// This is it //

Transformers 2: Racism and Sexism in Disguise.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:13:00 +0000

I didn't have high hopes. Let's establish that first. I also wouldn't have gone if it wasn't someone Else's idea and if someone else hasn't paid.

I saw the first transformers, whenever it came out, and thought it was pretty mediocre. Entertaining to say the least, but too much special effects, fighting, and one of those basic, obvious, predictable story lines: boy character, love interest that's too cool for him, robots that fight each other, good side wins, boy gets girl. The end.

The second transformers was exactly the same, same fighting, same good vs evil, same boy and girl tension, only this time she was getting him to the point where he would tell her he loved her. Don't hate me if I'm naive, but if you're with the same person for 2 years, and doing the dirty surely you should have said I Love you by then. Yes, two years, that's how long supposedly lapsed between movies.

My first issues with this movie is that they mentioned Obama, the economy, and swine flu. They were trying to make it so present day that it just became silly. People don't want to go to the cinema to be reminded of current day politics, economics, or life-threatening diseases. They go to escape their lives and be entertained for a couple of hours.

I still maintain that Transformers 2 is entertaining, but it's not something anyone should ever see twice. Seriously. It's just not that good.

Here comes my real beef though. From the word go they attack women. They turn women into low-IQ'd, idiotic, senseless, sex-objects, that are motivated only by attraction to men.

The mother of the main character is ditsy, and emotional. The girlfriend of the main character is a sex symbol, with pouty face lips, a needy-clingy-obsessive personality and she keeps pulling the most ridiculous faces you've ever seen. Ridiculous.

The other women (all college students) are made out to be sexy, dirty, flirty, and thick as mince with sex on the brain. Seriously, it's like a guy fantasy or something.

The movie is pathetic for the way it treats women and what I want to know is how that kind of stuff can be rated for kids, because of the kind of attitude and impression it will leave with them. If kids are seeing their hero treat woman like a worthless object then that has to be ingrained somewhere in their behavioural system — especially if the kid doesn't come from a home with a good example of a parental relationship.

Above all this is the pathetic portrayal of race. The main character has a Latino room mate who they turn into a coward, an imbecile and a cry baby.

There is also a black soldier and two 'black speaking' robots that make black people out to be stupid, non-readers, filled with stereotypical racist idioms.

There was not one of likable character, there was no one that a kid could aspire to be like and turn out to be a decent individual and that to me should be more of an R rated movie than something with swearing in it.

If a movie is teaching bad principles about society and life that's just as psychologically damaging, if not more so, than seeing something erotic or violent.

I repeat that this movie is entertaining if you want to be vegetablised for 90 hours of your life (it's long), but as far as storyline, character development, and social lessons go, it should be traded in, or brought to the scrap heap. Seriously, transformers, when I was a child, was filled with intellect and solid stories. Neither movie has succeeded in bringing the real cartoon to life. This is all just made for special effects. Lame.

The end of graphic design as we know it.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:35:00 +0000

The future of graphic design, as we know it, is bleak. It’s normal for things to evolve, develop, and change as the world that uses them alters, so now it is the time for the change of graphic design. Of course it will be as subtle as all evolution is, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t make predictions.

By qualification I am a graphic designer, but that doesn’t mean much anymore. By need and necessity the average member of planet earth is a graphic designer. This isn’t an unfamiliar concept; it isn’t a new surprise – the foundation and root of graphic design is graphic communication, which is the visual communication of an idea from one person to another (we could even say one thing to another and delve into the realms of animal tracking, paw prints in the mud and the likes, but let’s not). Millions of years of life on the planet has left behind millions of years worth of graphic communication styles from cave paintings and hieroglyphics to quill and parchment; chalk and slate; and now kilobytes, megabytes and gigabytes of messages and information.

The question at hand is where do we go from here? If something doesn’t actually exist then how does it continue to evolve? I can’t make predictions based on technological advances but my predictions come from the present future, as opposed to the distant future. For the past few decades we’ve seen an increase in the amount of graphic design courses in universities and schools, what this, in turn, does is actually churn out a production line of mac/pc/adobe operators rather than designers, but that’s what there is a demand for just now: people who can operate specialist machinery in a particular field, and do it well, to achieve the results desired by their employer and essentially the client.

The recent economic problems that are spanning the international world are going to take their toll on graphic design and communication. We will see a decline in the amount of work being commissioned; there will be a ‘cleansing’ of the design world and only the best will survive; there will be an expectation to drop hourly rates; there will be bankrupt agencies and, again, only the best will survive; and there will be an increase in the amount of online presence that companies have while they look to save money, cut costs and exercise their ability to use free marketing tools.

