovo (2004) criticise Kleins theory about no logo. They think that consumers who stick to one brand have a good reason for it and that the brand has proven its worth to the loyal customer. There can be many positive factors gained from branding if the power of the brands is controlled by their consumers and the consumers' wish for fair trade and good quality products. The authors believe that Klein’s No Logo has caused the following stereotypes about brands: brands are inherently evil; brands are the foundation of a system of hegemony and alienation; attacking brands is attacking the heart of the ‘capitalist machine’. However, brands are “authentic factors for social, economic and cultural progress [... and they are ...] neither good nor evil in themselves” (Chevalier & Mazzalovo, 2004, p. 3). They are essential in our contemporary social lives. If stores would only sell generic products there would be a need for differentiation and brands would reappear. Brands can be a force of progress if they are well managed, if consumers get seriously involved in the dialogue about brands and if corporations and consumers are reminded of their responsibilities. My Own Logo If I had a choice between pro logo and no logo, I would be stuck for eternity trying to make up my mind. Instead I’d rather go with My Own Logo. No Logo is simply to extremist for me. I don’t believe brands are evil or that they can overpower culture in any aspect. Culture regulates itself and brands can never dominate it. Pro Logo is to idealistic, it wants things from consumers that they can’t give. Chevalier and Mazzalovo believe that consumers want fair trade and quality goods, which isn’t true. Consumers want a fix, they want to satisfy their shopping urges and they often don’t care about fair trade or good quality. They follow trends and want what they want, when they want it. I believe there is a view in between where no logo and pro logo mixes, because I do believe the power of the brands should be limited and I do believe consumers need to be aware of their responsibility and make ethical choices towards their purchases, but I’m not that idealistic or extremist to share the views with either pro logo or no logo. You can read what My Own Logo is in my next article. Literature Chevalier, M. & Mazzalovo, G. (2004). Pro Logo. Brands as a factor of progress. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Klein, N. (1999). No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs: taking aim at the brand bullies. New York: Picador.

Collaborating for creative culture

2007-05-25T15:20:29Z

The media companies need to have a collaborationists attitude, else creative culture will die because of the limitations of the prohibitionists. ]]> Xena. It still has an active fan community that keeps the series alive. Throughout the making of the series the creators have collaborated with the fans and stimulated their fan fiction. That is why the community is still so active today. Lucasfilm doesn't share this vision with the creators of Xena, it has a conservative policy and doesn't let fans “participate in the production and distribution of cultural goods – on their own terms” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 33). Jenkins stresses the importance of the internet as a public space. With the internet, the fans now have a platform for their fiction and they can no longer be ignored by the media industries. Or as Jenkins puts it: “We are witnessing the transformation of amateur film culture from a focus on home movies toward a focus on public movies, from a focus on local audiences toward a focus on a potential global audience” (Jenkins, n.d.). Fans get more publicity and more power, because they now know how to use “the powerful images and narratives that constitute contemporary popular culture” (Jenkins, n.d.). There’s a danger to this collaborationists view. The media companies can use or even abuse their fan base to get more media exposure. This should not happen under any circumstance. True collaborationists should help to create a participatory culture wherein fans aren’t abused, but actively participate in the production process. In a way this is already happening, because fans are inspired by popular culture and in turn produce alternative subcultures that can eventually inspire popular culture. Jenkins (2006) gives many examples of writers or animators who get discovered because of their fan fiction. Popular culture can inspire and fascinate. This is what collaborationists are about. Fans can draw inspiration from popular culture and then make it their own. This creativity is tremendously important for our cultural and creative development and it can lead to innovation. The filmmakers of tomorrow are the fans of today. The prohibitionists rule out any participation of the fans in the creative process. This has several consequences. For one, it will make fans less critical and reflective of popular culture. By involving them to participate in creating popular culture, they also reflect and give their vision on culture. This will lead the next generation to establish fundaments for their own culture. Prohibitionists also limit creativity to an extend that there isn’t any room for innovation. Prohibitionists are in someway trying to preserve their own culture by stopping the flow of innovation, which makes them severely conservative. This leads to a very important point. The creative fan culture will only survive if “we recognize the rights of consumers to participate fully, actively, and creatively within their own culture” (Jenkins, n.d.). Jenkins (2006 & n.d.) is convinced that a clash between the old and the new culture is inevitable. The old culture can be seen as the prohibitionists who want full control over their intellectual property. The new culture is represented by the collaborationists who want consumers to be actively participants in the creation of culture. It will be a loss to all culture if the prohibitionists will be the victors, because this will limit the possibilities for creative expression severely. As I’ve shown with Park Wars, there is a lot to be gained from the collaborationists attitude. The free publicity a company gets, for example. But also the inspiration and innovative ideas a subculture can produce. There are powerful examples of companies that already work this way. Like YouTube for example, which only provides a platform for fans and young filmmakers for their films. Or deviantART, a website where (according to its slogan) art meets application. Artists can post their work online and share it with the community and they can even sell their own products. (You can view fan fiction of 'deviant' artists in this article.) These are examples of platforms where the creativity of the fan rules and they are both tremendously popular. It shows that being a collaborationist pays. Literature Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. Where old and new media collide. New York: University Press. Jenkins, H. (n.d.). Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture. Retrieved May 20, 2007.

