imomus: (Default)
[personal profile] imomus
I'm not one of the "typomaniacs the world over... outraged by Ikea's decision to switch from Futura to Verdana". Sure, there might be some small symbolism in switching from a Bauhaus-designed font to a Microsoft-designed one (from collegiate to corporate, from European to American, from classic to not-so-classic), but really, who cares? It's just a font. And it's just Ikea.

One thing did jump out of the Guardian's picture story about the font fuss, though. This Volkswagen advertisement from 1978 had a particularly personal resonance for me.

Now, this is a combination of being an exile and being almost 50, but this advert, which appeared when I was 18, speaks to me of a society I was quite enthusiastically a part of. At 18 I was a materialistic little nerd, pestering my dad to buy me a Mazda 323 hatchback just because they looked cool. (He didn't, but instead let me have the use of an old Trafalgar-blue Wolseley 1300 owned by his company; I plied back and forth between Edinburgh and Aberdeen in the banger, listening to a tape of David Bowie's Lodger album. Eventually the Wolseley was stolen, and I never again had the use of a car.)

Over the next five years I was to be radically challenged and changed by stuff I checked out of the university library: Erich Fromm's To Have or to Be, Franz Kafka, Ivan Illich, Marx, Adorno, Barthes. Even Slits and New Age Steppers records shook me up and taught me not to become a materialistic idiot. I re-oriented myself completely; I remember telling my brother I was seeking a "low-calorie lifestyle" which entailed getting by with just-enough: just enough money, just enough food, just enough accommodation. After these bare minimums were met, the only thing that mattered was being creative. Making things, but not things which just went into the system of commodities. Things which, in some way, undermined it, and tried to signpost other possible ways of living.

So when I look at the 1978 VW ad, I connect with what was, in a sense, the last time I was a good little consumer, and a "well-adjusted citizen". I recognise all the car models outlined, and know their names: the Diane, the Polo, the 5. I recognise the much more anti-capitalist Britain the ad's copy conjurs, a Britain in which you weren't allowed to mention brand names on the BBC, or cite consumer magazine endorsements in your press ads. Which magazine had just started, and it was Britain's first consumer testing magazine. We were still one year away from the Thatcher victory which would usher in thirty years of neo-liberalism, and which would seal my status as an internal exile, a refusenik, a subversive.

The teenage me, the me-who-does-not-yet-say-no, the me who loves and recognises and wants all the cars in the VW ad -- even to the extent of doodling their outlines endlessly in his school exercise book -- will be revived soon. At Haus der Kulturen der Welt on September 16th I'll sing the songs that teenager wrote in a thematic context -- archives and world music -- which suggests that he's a member of some kind of vanished tribe, an adherent in a Cargo Cult.

[Error: unknown template video]

Emailing this week with Steve Harvey, my friend who lives in Athens, I asked him whether living in that "exotic" environment all year round ever palls. Steve said no. What's exotic for him now is Britain, its windswept industrial greyness. "Even the shapes of the trees and houses in the street I was brought up in, though unchanged, now appear somewhat alien, lost, in danger of coming loose finally from my childhood perception of them."

That's very much how I feel looking at the VW ad. The cars look shabby and backward -- cars in general look shabby and backward to me now, something we have to get beyond, the way the German town of Vauban has. And yet I also remember my positivity and excitement about consumer culture -- what it felt like to be a teenage cargo cultist.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 11:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Self-correction: in 1978 Which magazine had already been going for twenty years. It was started in 1957 (http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/who-we-are/history/our-history-1957-1969/index.jsp), which lends some weight to my idea that that year was post-modernism's Big Bang. There are quite obvious links between the pop art of Paolozzi and Hamilton on show that year at the This is Tomorrow exhibition and the consumer culture evident in Which.

Image

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 11:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
And if these two old dears -- having recently emerged from war, austerity and rationing -- are saying "Ooh, but which kettle do we buy, there are so many these days!", by the time I'm standing in front of that window I'm musing: "Now, do I really need a kettle at all? Won't buying a flash one get me into debt and turn me into a wage slave?"

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 12:47 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Momus, is it true that you once masturbated five times in a single day?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 02:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
No, that was a misprint. The correct statistic is "five times per gay".

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 03:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] milky-eyes.livejournal.com
masturbated five times in a single gay

or

five times per gay...

the first line, expresses the idea that although you were in sexual contact with the gay, you were using him(her?) only for masturbatory purposes,

the second implies a more voyeuristic approach...