What this means, and what excites me a lot, is that there will be a decline in the quality of graphic design. Although ‘the best will survive,’ what will actually happen is that the clients will do it themselves. People will grab pens, pencils and paper and draw their own pictures, they will trace, and they will colour, cut, glue, fold and print their own pieces of communication. They will use facebook, twitter, myspace or whatever other new social networking hype appears. They will download copies of the Adobe Creative Suite and teach themselves how to use filters, functions and clipping paths. When we have to cut back on all the other glamorous things like finer foods and clothes then we will also cut back on the amount we spend on glamorous design. I find it an exciting time because over the past few years we’ve seen an increase on the number of coffee-table books and magazines published that contain ‘found’ pieces of typography, or that have personal handwritten messages or confessions. These books are like a sneeze three days before a cold, they have been predicting the future for some time now, and the qualified designer in me is terrified of the financial future, but the creative in me is excited, beyond all reason, to see what new forms of communication emerge out of necessity and need rather than want.

I dare say that Communicating It Yourself (CIY) will revolutionise society and the time we dedicate to actually creating something, it will become an outlet for personal communication of thoughts and opinions and a commercial outlet for advertising and branding. Personal expression has already been occurring for years, for example protests are currently a feast of CIY signs and placards that people use to show their upset and, although it’s on-screen, things like My Space and Live Journal have been around, and popularly used to blog personal opinions, thoughts and happenings, for almost a decade. None of this is a new concept or idea, but the volume of usage and the companies and brands that will start to adopt this new CIY style and, therefore, the places we see CIY, will be an utterly new surprise.

As for the qualified designer they will become teachers and facilitators of design helping and encouraging people to communicate it themselves – and that’s when having a traditional design technique or skill comes in useful.

It’s quite cathartic to dream of such a free-communication society where leading, kerning, font type, size, and colour isn’t electronic but chosen because of what paint and brush or pen was available to hand; or what was within the creative capacity of the person communicating the message. Either way it will definitely put an identity and spirit into something that is currently dying from over production, thievery and obsessed cleanliness.

Wow! Pepsi!

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:46:00 +0000

Okay, so I might be late on the topic of this, but I was there when the packages started changing and the new Pepsi logo and brand appeared. I remember standing in Smith's Grocery Store on 400 South in Salt Lake debating whether it was a good idea or not.

At first I didn't like it. Too minimalist and 50s/60s for a drinks company. But, it was then pointed out to me, that it stands out from every other drink on the shelf. And it truly does.

While Coca-Cola are going for as much detail as possible, with swirls, fake droplets and visual stimuli galore, Pepsi are giving us a break, keeping it plain, recognisable, and less cluttered.

What it says to me is, chose me, drink me, I won't give you a headache if you look at the can too long.

My one and only qualm now is that the E has a Pepsi swirl in it. That seems like the doing of some marketer or account handler and not the creative who designed it though. It seems out of place and doesn't do anything. No adding or taking away from the brand.

On top of the new logo/bottle/can there are fantastic billboard posters with strong block colours, and large type. I love type. The words Wow, Lol, Awesome etc etc are written as big as they can fit with the pepsi logo sitting in place for the letter O. Enough said. Again, it's an advertising campaign that doesn't overwhelm you. You know what it is, you know what they're saying, everything is clear – there's no need to go all Cluedo about it and stress your brain out trying to piece things together.

My theory is that this the beginning of a new cycle. Gone is the mystery, here comes the answer on a Pepsi-Platter.

Here are the billboards combined into a fantastic flash or after effects video.

I would dare say that this is one of the most 'refreshing' pieces of design ever. The entire idea and concept is phenomonal, and then to coincide and use the refreshing of America because of their new president is just a genius piece of marketing. It's simple. Everything gets changed – everything gets refreshed. It was time for change, and everything is.

To take it further you should check out their Pepsi site, their microsite, and their youtube site.

The future of Graphic Design.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:37:00 +0000

I have been trying for two weeks now to write an essay about the future of Graphic design for adbusters. I've just about given up getting what I want to say out, but this YouTube video is pretty much everything I want to say and more.

I have a graphic design degree, but it means nothing, and today people with graphic design degrees are actually mac operators. Art schools churn out mac operators. Have you ever wondered how an academic university can all of a sudden teach graphic design and nothing else that is artistic related? Well it's because they teach people how to use adobe products. And with the increase in pirated adobe products people at home with 'free time' can goodle tutorials and do what ever they want.

