The Lincoln Center calendar puts it this way:

Like all of Debord’s films, In girum stands apart from cinema, not to mention the modern world as it has evolved into its present state. Images from magazines, comics, and popular films are turned inside out (a process defined by Debord as détournement) to illustrate what he sees as the complete vacuity of mediatized society, of which we the viewers are unknowing participants.

For those of you who aren’t fanatical Situationist fans like I am, the Situationist Internationale was a group of artistic political agitators whose movement began in France in the early 1960s. They condemned consumer culture and supported a more direct unification of life and art, seeking to release life from the cycle of buying and selling and fill it with human investments. We see their influence in all the art actions that groups like AAA and others participate in: culture jamming, detournment of billboards, you know… shop dropping and “you don’t need it” stickers are very much a part of the Situationist legacy. Except they also had massive revolts.

In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni Series: 46th New York Film Festival [Sept. 26 – Oct. 12, 2008] Director: Guy Debord, Country: France, Release: 1978, Runtime: 100 begins at 6:30 pm, tickets available at box office only.

Related posts:

1. How to Live in a City
2. Live active culture!
3. Saving the Planet one Facebook Ad at a Time

Related posts:

1. Light Criticism in ModArt Europe
2. IllegalSigns.CA, we love you.
3. Sáo Paulo Bans Outdoor Advertising in 2007

Luckily, I watched the Olympics twice and easily discovered a festering sore– Nike’s campaign, who had the clever idea to protect their investments by utilizing the DRAMA and SUFFERING of losing athletes. Because really, do we identify more with Jackie Joyner Kersee, or Marion Jones? Where was Nike when I was giving mock interviews in rollerblades in my garage at age 11? I definitely sucked at sports– the ultimate underdog! I would have been perfect!

Apparently the campaign wasn’t necessarily meant to be like this. It was a strategy to save face in case any of their endorsed athletes disappointed them. Choosing athletes as product pushers is a risky move… remember reebok’s “Dan and Dave” campaign, where, oops! Dan didn’t qualify for the olympics five weeks before the event. Ouch.

But capitalizing off of anyone’s humiliation or embarassment is bound to bite you in the ass. Nike, in the ad campaign, turned out to be the biggest loser– because they made some really uncute decisions when an anonymous blogger started a rumor:

Liu Xiang, the Chinese track and fielder who did not compete “because of an injury,” was pushed out because Nike didn’t want him to lose, which they felt was inevitable.
Nike suspiciously overreacted, making threats to hunt down the blogger like Osama Bin Laden. Who did they ask to help them? The Chinese Government!

Charlie Brooks, the representative for Nike, assured us that this wasn’t about freedom of speech, but protecting brand image. Oh, okay Charlie! I won’t read into the situation. A manhunt over an internet rumor in an intensely loving and fair country like China is just about branding! That’s fine, then. I thought, for a moment, it might be about valuing money and objects over human beings… which is also why I thought you’d exploit a suffering and embarassed athlete’s misfortune to hock sportswear. And now, Charlie Brooks won’t talk about it anymore.

I think Marina Hyde from the Guardian says it best in her column on the foible:

Don’t Brooks’ employers find that at odds with the kind of inspirational rhetoric that drives their adverts, where mavericks speak truth to power, and the individual is fetishised? No comment. Does Nike have a position on democracy? No comment. Because it feels like just the kind of abstract noun Nike would be drawn to in the cause of selling stuff. No comment.

What will happen next? Advertising screw-ups are almost as breathtaking as the Olympics themselves. Just think of all the drama Aeschylus missed out on, living in the BA (Before Advertising) period!

Related posts:

1. Dangerous Business
2. Secret Dialogue: The Rob Walker Interview

Today the New York Times reports on a “trend” of women bloggers as a target for advertising.

Advertisers are betting that the trust and intimacy that come from talking about sex after motherhood or reading about a blogger’s battle with postpartum depression will translate into sales of products discussed on a site or simply advertised alongside the personal stories.

Yes, of course, we’ll solve our relationship and emotional problems with knick-knacks and shampoo. A time-tested, advertiser approved solution!

While there are many disturbing quotes from this article, including the one I’ve used as the title to this post, I’ll leave you with an uplifting one. There is one group of women who are consistently foiling advertisers… the feminists!

“We tried pure news, and sometimes it doesn’t work,” said Brandon Holley, Shine’s editor in chief. Ms. Holley was most recently editor in chief of Jane, the Condé Nast women’s magazine that closed in July 2007. Jane struggled with the same problem — how to offer an irreverent, feminist take on women’s topics — and ultimately failed to attract advertisers.

Wait, are they meaning to tell us that women with insight into systems of oppression and a sense of self-worth aren’t into advertising? I wonder why that is.

No related posts.