Guessing from your hyperactive over-sexualized nature tending towards fetishised repitition on variations of a single subject, paired with your bookish, shy and cowrardly nature... I'm guessing its "five times per gay"

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 01:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lazy-leoboiko.livejournal.com
I am saddened with the font news for a single reason: my first-sight, obsessive, almost sexual love for Futura. That someone might prefer Verdana to it… just makes me sad.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-07 02:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lord-whimsy.livejournal.com
I don't understand the choice. Futura is a classic: clean, geometrical, perennially modern. It reflects the qualities that made Ikea so appealing.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 02:02 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
"an internal exile, a refusenik, a subversive"

Surely no more than anyone who doesn't consume endlessly. Hasn't your consumerism just been of a different flavour. Same beast, different.. toe? Technology, instruments, recording equipment, music, books, clothes. Of the latter your consumption is quite high - you are rarely in the same outfit twice. Hardly a monk, a Kibbutz-dweller, a new ager in a teepee.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 04:31 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Judging by your diary for the next couple of months, you are a massive consumer of air miles at least. Your carbon footprint would be far larger than your average consumer.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 05:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Where possible, I'm taking the train. The trip to Utrecht next week is by train. The trips from Madrid to Paris and from London to Paris are also by train.

Nevertheless, you're right, however these trips are made, they release carbon. I'd urge you to raise this on all sorts of blogs, not just the blogs of people who raise post-materialism as a concern of theirs. If you only raise it as a sort of charge of hypocrisy, you risk turning an important issue (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/06/global-warming-natural-disasters-conference) into a trivial ad hominem.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 06:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
clothes. Of the latter your consumption is quite high - you are rarely in the same outfit twice

This is a joke -- if only you knew! I must spend less than €100 a year on clothes. Most of my clothes are secondhand, or come from the market stalls near my house and cost €3 or €4. I like to think I "make a little go a long way" and have "more dash than cash", though!

absorbing and American Patchwork

Date: 2009-09-06 09:47 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Completely unrelated...
I've made a habit of googleing my way to Click Opera and have being doing that for years without ever actually bookmarking or tagging the website (or ever de-anon-ing myself).
And when I google it I always bump into your old iMomus website. I'm wondering if you ever plan on getting that old beast running again and whatever happened to American Patchwork?

Also (slightly more on topic), you do seem to absorb the atmosphere of where you're living quite a bit. For example, as eccentric as your wardrobe is, it did sort of rhyme with the average New York hipster mode of dress at that time. Just as your current wardrobe and views do rhyme quite well with what I know of Berlin at the moment. Although, incidentally, the goatee/doughnut + colorful loose-fitting pants from the New York days do make you look exactly like a German euro-hippie.

Re: absorbing and American Patchwork

Date: 2009-09-06 10:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Image

You mean this, right? My "Appalachian folkster in New York" look!

Yes, I do sometimes think of reviving the website. I have half a mind to end Click Opera on December 31st and revert to my old monthly website essays, with their careful graphics and colour schemes, and their total lack of comment facilities. But that would be a bit like talking to myself, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it? (Anyone out there?)

Re: absorbing and American Patchwork

Date: 2009-09-07 02:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] milky-eyes.livejournal.com
Oh Fuck! what year is that? and it's newyork? That is funny. I mean, the time/place kind of funny.

You're going to stop click opera? why? what are you going to do w your time? Are you sensing that manic 24/7 blogging is at the apex of its relevence? whats next?

Re: absorbing and American Patchwork

Date: 2009-09-07 02:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lord-whimsy.livejournal.com
Image

I liked your style choices when you lived in New York. They were fresh.

Re: absorbing and American Patchwork

Date: 2009-09-07 06:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] loveishappiness.livejournal.com
I have half a mind to end Click Opera on December 31st and revert to my old monthly website essays, with their careful graphics and colour schemes, and their total lack of comment facilities.

You should do that. Comment sections are a distraction and energy drain. Just look at the Guardian website. Destroy my ability to say this!

Re: absorbing and American Patchwork

Date: 2009-09-07 02:46 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Thanks for replying and going to the effort of digging up that old gotee + pink pants picture - it was indeed that one I was referring to.
The red raincoat is gorgeous btw and makes me feel guilty for making you out to be some Brooklyn hipster (you are obviously superior in many, many ways).
As much as I like commenting from time to time (and as much as I enjoy the intelligent comments here - respectful nod to Lord Whimsy), I do think it would be for the best to retire the damn thing and to go back to the original iMomus.

After all...
http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2009/09/dead-media-beat-when-blogging-becomes-meaningless/

Re: absorbing and American Patchwork

Date: 2009-09-07 04:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Have to say I find it -- at the very least -- ironic that that article takes the form of a blog post on a page smattered and spattered with hyperactive, super-naffo ads. I don't see why we should stop doing it for no-money as long as those guys do it for money.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-07 10:32 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Apropos of ecological thinking, I'm appreciating this man's lectures (especially the ones on iTunes U) at the moment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQgQjqG8KQ8
Thought you might be interested.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 02:16 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Thanks for the arrow to Fromm's book.

