We set up a table showing some of my work, along with some research materials, and notes/drafts/first editions of products and papers.  We had a computer set up so viewers could respond and examine this website (a central part of the project as a whole).  A veritable success, I spoke to over 30 people, and had time to have several in depth conversations as well.  Below, and in the next day or two, I will post some final materials, pictures, etc.

Soon will update with a status report on the PAC book, which I am currently designing, using pictures, computer programs, written pieces, and materials from the summer.

-pAc

Reaction!

]]> http://blogs.stlawu.edu/alexcomeau/2009/10/09/late-update/feed/ 1 http://blogs.stlawu.edu/alexcomeau/2009/07/28/the-pac-manifesto-v1-0/ http://blogs.stlawu.edu/alexcomeau/2009/07/28/the-pac-manifesto-v1-0/#comments Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:50:57 +0000 pacome07 http://blogs.stlawu.edu/alexcomeau/?p=293 To all members of the first, second, and third worlds, this is a declaration. This is my statement, one middle class, American educated, politically and spiritually liberal, born and bred consumer.

I live in a Globalized, consumption obsessed world. My culture has been plasticized, and the workings of society have been co-opted to feed the free market. As I watch WallyWorlds brutally sacrifice more of our civilization, I try to peer ahead. I will not sit idly by. I will invest in an endorsement free alternative.

This is an examination of the state of my existence, and my intentions.

My system of life has been fabricated. It is pervasive, it is cultural, it is social, and it has shaped, and starved me. I live the atomic life. Experiences and relationships are quantified. My culture chose to forsake understanding and sympathy, for the shiny untruth of modernity.

The Trickle-down effect didn’t. I say “FUCK TRICKLE-UP!”

The members of the first world are living in plastic culture. Companies have tried to brand every part of American life. In order to compete, Universities, Churches, and Government branches have all taken to branding themselves. Those factions that haven’t branded have been rendered ineffectual or obsolete. All groups with size or public holdings automatically lose perspective, purpose, and point when they reach for the branded robe. Inherent in branding is a loss of soul, branding is the new mode of (non)production.

What is left for me to do? My very being is sculpted by ads and TV. My identity might well be a construct of dreamlike wish-fulfillment and youth marketing. NO LONGER will I be a commodity. No more, will I accept the role of target audience.

Must I,

Rebel wholeheartedly? Turn into true DIY punk. Start the revolution by making my own paper to print handouts on. Renounce my laptop, car, cell phone, Ipod. Never buy into another consumer racket. Reject money and the commoditization of labor. Work on a farm to make local food. Tell everyone to adopt my ways; shove my counter-culture down their throats.

Or

Subvert the system. Work from the inside like a true espionage agent. By day a student hippy, by night a culture jammer, an ad-buster, an abstainer, an in(ve)stigator. Use technology against itself. Brand everything, only so that others can’t. Out ad, out market, out sell the competition. Be so edgy that no one can keep up. Bring branding into a dialog. Screw trademarks… public space = public property. You shove your logo in my face; I’ll flame it from the inside. Carve out my un-culture, from the detritus of the atomic life.

I pick my battles. I will reject lazy forms of consumerism. I must point out the questionable ethics of running a university as an “all inclusive” cloistered package. It’s not community if you are forced into it. Where is the surprise in “drinking” or “drug” culture? How else can a population of youth, stranded without role models – young adults who contribute – escape the ever-present anxiety of the college campus? There is no release; the pall will not lift. Only by drowning in poison can we act out our ritual suicide and escape the sterile. So it is.

The inroads of cultural fetishism have led me to this.

There is no culture, unless I make it so. True culture happens when one is not at work or school. Work is unethical. I will never work. I will do what I want; I will participate in culture and be sustained. To free culture it is;

Resolved,

1. Everyone will brand.

2. No brand is sacred.

3. Brands will be incongruous. They will be absurd, organic, imagined.

4. Certain spaces must be made brandless.

5. Criticism and Transparency are peerless.

6. Companies must be defied.

7. Individuals must be supported.

8. Collaboration and Cooperation, not companies and corporations.

9. Any large groups of people will be perceived as threats.

10. There is no such thing as consensus, only fascism.

11. Certainty is the only evil.

12. Paradox is the only good.

This is not a carefully constructed essay! This is not a fatalistic an ars poetica. I have life, vibrancy, edge, freedom. I say let girls wear no shirts, and boys wear skirts! To all who view my claims as posturing or platitudes, I yell PHILISTINES! I will not watch the ignorance of apathy go unchecked!

At the start of the book (p. 6) Klein explains the creation of branding.  With the advent of mass production, products needed to distinguish themselves from their competitors.  Filling the role of the hometown shop keeper, brands like Aunt Jemima, and Old Grand-Dad took on personal traits and characteristics.  This was the start of the trusted “Brand.”

In the nineties, companies like Starbucks and Nike took the brand to the next level, one beyond a name (20).  This was the start of organic image making.  Rather than using direct advertising, brands tried in the nineties to proliferate their “message” via any cultural injection.  They attempted to build their reputation by invading public space and hijacking cultural institutions.  This was the “brand association” method, ones that lead to a loss of unadulterated culture.

In the chapter called ALT.EVERYTHING, Klein explains the growth of the youth market, and hints at the effects of a completely fabricated youth.  Klein calls the pimping out of youth culture a “vast project of generational self-definition.”  This is a period when youth must construct an identity comprised of the styles corporations have endorsed.  We are left to pick and chose an “individual identity.”  Obviously, there is only the semblance of choice available here.  Buying a shirt with Che on it, is no different than wearing cloths from AE.

On top of this absence of choice, when it comes to branding, we are in a one way dialog.  On page 176 Klein goes into trademarking and copy writing.  As “target” audiences, we have grown up surrounded by brands, and in turn making relationships with them.  What is unreal about this relationship is its one way nature.  We are left to absorb marketing, and sued if we talk back in any real way.  After stealing our choices, the brands have bullied consumers into silence.  We ignore signs, instead of being offended by them.  This is a complacency that has been cultivated by advertising, and it can only have negative results.

As branding became the number one goal of companies, it was production that was left behind.  With outsourcing and sweatshops, production has been so de-valued that it isn’t even done by the big companies anymore.  This is a problem for the global community according to Klein, and one that must be faced by all of its citizens together.  In New York today, I see a fight to leave the mass produced goods behind.  Between the growth of thrift shops, and networking sites like ETSY, consumers are choosing to exit the system of mass produced goods.  Different from a boycott this is a clear statement, choosing craft over company name.  In some ways these trends are gut reactions, or unconscious defensive mechanisms against ubiquitous branding.  But that does not make them any less powerful forces in the global market.

Using alternative suppliers for the goods in our lives is a very real example an attempt to recreate our culture.  To restart a culture that wasn’t co-opted so fiercely by companies.  Tim Bissell calls it “cultural fascism” (287), and I can’t help but to agree.  Transnationals pull the strings, the logo’s and imagery of marketing is protected, and dissent is squashed.  And who has the time to create their own culture from scratch?  Maybe this explains the phenoms of “Rocky Horror” and other sub-cultures.  The makeup of the counter-culture isn’t important, what and how the subset is reacting to society makes the movement important.

Klein goes on in the section No Logo, to describe the counter branding movement.  From ad-busting, which comes so close to “selling out,” to culture jamming.  At the time of the books publishing, Klein described the efforts to reach corporate disclosure.  Many censoring attempts were aimed at achieving a level of transparency in the big companies.  In my opinion, this is no longer good enough.  It seems to me, that at the time improving developing countries was the primary “concern” for first world countries.  Now, I believe the brands must find other ways to stay cost effective.  As transporting goods becomes cost IN-effective, they must cope in very real ways.  Maybe one day soon, coke will change over to a micro brewery style.  It seems ridiculous to say, but that is the question.  Where will Brands go now?

This question ties into my summer project well.  I think of it as a case study in self-branding.  Klein calls for global equality and solidarity against the new power of transnationals…  but I find it an ineffectual rally cry.  Despite the true need for this cause, it isn’t close enough to home.  I find the chains of modern 1st world life to be linked more closely to consumerism.  If we can disable the market that is the first world, it will send the whole world on the path to sustainability.

For my part, I want to investigate my school now.  Where are the SLU shirts made?  I understand that to stay effective the university must be run as a business.  But who draws the lines?

I hope to write another reflection on these notes later today.

Tomorrow I plan to, start screen printing, renew books, work on stickers/pins, finish stencil, and to work on book plans.

Thoughts:

Where is the future of advertising? In connection with the availability of publishing resources to individuals.

What kind of a schedule do I need now? I should make a new schedule.

What haven’t I done yet?  Look back to original documents.

I found this book via a library search and I was impressed by its title.  When I began reading, I was vaguely disappointed to find that it didn’t apply directly to my PAC project.  Nevertheless I read most of the articles in the edition and I believe it to be one of the biggest influences on my critical thought process this summer.  I was both inspired and lambasted by the articles, and I have fond feelings of identification with many of the authors.

On the surface the “accessibility” of the writing, toted by these self-proclaimed leftists, makes the book easy to interact with.  In turn the varied authors approach a form of Gonzo journalism, and speak to the disenfranchised and critical views of society in writing. The topics themselves are broad and often meandering.  They claim that their tangents illustrate the giant interconnected web of life and all things.

After spending time on the cultural sections of the book, I have a positive feeling about the potential for our societies reaction to Globalism and broader Consumerism.  I want to be on the cusp of the wave, I want to be a part of the local movement that is about so much more than goods.  I find that reading books like NO LOGO and Bad Subjects, books that were published several years ago, gives me a chance to view the cultural reactions to the forces these books document.  Reading these books is exciting, and gives my a perspective an empowering encouragement in a way I have never experienced.

Read this book.  I can’t feel alone in my search for a undefined existence.  These books hint at a exploration of meaning “making.”  Here is my statement:

I will not subscribe to capitalism’s definitions of importance.  I will form a community.  I will participant, not spectate.  I will pick my battles.  I will not be selfish, I will disseminate and educate.  I will maintain a critical view of myself and my actions.  I will believe in possibilities.  I will hold an image of a real future in my head, and I will act on that image.   I will see my faults and treat them.

I will try.  And that will be real.  This is the force of Bad Subjects, this is the real topic.

As of right now, I want to do a bit more reading in the next couple days before I start drafting the project.  In the mean time, I have plenty of projects, including starting to draw up a story board or outline for the PAC project book.

As I read today a thought occurred to me regarding the state of mass produced goods.  It is only a matter of time until shops charge to use plastic bags as they do in Europe.  I see everywhere an influx in handmade goods.  There has been an increased interest in craft, from knitting’s boom, to my admittedly individual pursuit of leather working.  I believe this might indicate a cultural reaction aimed towards softening the computer and plastic age.

I concede that advocating this trend fits perfectly with my natural predilection for hand made goods and my aesthetic sense.  Still, what can I say to argue for artisan made goods?  By buying hand made goods one gets irregularities that give character, individually created and unique items, and the materials of your day to day life all have the indescribable quality associated with carefully meditated/created products.

It bothers me that the pins might not have that Je-ne-sais-quoi handmade feel.  In the past the pins might have appealed for their almost “professional” mass produced look, but now they lose their personality if I make them on Ps.  This all just occured to me.  I think in order to maintain a brand congruity, I will design the pins to be reproduced, as with the stickers.  The matchbooks highlight the handmade efforts of the PAC project.  These pin materials will underline PAC’s quality design and carefully meditated content.

More to see on my Flikr site under “Matchbook advice”.

When trying to express our individuality, (an idea Naomi Klein posits as perpetuated by corporations anyways) everything has been or is commercialized.  Che, the revolutionary, is buy-able at Hot Topic stores everywhere.  What is left for real individuality?

As I see it in terms of dress, there are two outlets, thrifting or personal branding.  By starting a new personal brand, where everything is branded by oneself, an individuality borrowing the form of corporations follows.   Similar to how rappers took to wearing Polo, and some snowboarders wear jeans made for the sport.  By “remixing” there target audience and outfits people felt like they could reach new levels of distinctiveness.  Problem is that the companies find out…  and besides, even if worn out of their original context, this still supports the companies.  Take it another step and people wear thrift clothing.

Good thrift clothing is old.  The obvious age/wear and tare of the product in question overshadows its brand, which undoubtedly doesn’t “make stuff like they used to, anyways.”  One more step and Joe Blow will be sewing stuff and changing the base product on an unique level.  This is one more way to get out from under the mass produced thumb.  I’ve seen this a lot in DIY sewing circles, and I imagine that brands will be just one step behind.  I am sure they are watching even now.

This discussion leads to a question of customization.  Having grown up in a world of mass production and competition, things like customization and unique details are an interesting topic.  There are sites with individual products like Etsy, and then there are products with built in customization.  With products ranging from cars, to computers, to software, much of the “customization” has been preplanned and priced accordingly.  With facebook, one has access to many application to “fine tune” their experience.  Myspace has built in allowances for customizable settings, giving users “individuality” within a larger sphere of constraints.  In all cases it is a semblance of freedom that the companies develop and foster.  Hackers are the true free spirit of this era.  DIY groups are the front line against commodification of every aspect of human life.  Don’t feel content with the modicum of individuality corporations give you, instead fight for more.

This leads to my new rally, the new call of the oppressed coming out of the twentieth century:

“I’m different, because I’m like everyone!”

This branding is in ever more places as I look around.  The best successful churches are brands.  Schools must become a corporation to compete…  with whom, each other?  It feels like my school is competing with me.  I hate being in a institution where the University is number one, the students, it’s product, seem to be of the least importance.  Why don’t we make, or change policy in meaningful ways?

Bahhh.