Creative Park Wars

2007-05-24T14:05:21Z

The Park Wars are a good example of the creativity of fan fiction and Lucasfilm should give fans more freedom to use their intellectual property for creativity.]]> This short film can be considered as a tribute to South Park and Star Wars, so it isn’t surprising that according to the South Park Timeline the creators of South Park loved Park Wars. They even lend the voices of the South Park characters to the episode. However, George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, did nothing to support this creative initiative. Lucasfilm has a history of not making up its mind about its policy towards fan fiction: “Within the Star Wars franchise, Hollywood has sought to shut down fan fiction, later, to assert ownership over it and finally to ignore its existence” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 134). As Jenkins (2006) describes it Lucasfilm was almost a collaborationist in the 1970’s, meaning that they viewed fans “as important collaborators in the production of content and as grassroots intermediaries helping to promote the franchise” (p. 134). Lucasfilm actively encouraged fan fiction, but that changed over the years and in 2000 “Lucasfilm offered Star Wars fans free Web space […] and unique content for their sites, but only under the condition that whatever they created would become the studio’s intellectual property” (p. 152). Lucasfilm became a prohibitionists, it regulated and criminalized fan participation. Lucasfilm is not dominating the fan fiction in the sense that it is prohibiting any creativity from taking place. Yet the company does limit the creativity of fans and young filmmakers, because they have to work within the borders Lucasfilm gives them. This is a conservative approach to intellectual property and it’s not working. Lucasfilm tried to prohibit any erotic fan fiction, but the erotica got pushed underground and can still be found on the web today (Jenkins, 2006). Fans and young filmmakers will do what they want with the intellectual property of Lucasfilm, because they can. The internet is not something that can be controlled or dominated by companies, it is a public space where a single individual can post what they want. Although it can have consequences for the fan, as I've shown in my article on cybersquatting. However, the worst thing that can happen to a fan who posts erotic fiction of Star Wars online is that he has to take it offline. He can still create new fiction and put it online again. When they shut down Napster (wiki), my personal favourite illegal downloading programme, twenty new Napster popped up. And today people are still illegally downloading music from these programs. However Apple has found a legal way of downloading music and make a profit out of it, e.g. the successful iTunes (wiki). There are many advantages for companies like Lucasfilm to become collaborationists. The Park Wars got a lot of free publicity (Jenkins, 2006). Asif was interviewed on the Sci-Fi Channel and the episode got aired on Comedy Central, the channel that produces South Park. Fan fiction or tributes made by young filmmakers generate a lot of free publicity this way, on top of this fan fiction helps to discover new talents for the industry. Like Jenkins (2006) describes, there are many young moviemakers that get discovered this way. Prohibitionists are a thing of the past. Companies like Lucasfilm have to let go of their prohibitionistic nature and become collaborationists. These companies need an active and supportive fan community to become successful and get publicity for their product (Jenkins, 2006). Fans get inspired by popular culture, create fan fiction and with this produce their own subculture. The importance of these subculture and creativity to our culture is enormous, without it we would be missing out. My next article will explain more about this. Literature Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. Where old and new media collide. New York: University Press. Jenkins, H. (n.d.). Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture. Retrieved May 20, 2007. The South Park Timeline