I've read a lot of the Frankfurt school and others on these ideas, but surprisingly it has been only the second time I have seen the choice laid out so plainly. The first was the Melvin Van Peebles documentary - How to Eat Your Watermelon in White Company (and Enjoy It).

Thanks again
Joshua

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 06:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robincarmody.livejournal.com
I think a lot of people brought up during the Butskellite era - even (in fact especially), as in your case, at its very end - would recognise this feeling: being excited about consumer culture because it wasn't the establishment culture - because it had the feeling of rebellion against a stodgy state - and then being repulsed years later by what it had become, and specifically the way it reimpowered the Right (and, eventually, Old Etonians, against whom it once seemed to be a democratising force). You are speaking for a decent percentage of the post-war generations - I think anyone who screamed at the Beatles but was sickened by Thatcherism would understand this piece instantly.

Possible tangent, which coincidentally was on my mind earlier: the Comic Strip's early 80s parodies of Enid Blyton, which seem to hint that being culturally pro-American and pro-welfare-state fit naturally with each other and are positions on the same side. The very *idea* that that could be the case belongs to a very specific moment in history: people who grew up when those who fogeyishly moaned about both consumerism *and* the post-war state, mistakenly thinking that because both were newish phenomena they must come from the same source and be somehow allied, were still powerful enough to be worth kicking against - which they still were, *just*, in 1978 (iirc most of the Comic Strip are a few years older than you, so they could definitely remember). Now that we know where the biggest and strongest forces eating away at the welfare state have come from, such an equation appears almost obscene.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 08:24 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
This is an incredibly beautiful post!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-09-06 08:27 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I would pay you my hard-earned money for an audio-reading of Book Ov Jokes!!! Momus!!!!

-DobraDen

Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 06:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jdcasten.livejournal.com
Although I don’t buy into the at least as old as Plato “material = maternal” and “pattern = paternal,” I think there is a way to lead a more “spiritual” life without denigrating “materialism.” Yes there is something questionable about being seduced by advertising to covet commercial products… but isn’t advertising a way to increase the aesthetic value (values we may not all share) of the products? I’m happy to be the kind of materialist that doesn’t “covet” the latest fad objects of desire, but tries to appreciate the “things” that I do have. Anti-materialism can be a throwback to patriarch religions that put down the bodily in favor of the mental. I may agree with specific examples of certain materialistic bents being detestable, but usually they are examples of excessive waste (throwing materials, like plastic wrappers away) or “vulgar” advertising (using offensive or deceptive values to promote a product).

I’m probably too late to enter this discussion, but “anti-advertised-materialism” can be the kind of cliché I don’t appreciate: the kind that perpetuates a status quo of spirit over matter. How unrealistic can you get?

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 08:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
advertising a way to increase the aesthetic value (values we may not all share) of the products?

Some of the time this is what advertising attempts (the rest of the time it's trying to tell you something is cheap, or effective, or prestigious, or whatever). But even when it succeeds in making you believe the product is beautiful, advertising doesn't increase the actual aesthetic value, just the perception of it. And it isn't snowflakes and sunsets being aestheticized here, but (usually) shoddy industrial products made in ugly factories then christened "Snowflake" ice cream and "Sunset" shampoo.

On the other hand, I'm prepared to believe that nature advertises too; I'm prepared to believe that flowers are advertising aimed at bees (ulterior motive pollen distribution), apples advertising aimed at animals (seed distribution), and so on. A beautiful human face is, in a sense, an advert for the DNA the person carries, too. But these are all better products than a car.

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 08:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jdcasten.livejournal.com
I think “cheap, or effective, or prestigious” can be part of one’s aesthetic. Paint, canvases, etc. are often made in “ugly factories” too… I’m thinking that “aesthetic” isn’t just about beauty, but about artistic value.

I re-read your Fromm piece, and see that you cite him noting that “ownership” used to be about taking care of things you own… that’s the sort of “good materialism” I had in mind. But RE: Fromm’s book title and thesis, “To Have or to Be,” this relates to (and I’m going to be a bit new-age here) the Zodiac’s first two signs; the egoistic Aries, and the possessive Taurus… I note this just to say that there are 10 other stages for this ancient psychological paradigm; and each stage has both positive and negative traits.

Naomi Klein’s “No Logo” makes the case well that putting advertising frosting on a shit-capitalist cake is offensive; here I’d agree—but just because you don’t agree with mass-consumer aesthetics, doesn’t mean that ads are not making “Rembrandt” toothpaste into an art object. I’m not sure how Warhol’s art fits in here, but it seems to me that advertising is often built into products too… not just a false façade. I’m not sure where promotion ends and the product begins.