The promise of cable TV all those years ago was that by paying for the service, you could avoid the commercials. That promise has faded, with most cable and satellite channels carrying just as many ads as regular TV. Besides television, those advertisements find their way onto billboards and magazines, trailed behind airplanes and stamped on pieces of fruit. Much of the work that goes into these ads is done by creative types. And it can be a lucrative career move for work-starved artists, writers and musicians. But one organization wants those folks to quit their jobs and use their talents elsewhere. Eight Forty-Eight’s Michael De Bonis has the story.

See the transcript here or download a mp3: AAAFFF on WBEZ

Related posts:

1. Unmarketable in Columbus and Chicago: featuring the AAAFFF and Pamela Anderson in a bikini
2. Neighborhood Public Radio
3. Weekend of Independence Workshops: Saturday July 5, Chicago oFFFice

Lifetime’s new show is a bit different. It’s called, How to Look Good Naked and it’s hosted by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy‘s Carson Kressley, proving himself to be the Leo Buscaglia for my generation. This show is, quite simply, about having self esteem. It takes on women who feel BADLY about themselves, frequently because they are overweight, but sometimes just because they have guts or butts.

As someone who spent moments of her childhood being called, amongst other things, “beached whale“, I can relate. For the first time, with How to Look Good Naked, reality tv actually feels like a reality I have known. This show is not a fantasy of spending a million dollars in NYC boutiques or getting transformed into Kate Winslet via plastic surgery; but wanting to cry because you feel like a loser, and how very misleading that feeling is. The show hammers home the widespread self-loathing epidemic with flashes of shocking and sad statistics across the screen like, “4 out of 5 adolescent girls would rather get cancer than gain weight.”

Some television critics are enraged by this feel-good theme, saying it promotes obesity. I beg to differ. Let me tell you: when you’re fat, you know it. It’s not a secret and you feel shameful and self conscious in most everything you do. Promoting obesity is different than acknowledging that humans come in different shapes and sizes. The only other time I’ve seen overweight people on television was as “best friends” in 80s sitcoms.

As my friend Becca pointed out, if a woman (or man) is confident, they are more likely to live an active life, and probably become more physically healthy! Depression is one of the main causes for obesity… and depression isn’t cured with diets or personal trainers or plastic surgery. Appreciation for who you are and belief in a positive future for yourself goes further.

Unfortunately, a television show can only do so much. And when Dexetrim ads are shown during the commercial breaks, and critics are vehemently panning it for some kind of deep seated fear or hatred that our society has with fat people, especially women, what difference does it really make?

Well, I don’t care. I think it’s babysteps in the right direction. About-Face suggests that those who like the show, or even the concept, write to Lifetime and let them know. I think that’s a good idea.

Via About Face

Related posts:

1. IllegalSigns.CA, we love you.

Robespierre would be proud.

No related posts.

Related posts:

1. Free Shopdropping Workshop at Eyebeam NYC
2. Shopdropping Workshop in San Francisco
3. Packard Jennings in NYT

John Jermyn’s sister has mentioned that he’s a schizophrenic and that homelessness is a problem that is not being taken seriously by the label known as “The Crazy Robertson”, named after the street where he hangs out.

It all seems very Tod Browning.

The hoodie that they mention in the Wall Street Journal article is $98, and says, “No Money, No Problems.” Obviously a $98 hoodie is being bought by people who HAVE money, AND problems… problems that are different from that of a homeless man; primarily the problem of bad taste. Instead of engaging with this man, and trying to find out where he’s at, and what he really needs, they’re buying touristy souvenirs of homelessness in a major city, and the profits aren’t going anywhere near solving that problem. Mr. Jermyn’s got friends who help take care of him, and he dances on the street, rollerskates, and from the look of the picture, wears pretty fly gear. Inspiring behavior for sure. And apparently he only accepts his profits in food, liquor, and art supplies. Which is rad in a certain sense, and really horrible in other ways. I have a feeling that the people who buy this sweatshirt think of Mr. Jermyn as an Other, someone who they can’t relate to, but that’s always the bohemian’s plight, isn’t it? Jermyn being homeless doesn’t make him a loser, it just shows us that our society’s strange if an enthusiastic person who’s not interested in capitalism doesn’t get to live healthfully, while others can make a profit off of his plight. Buying a $98 sweatshirt with a picture of someone whom you don’t know or understand on it makes you a loser. And buying a really expensive t-shirt to support the homeless man’s daring attitude, if that’s the case, is even worse. Purchasing overpriced items is, as i don’t need to tell you, completely counter-revolutionary. Dancing in the street and getting paid in art supplies, well, wow, that makes you officially fierce, and brave, and maybe a little bit misunderstood.

No related posts.

The underground hackertising is believed to be run under the front AdTraff, a “legitimate business” with ties to the Russian Business Network, a server notorious for it’s internet thug amnesty. AdTraff pins websites during their most vulnerable moments at the end of the quarter, cashing in on the desperation of the lonely internet ad sale guy.

via Commerical Alert and wired magazine.

Related posts:

1. When Guerilla Marketers Get Caught…