A violent Spanish fairy tale

2007-05-16T16:32:21Z

The masterpiece Pan’s Labyrinth was advertised as something it’s not. Why does the audience has to be deceived this way?]]> Guillermo Del Toro, viewers were still upset about the way the movie was advertised. In the trailers and posters Pan’s Labyrinth was advertised as a regular English-speaking movie with fantastic elements, but this is not what the movie is about. Pan’s Labyrinth depicts a contrast between the gentile fantasy world of a little girl (Ofelia) and the gruesome, horrific world of the Spanish Civil War (1944). This movie is full of violence and it’s not suitable for children. On top of this, its original name was El Laberinto Del Fauno, it’s a Spanish movie. I wonder how and why such a masterpiece deceived its audience. When I looked up the official message board of Pan’s Labyrinth I saw one large thread called Why hide the fact this is a subtitled/foriegn film????. This thread was created by an American viewer who was shocked to find out that Pan’s Labyrinth was actually Spanish. He wants his money back, even though he liked the movie. When I got over my initial shock of his radical opinion, I started wondering if the publicity campaign did deceive the American audience. I looked up the trailer at YouTube and was surprised to see the following trailer: This trailer doesn’t have a Spanish word in it. After watching it, I could understand the reaction of the thread-starter. He thought he was going to an English movie, he was deceived. Yet I also think he could have known, because the entire cast and crew have Spanish names. If he would have thought about that, he would not have been this surprised. But there is another thing missing in the trailer: violence. I watched Pan’s Labyrinth together with my boyfriend and my mum. My mum watched only half the movie, because she couldn’t bare to watch some of the gruesome scenes. In the fantasy part of the movie there is almost no violence, while the real world of the Spanish Civil War is depicted extremely violent. The movie below shows what Captain Vidal does to some trespassers on his property. This scene is based on the real life experiences of Del Toro: “one of the first things I saw, is that we were in a street fight once and I saw a guy hitting another guy with a bottle and one of the things that impressed me the most is the bottle never broke. Unlike in the movies this bottle just kept going and going and going and then I put that in the movie” (Fischer, 2006). WARNING: it is extremely graphic. While posters (you can see one on the right of this text) and trailers show an English spoken movie full of fantasy, the reality of Pan’s Labyrinth is very different. It is not suitable for children at all. Although creator Del Toro thinks otherwise: “If my child watches my movies by accident, they will not try to think the world is a safe place, which it's not. Children should know the dangers of the world and not be neurotically isolated from them” (Beacon, 2006). Maybe it’s because of Del Toro’s opinion that this movie was advertised in this way, but I’d like to think it was to attract a broad an large audience. Many people wouldn’t go to a Spanish movie full of violence, while they would go to a movie about fantasy and fairy tales. Literature Fischer, P. (September 26, 2006). Exclusive Interview: Guillermo Del Toro for "Pan's Labyrinth". Dark Horizons. Retrieved May 12, 2007.

The self made movie

2007-05-15T15:54:57Z

The product of one genius mind can still become a movie masterpiece without merchandise or a huge publicity campaign. ]]> Pan’s Labyrinth is a fantastic and horrifying movie about the a little girl escaping the brutal reality of the Spanish Civil War of 1944. The director, writer and creator of the movie is Guillermo del Toro (wiki). He is the creative genius behind the entire masterpiece that received three academy awards: best cinematography, best art director, best makeup. Del Toro (Kermode, 2006) made his film debut with Cronos in 1993. In 2001 he created The Devil’s Backbone which could be considered as the prequel or brother of Pan’s Labyrinth (Kermode, 2006 & Fischer, 2006). Del Toro has also produced Hollywood blockbusters, like Blade II, Hellboy (Kermode, 2006) and Mimic (Rodriguez, 2007). From his Hollywood adventures he learned that it is difficult to preserve your own artistic vision in the blockbusters. That’s why he decided to keep Pan’s Labyrinth a Spanish production(Rodriguez, 2007). In the publicity the movie got it is emphasized that Pan’s Labyrinth is truly a product of Del Toro. Sergi Lopez (Topel, 2007) describes how Del Toro approached him for the role of Captain Vidal: “For two hours and a half he explained to me all the movie, but with all the details, it was incredible, and when he finished I said, ‘You have a script?’ He said, ‘No, nothing is written.’” (Topel, 2007). Del Toro envisioned every detail of the movie in his mind and when Lopez looks at the finished product it’s exactly how Del Toro described it a year and a half before the start of the shooting. Ivana Baquero, who plays leading lady Ofelia, describes in an interview (Spelling 2006) how involved Del Toro was with the movie. Kermode (2006) praises Del Toro and explains in detail how Del Toro came up with the idea for the movie. Kermode also describes Del Toro’s style: “This willingness to confront pain and to forge his own cinematic dictionary has informed the blend of innocence and brutality that is a trademark of del Toro's phantasmagorical cinema.” Del Toro hasn’t produced that much movies, yet in every review or interview I read the press is creating the image of him as a movie-making-genius. He is praised to the point that it gets boring. The publicity around Pan’s Labyrinth was focused on the creator Guillermo Del Toro and emphasizes the fact that small budget movies can still become masterpieces. Unlike Pirates of the Caribbean or Spiderman 3, Pan’s Labyrinth isn’t about the celebrities or the merchandise. In fact, I couldn’t even find any merchandise for this movie. In the official message board there is actually a thread where the fans ask the company to produce some merchandise, because they like to buy it. Pan’s Labyrinth shows that even without the huge publicity campaign and the merchandise a single human being can produce a successful and award winning movie. Literature Fischer, P. (September 26, 2006). Exclusive Interview: Guillermo Del Toro for "Pan's Labyrinth". Dark Horizons. Retrieved May 12, 2007. Kermode, M. (November 5, 2006). Pain should not be sought - but it should never be avoided. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved May 12, 2007. Rodriguez, R. (January 17, 2007). Director keeps Hollywood out of "Pan's Labyrinth". The Seatle Times. Retrieved May 12, 2007. Spelling, I. (December 26, 2006). Guillermo del Toro and Ivana Baquero escape from a civil war into the fairytale land of Pan's Labyrinth. SCI FI Weekly. Retrieved May 12, 2007. Topel, F. (January 2, 2007). Sergi Lopez on Pan’s Labyrinth. CanMag. Retrieved May 12, 2007.