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 11:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
We could all probably work out our own personal correlations between good ads and good products, bad ads and bad products. I think the correlation would be non-significant, thus providing the answer to your question.

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 11:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jdcasten.livejournal.com
If I’m correct in thinking that you’re saying there is no significant correlation between advertisements and products—I’d note that “design” of products (connected perhaps with the “critical design” in your next post)… that “design” falls somewhere in a fluid continuum between advertising promotion and “manufactured” products or services. But I don’t want to fall into a trap of saying that onerous low-paying jobs should be glorified as “beautiful.” I just think that a lot of the “value added” to a product by advertising and design are not without… value—and that at an extreme, without design, you have no product—manufacturing products (on an assembly line) could be seen as the most rote of copywriter’s jobs. Modern craftsmanship can get tedious—but at some level, it’s still a craft.

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 12:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
—manufacturing products (on an assembly line) could be seen as the most rote of copywriter’s jobs

Wow! That does put a new spin on the Marxian concept of reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism))!

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 12:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jdcasten.livejournal.com
“Typically it [reification] involves separating out something from the original context in which it occurs, and placing it in another context, in which it lacks some or all of its original connections yet seems to have powers or attributes which in truth it does not have. Thus reification involves a distortion of consciousness.”

To diverge, this sounds like metaphor to me… I’m at a failure to understand, at least in words, what “undistorted consciousness” might be:

http://tr.im/truthlie

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 12:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
But if you were at a loss to decide whether anything were more undistorted than anything else you wouldn't be able to function at all. For instance, you'd never be able to decide whether you were too drunk to drive, because you'd be too busy saying: "Sure, the road looks to me like it's snaking and slithering, but that just because all consciousness is distorted. I can drive as well as the next man, for we are all -- inevitably! -- equally deluded."

I would say reification works the same way it works when we judge whether we're fit to drive: we know certain types of unalienated labour in which the relations between people appear clear, and then we compare them with alienated labour in which the relations between people take on characteristics more suited to the relations between objects. At that point we say "This doesn't feel right."

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 12:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Also, "seems to have powers or attributes which in truth it does not have" is, for me, an absolutely basic and concise definition of the purpose of advertising. And if you're saying "ah, but what is truth?" it seems like an unhelpful stance. The people making the products want big claims made, the people concocting the ads know they're trying to bend or spin the truth, and the people consuming the ads know they're being sold a job lot of pretty snake oil. Someone standing on the sidelines in this relationship shouting "But what is truth anyway?" looks... well, you can see how it looks!

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 01:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jdcasten.livejournal.com
My broader claim (rather than that advertising creates aesthetic value) would be that the “crafts” have been “decentralized” with the certain people doing the more intellectual and others doing more manual aspects. I don’t think the manual “labor” is any more real, the economic-base, or “the truth” than the intellectual labor put into products designs, and their promotion. And manual labor need not be less rewarding, although it probably gets short-changed too often.

Questioning absolute truth can put one on a more pragmatic notion of how to apply the concept of “truth.” Yes, consciousness can be more or less distorted, probably less so, ironically to Descartes’ “cogito,” by how un-private, and public one’s claims are. But… to throw a curveball here… Fame doesn’t make you a more real person! (Or more in touch with “real truth”). The same with famous memes: they are not necessarily the famous memes of a (probably) more “accurate” or “enlightened” future. Yes, craft-arts have been fractured; but I’ll stand by my initial question/claim: advertising increases the aesthetic value of material products and services (although this can go consumer-crazy, as with “designer” water, and trying to construct consumer identities through branding).

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 02:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
advertising increases the aesthetic value of material products and services

I could live with that if you rephrased it: "For me, advertising increases the aesthetic value of material products and services." It generally doesn't for me.

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 02:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jdcasten.livejournal.com
I guess you’re not part of the “Pepsi Generation’s” Dramaturgy:

http://tr.im/dramaturgy


Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 05:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] milky-eyes.livejournal.com
jdcasten,

Really enjoyed your back-and-forth about ads adding value. I def agree w you. In the specific and broader sense of the idea...

Re: Ads + Material = Art

Date: 2009-09-07 05:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jdcasten.livejournal.com
Thanks—I think “aesthetic” value would be the sticking point… “monetary” value is obviously added… and this monetary value, I think, would reflect and prove popular taste (assuming people are appealed to, rather than programmed)—something Momus might pride himself on differing from, “generally.” That’s not very “group think” democratic zeitgeist-like, but more educated… like a leading edge zeitgeist. I find myself always catching up with that “leading edge group think.”

'but really, who cares? It's just a font'?

Date: 2009-09-07 10:49 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Please, no, please don't mean that! 'It's just ikea' I understand. But not that fonts don't matter. Do you really mean that?
nxl

Profile

imomus: (Default)
imomus

February 2010

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags