You have to admit, there’s something terribly wrong with a society that places more importance on Lolz pets and the freaks that shop Wal-Mart than on the Fine Arts. If our future's generations were genuinely interested in paying just 1/3 as much attention to wisdom-inducing activities or matters of real value than they do to the Lolz Cat, Lolzers et al., then perhaps I’d be able to feel good about such sites. But not until then.
It saddens me that all these forms of crass entertainment are preferred over the ones that procure a truer and lasting enjoyment but demand some effort. But why should that be surprising? Less than 12% of North Americans have ever set foot in an arts museum; anyone can locate a Lolz Cat site but not everyone can locate their country on a globe, and, on the street, people are more likely to recognize an obese redneck that was featured on “The People of Wal-Mart” blog than Noam Chomsky. A Youtube video of someone farting has over eleven million hits while you'd have a hard time finding 1% of eleven million people who can tell you what happened in Sierra Leone or Bosnia.
Sure, I awww-ed and giggled when the Lolz Cat pictures first hit the net, but now that I’ve been bombarded with countless such pics, I feel I’ve pretty much seen ‘em all. The captions are trite clichés barely surpassed in insipidness by the ones found on those pseudo-motivational images. The pictures and videos have become disturbingly similarly unimaginative whether they’re from Haz Cheeseburger, Lolz Cats, Hot Dogs or the slew of other Hallmark-for-the-mentally-challenged type of animal or feel-good site that’s out there.
That’s because Jim-and-Jane-with-a-pet-and-a-camera are flooding these sites with content, hoping to get their 5 minutes of fame by posting a staged or waited-forever-to-get-lucky but out-of-focus picture of their pet and writing a witless caption in a way that guarantees never having to reach for a dictionary, while site owners are pulling in great advertising bucks thanks to senseless but free content while somewhere yet another truly talented artist is forced to pawn his medium in order to cover rent, throws in the towel, and ends his days in a call center selling bogus products no one makes and no one needs for some guy he’s never seen but rumours are he owns three Bentleys.
And the “humans sicken me so I prefer relaxing by laughing at cute, harmless, uncorrupted animals” line doesn’t fly with me. What’s the one thing these pictures have in common and the real appeal: anthropomorphism. It’s not that you love animals, it’s that you enjoy seeing yourself in an animal. Escaping reality by hunting down and pointing out basal human traits and behaviours in anything that’s non-human, including human babies??? In that case how do you explain the comparable popularity of "Failblog" since logically, who'd want to escape human failings by focusing on human failings and harshly judging those that erred, and thus, are human? So, is it that we prefer to imagine ourselves as creatures possessing a mere fraction of our intellectual capacity and potential? Or is it the belief that less-intelligent creatures would provide a better world if they possessed our intelligence? That still doesn't make sense to me. Do you really think we’d still be the dominant species? If your Golden Retriever had your level of intelligence, do you honestly believe that you’d still be the Alpha-male or that he’d still be your best friend? And I can only imagine that any animal that would think like Cheney would do a hell of a lot more damage than the real Cheney?
We humans have wondrous abilities; we’ve produced extraordinary things of astonishing beauty, breadth, and depth; we’ve probed and theorized and proved parts of the impossibly mind-perplexing. At any moment, at any time, nature bursts with unbridled animation.
And yet we prefer to watch others live a directed reality on TV, a simple story recapitulated for twenty of the show's forty minutes. We smell digital roses and we can't be bothered to observe the raw nature of nature through a non-raciocentric lens. We’ve created an awesome tool like the Internet, and porn, fraud, and content-less content for a pay-click is what prevails. We prefer to share stupid-but-cute pictures rather than a minute of worthwhile information.
Our obsession with the stupid infuriates me, further still when non-participants are frowned upon. It’s glorified brain porn. And these types of sites and attractions now dominate our cultural landscape in between the reality shows and the empty, depressing lyrics and banal beats of synthesized sex heroes.
So why should I be happy about the Lolz-crap site formula when what I see is yet more evidence of our general mental decline through our destructive obsession towards The Spectacle?
This isn’t to say that pipi-caca-tit jokes and annoying pet owners and the Britney Spears don’t have their place in this world and that, by default, anyone that enjoys aspects of such things endorses retardation to a socially-revered anal phase. Original potty humour will always find a way to make me laugh. However, the limits of toilet subjects and (especially) of the people that usually create such jokes are easily reached. Predictable potty humour is as pleasant as a badly performed root canal. Ditto for the dripping-with-sappy-sentimentality crap that’s supposed to warm my heart and the redundantly worn-out pop-picture trends.
What's shocking is that these forms of entertainment haven't just become barriers to true culture, they are becoming its equivalent. Human stupidity is the new art form! And while we're all complaining about this, we're more than willing to make it happen.
Whatever happened to our sense of discovery? Have we really become blazé and numb to the point where we’re barely willing to search, to unearth within ourselves emotions and thoughts heretofore unknown. Instead we flock towards the safety of mass acceptance through empty forms that scream out the feelings we’re meant to feel so we don’t have to wonder how we should feel, relying on the same codes that make us increasingly easier marketing targets?
But it’s the government's and the corporations' fault that you don’t care, right?
At this point our future relies on the sacrifices we're willing to make.
Keep on clicking!
PDL
© 2010, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.
It’s a no brainer... in every sense. Diesel’s current campaign, “Be Stupid.” proves that a company can in fact be all that it promises.
It is, in a way, refreshingly shocking to see such honesty in advertising, but don’t be fooled, albeit disturbing, this is merely another upsetting instance of a company bending truth, remolding it to suit their need, i.e. sell products. Rest assured that the Diesel people spent huge sums of money on developing this campaign, armed with top notch advertising and market research people; it’s all about creating a buzz! And it works; people react to big bold ‘stupids’, they barely care for 'smarts'—all part of our obsession towards The Spectacle. As a friend, Paul A. Toth, pointed out: “It was obviously intended to be so blatant that it would attract comments from people like us... And to an extent, I feel like I'm feeding the beast by blogging about it.” Ditto. And although I hate to do so for that very reason, I nonetheless feel that some negative attention needs to be given to this campaign; this is evil propaganda at its worst.
That said, I hope you can appreciate that I refuse to post their link here on my blog, but all one has to do is type ‘Diesel’ and ‘stupid’ in any search engine...
Given our current financial times—the doom and gloom of the global credit crunch—it’s no surprise that retail operations are suffering setbacks, hard times, and plain ol’ bankruptcy. Stores that sell obscenely-priced ‘luxury’ goods are seeing a good part of their market reconsidering their need for such “stupid”, narcissistic items. Hard to justify spending in excess of $300 for $40 jeans when half of your expected-pension suddenly vanished and a majority of your stocks are worth more as toilet paper. And anyhow, your kids should be your priority, and after dressing them in the required-by-peer-pressure Diesel-Kids you’ve only got enough money left to buy yourself one pair of Diesel socks...
Despite repeated attempts by our financial markets to impart lessons and wisdom upon us, we once again chose to remain blind as we turned the page on a new millennium, our hope-filled, dream-fed ‘new start’ losing all glitter, quickly fizzing out before the decade could be spent.
So, once again, after a few brief years of 80’s reminiscent attitudes of over-abundance, self-indulgence, and the triumph of synthetic over the natural, we once more find ourselves experiencing yet another economic recession marked by yet another strong desire to return to a state of equilibrium. Whether we want it or not, very few can, literally, afford to toss caution to the wind in quite the same way that the boomer generation could for so long. Reasonable and sensible aren't “in”, our institutions have made these a “must”.
Globalization, overseas out-sourcing, the environment, the rising cost of grain, the list is long, the causes interweaving and complex, but loud are the alarms signalling a new dawn of unpredictable instability; from education to labour to retirement, nothing is sacred, guaranteed or protected. The equations of yesteryear no longer apply: one should now start investing for one’s retirement before one is even a part of the workforce; one can no longer expect that a company will take care of them in return for years of loyal service—a career lasts, on average, 6.5 years; heavy debt-load isn’t just a part of “starting out in life”, it’s a part of life, always; graduate studies may end up costing you a lot more than their potential, long-term payoff; saying blue-chip investments is now an oxymoron; kids are no longer our future, they’re yesterday’s profit margin and today’s borrowed equity... You get the gist.
The reality is there: the middle-class, though not, in my opinion, disappearing, is finding itself being redefined and repositioned in respect to a broadening lower-class and a strangely morphing anti-upper-class upper-class; this is a world-wide phenomena. As many absorb increasing variants of lower-class woes, a new class of overnight millionaires are popping up all over the globe... And Diesel’s ability to capitalise on these too-much-too-easily-too-soon types is what has kept them thriving, setting their collection of used-looking casual wear—the kind of clothes one would expect to find in a thrift store—in the same competitive league as all the well-known and lasting couture brands. Essentially, they’ve managed to become an internationally recognized and accessible status symbol.
However, here’s the conundrum: the rich may have been responsible for establishing Diesel’s reputation in the company’s younger years, but their numbers and ‘tastes’ can’t sustain the pre-credit-bubble-burst expanse Diesel had taken. And without credit, who can afford to drop several thousands for a new wardrobe? But the really wealthy (i.e. people for whom a $7000 dress merely represents the interest made while they stirred their coffee) don’t care at all for brands in the same way that the middle-class does. The really rich don’t “buy” into the American dream, they “live” the American dream. They buy the best, and outward labels aren’t a necessity; their ‘friends’ will know, don’t worry. It’s about exclusivity. And with their logo now available on a whole slew of products ranging from clothes to perfume to jewelry to home decor and cars too, all sold in over 5000 retail outlets in over 80 countries, Diesel isn’t all that exclusive anymore, nor can it be as high-quality—that kind of operation entails the implementation of low-cost large-output manufacturing techniques (indeed, most of Diesel's clothes are now made in, you guessed it: China! And at a fraction of retail prices). As a consequence, and albeit the outrageous prices, a brand like the one Diesel has become is entirely dependent on middle class insecurities to achieve and maintain the types of sales growth it has achieved in the last 15 years; last year the company grossed $766 million, slightly less than the $802.8 reported in 2008. Trends are predicted to continue.
This new campaign is clearly the company acting on this reality. After all, spending the equivalent of most people’s monthly rent or mortgage payment on one piece of clothing is only stupid if spending that kind of money implies financial planning and worrying. Well, recent events were a nice slap-in-the-face reminder that that implies all but a very thin slice of the stratification pie. Nearly everyone, especially the middle-class, is worried about their personal finances these days.
Is it a good time to bring up Jimmy Carter’s 1979 Malaise Speech? Here’s a relevant portion: “too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.” Hard to believe that was 40 years ago. But back then this was a warning; today, we're living the consequences.
If the current economic and social atmosphere is forcing members of Diesel’s key-market group to become increasingly cognizant of the fact that buying such products is senselessly stupid, Diesel figured that any attempts to counter these forces is wasted energy. And if, in the immortal words of Forest Gump, “Stupid is what stupid does,” then the Diesel folks took it upon themselves to redefine ‘stupid’ for us.
This is the part that I find incredibly despicable and insulting: rather than attempt to adjust to this shift and this new reality, Diesel is pretentious enough to give us all a big, "f*ck you, we won't change! Instead, we'll tell you what you are and we'll fool you into believing that it's a good thing by redefining stupid for you, since, after all, you're stupid enough to believe us, we've already sold you tons of merchandise!"
They really don't think too highly of their potential and actual customers, do they? The truth is simple: Diesel and all these similar brands rely on two things: stupidity and insecurity; it's their lifeblood. Because of these, people who can't really afford such products are nonetheless willing to put themselves in debt for "stupid" reasons. But 'stupid' is also the attitude that brought us to a time where we're willing to be sold a shiny new and pleasing concept of 'stupid'. Indeed, stupid is what stupid does.
For those who haven't seen the advert's accompanying texts and video (should we call that, "legal department imposed supplemental material"?), here is Diesel's campaign in a nutshell:
Stupid is good. Smart is bad.
Stupid is unique. Smart is humdrum.
Stupid is the new rebellion. Smart is authority.
Their ad bombards us with the idea that 'stupid' is "wild, passionate, unreasoned actions made from the heart," i.e. pleasing one's self with an impulsive, unjustifiably expensive purchase, and that 'smart' is boring, predictable, devoid of life and essence; smart is conformity, especially to oppressive kill-joy authority figures (i.e. what we usually expect of the “stupid” masses).
Stupid is about succumbing to false needs and wants, even if this means finding yourself on anti-depressants...
Yes, let’s celebrate obsessive, debt-inducing, vapid behaviour. Let's encourage self-serving, living-for-the-moment moments despite any consequences. And let's be proud to call ourselves stupid for a company that embodies all that is wrong with the world we currently live in.
What's next? New definitions for slut, thief, and murderer? Wake up! Other companies and governments are already working on those.
Try as they may, 'stupid’ will never become synonymous with ‘cool’ and ‘freedom’; at least not with smart people. Stupid is a perfectly good word to describe stupid behaviour... behaviour like, for example, holding a sign that says "carrots" in an attempt to convince people that potatoes taste like turnips.
And paying that kind of money on clothes, for nearly all of us, should still and always be seen as an act of stupidity, but stupid as in: 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Keep on clicking!
PDL
Side note: I’d like to call attention to the way the B was placed above the P (in Diesel's ad, top of post) as if to suggest BP Stupid. Coincidence given the Deepwater Horizon disaster and Diesel’s release of their revamped Fiat 500 cars in the UK?
© 2010, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.
On the morbid side of things, gambling website PaddyPower.com is taking bets on spill-related extinctions. [...] PaddyPower seems to be flip about the whole thing, but the site serves as a startling wake-up call--yes, this spill might be so bad that entire species die out as a result.
Read that startling bit on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on Fast Company’s Website. It’s disturbing on so many levels, initially; after careful consideration, is it really?
Paddy Power Site owners claim that they’re hoping their actions will help “highlight the recent gulf catastrophe,” and although few may buy that this was their initial goal, I think we all pretty much believe the same thing: that’s just a spin on a great but shameful opportunity.
But, amidst all the BP cover ups journalists are slowly unearthing, one aspect few had so far talked about is the potential and all too likely disappearance of a few species; the Kemp's Ridley turtle is at the top of the list... odds are (according to Gambling911.com, a gambling “news” website (that aims to sell the spin) – sorry, didn’t bother directly checking out the Paddy Power site, no time to waste). Albeit corporate-media news disseminators have placed much concern on the environmental effects, it did take an Irish-based betting Website to bring the idea of annihilation of certain species outside of activist and environmentalist circles.
So, I’ll admit that my first reaction to seeing this being turned into a gambling opportunity was total disgust, but my shock quickly dissolved into fulfilled-expectations of typical human behaviour--we humans are disconcerting, that's nothing new. Let's face it, people gamble on way worse things, some of which wouldn't exist without gambling. And weren't people placing bets some years back on whether or not Britney Spears would commit suicide? Paddy Power is also taking bets on who the next CEO will be, so honestly, in this case, what’s worse? That some crafty buggers found a way to profit from this and inadvertently played a role in raising awareness in unlikely circles, or gambling on such things? And what’s all of that in comparison to what’s actually happening? What I’m really afraid of is this:
Knowing what we humans are capable of, I wouldn’t be surprised to one day find out that these oil-related extinction bets had become so important and represented such potentially large sums of money for some who played a part in accelerating/assuring the extinction of some aquatic species of flora and fauna, especially some of the most unlikely ones, the ones that represented the more interesting returns... and I’m thinking the whole thing was cooked up by BP PR folks in an attempt to divert some public attention... and I’m thinking BP Investment dept. folks, placing bets and insuring them... and I’m thinking big winnings and earnings covering the material and financial cost of this disaster... and it does sound silly, but I’m trying to think up a logical reason as to why BP would act the way they are, why they would apply the solutions they are, and why they continue to obsess over the use of highly irritating toxic chemical dispersants (beyond the most obvious, i.e. dispersants keep the oil away from the surface and out of sight) which is also, at this point, the most damaging course of action for them... It blows my mind!
I bet you that going electric makes more sense now, doesn't it?
Keep on clicking!
PDL
© 2010, Pascal-Denis Lussier
Photo credit: pdl, all rights reserved
.png)