I don’t want to live in a theme park

2007-05-11T16:16:32Z

Disneyland as the ultimate utopia and cities build in its example. Would you want to live in the Disney world?]]> Gottdiener states that in “contrast to the Los Angeles region, Disneyland is a utopian urban space” (Gottdiener, 1995, p. 105). First of all, Disneyland is a theme park and not a city, so it couldn’t be a model for a city. Second, the image Gottdiener creates of Disneyland in his comparison is simply false. For instance, about politics he declares that Disneyland has a participatory democracy, while in fact Disneyland has no democracy at all, but a dictatorship ruled by its owners the Disney Company. Besides this Gottdiener himself describes many of the negative aspects of the park. In the 1960’s hippies and later on punk rockers weren’t allowed to enter the park. Their image didn’t fit the image of the theme park and these youthful idealists could destroy the peaceful harmony of the park. Social control is an important element of Disneyland. “In Disneyland social control is refined to an art, the art of moving crowds by their own motivation instead of coercion” (p. 109). I simply call this pure manipulation. Not only is the appearance of the people in the park controlled and manipulated, but their freedom of movement as well. I would not call Disneyland a model for utopia, although the real cities aren’t that much better. My birth city, Maastricht, has recently developed a policy (link in Dutch) to regulate the drugs tourism. Major Leers wants to direct the traffic outside the city's centre and to do this he wants all the coffeeshops to move to the border with Belgium. You can draw comparisons of this manipulative idea to the manipulation of the freedom of movement in Disneyland. Hwoever, there is one important difference: the governors of Maastricht were by its inhabitants, while in Disneyland a commercial company is ruling. The social control in the cities and in the theme parks goes even further. In Maastricht there is a security system of camera’s placed everywhere in the city. The cameras can follow any person in the city everywhere, including inside the houses. This way the government can keep track of the suspicious inhabitants. But isn’t the idea that the government can get inside your private space a bit too much? How far can social control go? In Disneyland the company has total control and they can go as far as they want. But in the city there are some rules that the governors should follow. Like respecting the privacy of the inhabitants. That is why we have extensive laws about this and we, the people, can verify the actions they undertake. I would never want to live in the so-called utopia of Disneyland. Living in a theme park would be like living in a dictatorship and I’m far to attached to my freedom to give it up for someone's vision of utopia. Literature Gottdiener, M. (1995). Postmodern Semiotics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Like lambs to the slaughter

2007-05-09T14:37:05Z

Are we slaves to the media? Baudrillard likes to think we are, I offer a different perspective.]]> here. To some extend Baudrillard is right, because the media does manipulate the masses. They can make us want things we don’t even need, like the koffiepads. These are small round filters with coffee in it to put into a special coffee brewing machine. There was nothing wrong with the way normal coffee brewing machines made coffee, but the media made such a hype out of it that everyone started buying them. The media does not only make us want things, they also create fears for us. In Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore shows that the popular show Cops creates a negative image for black people, because they always show black men as the perpetrators. He also shows that Americans are ruled by fear with his little clip A Brief History of America which is featured in the documentary and created with the makers of South Park. This clip shows the obsession of Americans with guns and their often irrational fear for black people. While the media can manipulate us to think in certain ways, we also manipulate to media. One aspect that is lacking in Baudrillard’s theory is the influence of culture, which he plainly describes as the language of symbols, simulation. This doesn’t describe the complex relationship between media and culture. Media is a part of culture and acts upon the values and morals of the culture. You can see this relationship clearly when the media goes to far and culture regulates the media, like the following Xbox commercial that got banned from television, because it showed a person dying. If the media has to work within the values and morals of culture. They don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, because they want to sell us something. Apparently we think it’s ok that the media bombards us with images on logos. If we want to change any aspect of the media, we have to change society first. Literature Baudrillard, Jean (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Baudrillard, J. (1998). The Consumer Society. Myths and Structures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Felluga, Dino (2003). ‘Modules on Baudrillard: On Simulation.’ Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Purdue U.

How exchange-value ruined our lives

2007-05-08T13:23:59Z

Our lives have become nothing more than a big Tussen Kunst & Kitsch show where we compare and compete to have the richest life possible.]]> Nederland 1, people can give their antique items to experts who value it. Sometimes people say that they won’t sell it, even when it’s worth a lot, because they are too attached to it. But when they get to hear that it’s worth next to nothing, they always seem to distance themselves from the item. The show usually only shows the most valuable items and one or two ‘cheap’ items. It is like a freak show, yet the object is not a freak, but money. People watch it to see the look on the faces when owners hear their itme is worth a lot of money or no money. I have to admit that it is fun to compare all the money-greedy faces. However, this show reveals a very sad problem of modern society. Because of our capitalist culture Baudrillard (1994) claims we transformed from use-value, “the real uses to which an item will be put” (Felluga, 2003), to exchange-value, what an item can be exchanged for. This basically means that we measure our belongings, our lives and our careers by how much money it’s worth. Baudrillard thinks we have lost all sense of use-value. You can read more on Baudrillard's theory here. Money rules our lives: we are obligated to make money to function in today’s society. But it goes even further, we are even obligated to buy a lot of expensive items. We want things and we are driven by our want for things. Things can be anything ranging from exploring the world (which involves buying trips) to getting the newest gadget. And then we measure our lives by how many things we can buy or have bought. How ‘rich’ we are. Our lives have become nothing more than a big Tussen Kunst & Kitsch show where we compare and compete to have the richest life possible. What does this mean for society? Surely it can’t be a good thing that we’ve lost all use-value or is there still hope? There’s always hope! You can be conscious of your own choices and in control of your own life. Don’t let yourself be manipulated into wanting everything. Of course you can have your wants, hopes and dreams, but don’t let that be a measure of your happiness. Happiness and creativity don’t cost a thing. Literature Baudrillard, Jean (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Felluga, Dino (2003). ‘Modules on Baudrillard: On Simulation.’ Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Purdue U.

A Golden Cage for the world

2007-05-07T12:15:30Z

De Gouden Kooi (translated: the golden cage) is totally controlled by the media and this is a perfect metaphor for the power of the media in the real world.]]> Tien. It started with ten participants who were locked up in a mansion and lived like millionaires. The only catch is that they are actually in a competition with each other: only one of them can win the mansion and the price money of over one million euros. You can watch the show daily at 19:30 on Tien or you can watch it live online. Let me get you up-to-date with the recent developments in De Gouden Kooi. When Nena left the reality show, her best friend Amanda entered the show, of course not knowing that her best friend was leaving. To everyone’s surprise Amanda quickly developed a sexual relationship with another participant, Brian. Brian was, according to him, in love with Nena, but had many fights (yes, actual fights) with his so-called love. Yet, we have another major player in this ‘love story’: Huub. He has made a reputation for himself of being the bad boy. He orders prostitutes to please him every week, he annoys the other inhabitants to the extend that they want to beat him up (which some have actually done) and he’s the only one who is always playing the game. Huub hates Brian and that's why he tried to seduce Nena and now constantly successfully seduces Amanda, who recently had sex with Huub when she was drunk. But this week another player entered the show: Lieke. Lieke was the cleaning lady, but she got fired because she had a romantic relationship with Huub and didn’t do her job anymore. Now she has entered the show as a player. On YouTube you can find a couple of music videos called Para Brother (referring to Brian's explosive temper) on this subject, they illustrate that the participants are pushed towards their own limits: You can see that the participants are constantly manipulated by the creators of the show. When things get boring, they introduce another player, like they did with Amanda and, more recently, Lieke. It’s a major social experiment which is governed by the ratings. Because John de Mol, the boss of Tien, has always claimed that if the ratings go down, the show will be taken of the air. The media controls the lives of the participants, this way De Gouden Kooi serves as an example of Baudrillard's (1994) theory. Baudrillard describes how the media controls our life:

Contemporary media (television, film, magazines, billboards, the Internet) are concerned not just with relaying information or stories but with interpreting our most private selves for us, making us approach each other and the world through the lens of these media images. (Felluga, 2003)

The media creates a language of symbols by which we live and this language keeps us from accessing reality. Just as in De Gouden Kooi where the participants have lost all contact with reality, cause of the manipulation of the media. This reality show tells us a lot about how far this control reaches and how dangerous it can be. Read more about media control in another article of mine. You can read more about Baudrillard's theories here. Literature Baudrillard, Jean (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Felluga, Dino (2003). ‘Modules on Baudrillard: On Simulation.’ Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Purdue U.

Taubman Sucks!: go with the flow

2007-05-04T14:56:29Z

Internet can't be totally controlled by laws, that is why the industry should accept new developments and go with the flow instead of against it.]]> ShopsAtWillowBend.com on May 29, 1999. To make sure nobody confused his website with the official website, The Shops At Willow Bend, he created the following disclaimer:

This is an unofficial site. The official site is located at www.TheShopsAtWillowBend.com.

Mishkoff had no commercial intent with the website, he created it as a community service. Just like he created AddisonWeb.com and WebFeats. However, on May 17, 2001 he got a letter from a law firm demanding that he should take his site offline. Mishkoff was very surprised about this, because his website was promoting the mall and directing traffic to the official website. The law firm had no intention of listening to Mishkoff's story and decided to sue. After a lot of effort from the law firm and Mishkoff the case was dismissed on February 19, 2003. You can read a short version of the entire story here. In response to the negative reaction of Taubman Company Mishkoff launched a site called Taubman Sucks!. He has registered the following domain names that all link back to this main site: WillowBendSucks.com WillowBendMallSucks.com ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com On Taubman Sucks! Mishkoff describes the entire case that lasted for almost 2 years in detail. Next to this he has written a book about it and has produced a movie called Taubman Sucks: The Movie!. You can view the movie online, but it is even featured in theatres and on tv. Mishkoff is the perfect example of how cybersquatting can go wrong. Cybersquatting is creating a domain name very similar to someone else’s domain name in bad faith and with the intention to use it for commercial gain (see Wikipedia for more on this topic). In the time that Mishkoff created his fan site, the official site had the domain name: theshopsatwillowbend.com. You can clearly see that the two domain names are almost the same. Just like the domain names etoy.com and etoys.com (Stalder & Felix, 2003 and Wark, 2003). The two companies etoy and eToys had a huge lawsuit and eventually etoy got to keep its website, just like Mishkoff could keep his. Cybersquatting doesn’t have to be negative. Just like eToys, the Taubman Company was worried that the website of Mishkoff could damage its reputation and image. eToys didn’t want to be associated with the artist group etoy. Taubman Company should have considered the positive and free publicity it would get from the fan site. Instead they have made an enemy out of Mishkoff who actively tries to create a negative image for the Taubman Company. Internet is a free and public space and it can’t be totally controlled by laws. A lot of bands and artists were against downloading illegal music, now they try to promote downloading music from their own websites. It shows that a lot of developments on the internet can be turned into positive developments for the commercial life. Cybersquatting, like Mishkoff was doing with his fan site, can have a positive outcome for companies. Literature Taubman Sucks! Stalder, Felix. (2003).‘Fences in Cyberspace: Recent events in the battle over domain names’. Retrieved 03-05-2007 from http://felix.openflows.org/html/fences.html Wark, M. (2003). Toywars. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture, 6. Retrieved 03-05-2007 from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0306/02-toywars.php

How ethical are you?

2007-05-03T13:36:18Z

Advertisers have their ways of persuading customers to buy their products. Are we any different from them or better than them in our ways of persuasion? ]]> But I’m a bigger fan of utilitarianism: the-ends-justify-the-means-principle. You rationalize ethical questionable act and achieve success by any means, if the end is important enough. I often think that when I have a goal in mind and I am convinced this goal will benefit me or my loved ones, I will try to accomplish that without any regard to the means. According to Simons this could take on extreme forms (e.g. WWII) and I agree with him. I think a person can live by utilitarianism, but they shouldn’t disregard their own values. I would never kill to get what I want and I would never sell my body for any goal I want to achieve. Universalists believe that ethical practices are “intrinsically virtuous or intrinsically objectionable” (Simons, 2001, p. 362). This would have to mean that you know what is good and what is bad. I don’t believe anyone is a in a position to judge over others that they are bad or good. And I don’t think there are any universal practices. I try not to judge others by my own morals and values, but try to put myself in their shoes with their cultural background. Dialogic ethics means that “communication between two persons is facilitated when each treats the other as a thou, a person, rather than an it, an object to manipulate” (p. 362). This is something that I live by. I want to treat people the same way as I would want to be treated. Persuasion can’t exists without dialogic ethics, because people don’t respond well to being objectified. Situationalists believe that “ethics should be role- or situationspecific” (p. 363). This would mean that you adjust your own values and morals to the situation, I don’t believe that this is even possible. Everyone has individual values and morals and they don’t go away in specific situations. I am a mix of every perspective on ethics Simons suggests. Which brings me to the question I pose: how ethical are you? I think we all are a bit ambiguous and contradictory on ethical subjects. That is why advertisers shouldn’t be judged on using tactics for their ads, because we use them ourselves in real life. Advertisers or their ads aren’t immoral. If we want them to change their ways, we should first change our own ways. After all: you’re treated the way you treat others. Literature Simons, H.W. (2001). Persuasion in Society. Thousand Oaks etc: Sage.

How to enjoy games: ignoring unintended messages

2007-04-29T13:36:41Z

Just like Barbie, games are about fantasy, role-playing and creativity. You have to decide for yourself if you let your fun be spoiled by their unintended messages.]]> We all know our favourite doll Barbie. She’s this beautiful women that has countless outfits to wear for every occasion. Simons (2001) uses her as an example of the ‘gray areas of persuasion’, by which he means: “cases in which intent to persuade is not so clear. […] Seldom are persuaders fully aware of everything they are saying and doing when communicating a message. The effect they intend are not always the effects they achieve” (Simons, 2001, p. 9). Barbie represents “a host of ideas […] about how young girls should look, act and be. Barbie teaches young girls what growing up in American society is all about” (p. 9). I strongly disagree with Simons on this example. I absolutely adored Barbie dolls and they were my favourite toy. Yet I never wanted to be like one. In today’s computer games women can be objectified. They often are represented overly sexualised, with a tiny waste, some nice hips and huge breasts, just like Barbie. Many women object to this, but I absolutely love this depiction of women in games! This is not a matter of gray areas of persuasion, but a matter of taste and aesthetics. That women in games look like Barbie dolls may be partly so to attract more of the teenage males, but also because the concept artists wanted it that way. It’s an artistic vision. There are also many games in which women aren’t depicted this way. Different depictions of women in games Female Gnome in World of Warcraft Female in the Sims 2 Female character in Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life Female avatar in Jade Empire The unintended messages games convene are still very fascinating. Take the Sims series for example. I’ve played the Sims series for many years now and absolutely adore the games. They are an expression of creativity, because the players can create their own houses, clothes and furniture. It’s a wonderful concept. Yet the gray areas of persuasion are at work in the Sims series for the PC. In the Sims series the ultimate goal is to make a lot of money, buy a lot of stuff and have a very huge home: consumerism at its best. I’ve noticed that while I was playing the game, I had an increase in my shopping urge. I wanted to buy. It didn’t matter what, but I wanted to have more things. I also wanted a huge house. In the Sims you have a cheat option where you can get an endless amount of money. With this money I always made incredibly beautiful and large homes for my sims. Thus I started thinking how wonderful it would be if I had such a home when I started working. And usually I’m not this materialistic. The gray areas of persuasion are about the unintended messages persuasion can covey. People can doubt whether the consumerism in the Sims series is unintended, but I think it is. The message of the Sims is about creativity, the consumerism comes with that, but isn’t central to the message of the game. If you look at the Sims games for the handhelds (PSP, Nintendo DS) they are about everything but consumerism. They emphasize role-playing, creating your own story and living it. Just like Barbie. Barbie was never about being a pretty woman, having a lot of clothes or being skinny. It was about creativity, fantasy and role-playing. Literature Simons, H.W. (2001). Persuasion in Society. Thousand Oaks etc: Sage.

Branding Xena: creating a culture that stimulates creativity

2007-04-28T13:02:02Z

The popular tv-show Xena provides proof that brands don’t always have full control over their product. Xena has produced a creative fan culture that now dominates the brand.]]> Xena: The warrior Princess (wiki) was a popular TV-show that aired from 1995 to 2001. It was so popular that it became a brand with its own merchandize and as so many popular brands it also produced its own sub-culture of creativity. Fans produce fanfiction and create fanart, like the comic Battle On!. Xena Fests are still organized, where fans gather to meet each other. Fans dress up like Xena and replay scenes or create their own scenes in real life role playing events. Although Xena is a commercial product that was merchandised and hyped for commercial gain, it still helped develop a creative culture. Klein (1999) doesn’t have a very reasonable attitude towards brands. When I read her book No Logo I got the impression she thought brands are evil beings. The book caused a trend, as Chevalier and Mazzalovo (2004) describe it, towards no logo. Consumers blame brands “for all the evils of globalization” (Chevalier & Mazzalovo, 2004, p. 2). Klein doesn’t seem to call for political action, yet this is the message she conveys with her book. Klein states that brands don’t want to “sponsor culture but to be the culture” (Klein, 1999, p.30). I agree with her that brands sometimes want to be culture or, let’s rephrase it, that brands want to promote a certain lifestyle and with that a certain culture. However, I think that brands can never replace or dominate culture. No Logo seems to convey that brands have the power to annihilate a culture. This is simply untrue and very exaggerated. Brands are not culture, they can be part of culture. And this is not negative or evil. As I’ve shown with the example of Xena a brand can add value to a certain culture and it can be a source for creativity. Also, culture and brands regulate each other. A brand can never dominate culture, because it needs culture to survive and to make money. Xena could have never been this successful without its fanculture. And although the show has stopped, the merchandise is still selling. Xena is also a good example of a brand where the culture has taken over the dominant role. The fan community is now in control of the brand and keeps it alive. While before, when the show was still being produced, the brand was dominating the culture. The culture slowly takes over control, because fans still love the product, even after it has ‘gone out of production’. There is even a Xena museum that collects objects that were used on the show. The Xena community is also very active on YouTube. At the time of the show, YouTube didn’t exist, now there are many users that still produce short videos about the Warrior Princess. Below is just a small grasp from these videos. There are many music videos about the show and this one emphasizes the relationship between Xena and Ares: This video refers to the sexy image that the show has: This video emphasizes the relationship between Xena and Gabriel (Xena’s sidekick): You can also find interviews with the actresses Lucy Lawless (Xena) and Renee O’Connor (Gabrielle) on YouTube: Videos about the personal life with private footage of Lucy Lawless and Renee O'Connor: Fans put videos about recent Xena conventions online: Literature Klein, N. (1999). No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs: taking aim at the brand bullies. New York: Picador. Chevalier, M. & Mazzalovo, G. (2004). Pro Logo. Brands as a factor of progress. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Balkenende on RTL Boulevard: a pseudo-event

2007-04-22T15:05:16Z

The premier of the Netherlands, Jan Peter Balkenende, co-hosted the popular Dutch TV show RTL Boulevard. This performance made an infotainment show a producer of pseudo-events. ]]> RTL Boulevard (link in Dutch) has dominated Dutch TV in this area. The main host of the show is Daphne Bunskoek, a Dutch celebrity who has hosted TV shows on the Dutch MTV (TMF) and hosted Goedemorgen Nederland, a morning news show. Co-host Albert Verlinde is also a celebrity and very active as a producer of theatre. Bunskoek and Verlinde form the core presentation team, but here is always a third ‘specialist’ present (e.g. Bram Moszkowicz or Peter van der Vorst). Their specialties are topics like royalty, crime or lifestyle and they are often celebrities themselves. During the last elections Jan Peter Balkenende (link in Dutch), the premier of the Netherlands, joined Bunskoek and Verlinde and hosted the show with them. Boorstin (1992) describes how politicians use the press in their advantage and how they create news for the press. This leads to pseudo-events, planned, misleading and ambiguous ‘news items’. With his co-hosting of RTL Boulevard Balkenende created a news item for the press and gained a lot of free publicity for the elections this way. This example shows that today’s pseudo-events go even further than Boorstin describes. Politicians don’t only use the news to impose their so-called ‘leaks’ of important information, but they use infotainment shows for their propaganda and image building. Balkenende has the image of being an intellectual 'Harry Potter' and the voters can’t relate to him very well. His appearance on RTL Boulevard, a show that is not known for its intellectual value, made him look like a regular guy. The movie below (in Dutch) was an item on the show about the involvement of Balkenende during the preparations of RTL Boulevard. It is filled with one-liners from the premier and shows him in control of all the situations, sometimes even dominating the hosts, the strong music emphasizes this. It creates the image of Balkenende as a powerful, but friendly leader. Balkenende shows his knowledge about celebrities by gossiping about Tom Cruise with some of the staff. He shows his friendly, human side when he assures Bunskoek that she can speak informal with him. He makes several jokes and puts Bunskoek and Verlinde in their place when they show up too late for a meeting. It’s a side of the premier the voters have never seen before and I question if it are his own words and one-liners, I think the whole item is a fraud. His performance on RTL Boulevard has helped Balkenende destroy the image of the intellectual Harry Potter and made him a down-to-earth man. Bunskoek and Verlinde act like they like Balkenende very much, they gossip with him and while the show is going on he can even bring his political agenda to the table. If pseudo-events aren’t limited to the news, where will it end? Will these events pop up everywhere and how will that change society? What is true and what isn’t? Who can the public trust to give truthful information? For more on the theory of Boorstin see: A postitive force in the news Literature Boorstin, D. J. (1992). The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.