Graphic design is essentially communication from one person to another, and that is what it is going back to, as more and more people learn how to use programmes that 'help them design' they are acheiving what they want by cutting out the middle man. Sadly the middle man is the designer, and soon we will all be fighting for the crumbs of jobs.

This video pretty much explains it all. Companies taking marketing into their own hands and using all available mass media, user content controlled sites to get their message across.

And it succeeds.

Facebook is the New Coca Cola

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:44:00 +0000

The other day I was reading an article in a business magazine and they were trying to predict trends and wax financial about the future of the economy and what would replace the things we already have in society.

One of the questions was about someone trying to predict or create what comes after facebook.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I have come to realise that my prediction, in this whole affair, is that nothing is going to come after facebook. Well not nothing, there will be things invented and created i'm sure, but nothing is going to over take it.

Here is my reasoning, and we're going to mention MySpace and Bebo and frienster and Hi5 and every other failed networking site as well. MySpace used to be the best thing on the internet. But nothing changed, nothing was updated, nothing was new, there was no user to client contact and thus no improvements in the service (and still, there's no new beneficial improvement; all the new things we saw on facebook a year before).

I'm not the biggest fan of facebook, which you wouldn't guess considering the amount of hours I spend on it. The reason I'm not a fan is the amount of hours. It has me trapped, I want to know if someone has posted new pictures, I want to know if so and so is attending the event I'm thinking of going to, I want to know how my friends are doing and what they are up to all day.

I find myself refreshing the page, just in case, about a million times a day. It's now a habit. Those are my reasons for not liking it. I also fear that it will get too big, that there will be too much information and we will all explode from an information over-load. My other beef with social networking sites in general is that they mess with the general order and natural cycle of friends. I can now stay in touch with the people that bullied me in high school, or the people that I knew when i was 5 years old and I could still play out in the street and not get kidnapped.

But back to my theory. Myspace has never changed, it was replaced, and now, rather than realise that it is actually used for music more than networking, it continues to wriggle the knife further into its own heart. It's time it reinvented itself and came up with new ideas rathe than ideas pinched from facebook.

Facebook on the other hand updated their site, changed the layout, realised there was a problem with information display and did something about it. At first people could choose to change sites, eventually everyone had to. And they had the attitude of 'you will get used to it' when people moaned and complained. Now, I quite like it. people hate change, but once they know it for it a while they won't remember what was before. And that is what they knew and what they did.

The people behind facebook and who are working constantly on facebook are not stupid, they are smart, and they know how to stay alive. If they had just left things the way they were all myspace hell might have broken loose and they would be burried in the dust like friendster and hi5.

So my theory is that facebook is going to be like coca-cola, it's not going anywhere. It will have competetors, there will be cheaper versions, but it will always capture the main market, and it's not because the product has every changed. No, it has always tasted the same, just the marketing and the look changed. The logo progressed, the advertising was clever, and always different.

So as long as facebook keeps the product the same, ie. makes sure it's ALWAYS a social networking site that is easy to use and clutter free, but changes the look to keep up with technology then my bet is that it's not going anywhere, and that it will become a brand like Apple, McDonalds, Nike and Coca Cola.

IDEO Questions.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:31:00 +0000

Although I don't sit and post the ideo daily widget questions I do think about them.

here are some of my thoughts over the past few days.

November 8th, What is your TV really saying to you?

It tells me that other people's lives are far more interesting than mine and that cool gimmicks and witty narration is what we should aspire to have in the background. Queue Facebook and their opportunity to narrate your life with as much humour as you want.

November 9th, If you started a magazine what would it be about?

Being happy and how to be happy without stuff, things, and stuff and things.

November 10th, How is being done in China?

Illegally, realistically, quickly, necessarily, with less pay, with less decoration, with less benefits, with less need, with greater need, with less want, with MORE spirituality. (and a lot of lead in the head.)

November 11th, Will we always aspire to youth?

yes, because we never know that we're growing up. It just happens, and we will continue to do in our older years what we did in our youthful years. Just because we don't know any differently. I don't think we will consciously aspire to it, we will just do it.

But to take the thought to the cosmetic level. When love is involved, and jealousy, and suspicion. When trust is not in abundance then youth is all we have as a weapon, that we believe to be our weapon. How can we compete otherwise?

November 12th, What does sharing look like 5 years from now?

Ideallistically, the foundation of society.

Realistically, non-existant. I think in 5 years hyperindividualism will just increase. It will be longer until we see the masses actually caring.

And

November 5th, How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?

Twenty six. One year older than I am now, because I've always seen 26 year olds as people that drink hot things in cafe, read books, and talk about things that appear to matter as well as the idle chit chat too. It's an illusion, but that's the stage I want to be at, and the stage I have been at for a few years. But every now and then I still have a streak of weakness.

Another Whinny Essay... seriously. I need to stop.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:07:00 +0000

I just submitted this to adbusters. Not my finest piece of writing, but let's face it, I am slacking these days. Lack of reading equals lack of quality writing. Alas. Enjoy.

A Call For Superheroes.

Now is the time to forget the rules; all bets are off. Now is the time to shed our contemporary consumer society costumes, and truly reveal the superheroes within ourselves.

The concept of superheroes is not unusual, they have been part of our fantasy culture for decades and they cross international cultures and barriers. I would go as far as saying that as long as man has existed he has always dreamed of having super-natural powers and abilities that set him apart from everyone else and give him authority to help and save the world, or at least help with his labour.

What’s not so commonly recognised is the similarities of superheroes to the contemporary consumer world. Superheroes don masks, capes and lycra snug-fitting outfits and alter their identities to conceal who they are, or rather augment who they want to be: a crime fighter; a life saver; a bringer of justice. We are guilty of doing such things with our own purchases, and our own everyday clothes. We buy things that will make us feel like who we want to be and that we think will display our inner personality to the outside world. Really we are just fitting into genres and shoe-horning our lives into a brand we think we identify with. We have been behaving like superficial superheroes for decades, but this is now a call for real superheroes: for people to realise their potential and realise the difference they can make in this world.

No, we don’t have any kind of super natural powers, but I don’t think that possessing abilities beyond reality would actually help, but more so hinder. This is up to us. We don’t need a mask, a cape, or any kind of special outfit. We don’t need powers, or to have been born on another planet. We really don’t need to conceal our identities or suppress who we are any longer. The pressure to conform to a certain genre and to appeal to the people already leading that niche of society has reached boiling point and we can now free ourselves. It’s time to let our superhero selves reign supreme. We need to save the planet, and we need to do it as superheroes.

Let’s shed our brands, and our obsession with spending. Let’s start to help the people we know and the people we don’t know; let’s talk to our neighbours and save society; let’s go outside and experience nature and appreciate how intrinsically linked to it we are; let’s make amends with our family and friends and have no animosity; let’s look at the sky and realise how wonderful and beautiful it is; let’s not fear our own culture, anyone else’s culture and especially not religion; let’s stop working so many hours, and stop wanting gadgets, brands, and things beyond need; let’s say no more to being psychologically tormented and depressed by the cold world we have invented; let’s listen to the young and the old; let’s cook real food and no longer be a slave to work and the microwave meals made for convenience; let’s realise that the things we own will not afford us one iota of real happiness; let’s design things that will help people rather than things to make money; let’s put down the TV remote and read books; let’s enjoy life and realise that memories are what make it; let’s learn from each other and never stop learning; let’s care about the world; let’s care about people; let’s be happy; let’s care about oppression, war, and let’s no longer stand for corruption among our ‘leaders’. We have the power to rise up and take back the planet that is ours. Let’s change the world, let’s be superheroes – together.

How Much is Too Much?

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:34:00 +0000

The title is the Ideo question of the day.

Here is my short and simple answer.

If you live in the area described as the west, then whatever you have is too much.

Looking at that from another perspective though, I've always appeared to be 'unlucky in love.' Really I'm just British and I like to feel hard done by, so I don't make my own life easy. There once was a guy, who was a dream more than anything, that once used the sentence 'Vikki, you're too much,' to describe me.

And I am.

I am too much. But surely one day I won't bee too much for someone. I think the original perpetrator of the phrase meant it as a term of endearment, but when you already know that you are 1. Over keen, which leads to 2. Over share and 3. Over care, then it just comes as a reminder when someone else picks up on the fact that I am too much.

So what do I do that makes me too much? And how does that relate to society?

We have a mindset that to gain someone's affection we lavish them with gifts. Our society teaches that to have is to be, which means that the more things I possess the more alive I am. So It's only natural that in order to win some kind of competition we would want to give gifts and do things for those that are the object of our desire, because we want to make them 'be' - or just feel alive, and then they will attribute that life to the giver.

This is not a set in stone method, and then when you are competing with a million other boys and girls for this person's affection we start to up our game and we will start giving gifts of a more thoughtful nature or an ephemeral nature - things like service and emotional insight.

But where do we stop? How much is too much to have or to give? Because at one point the receiver will just have too much and an adverse effect will occur. I think too much arises when some does not equal the desired product of returned effection. So too much occurs when there is not 1. A balance between ephemeral and corporeal things and 2. When the product is lower than the sum.

And who said maths wasn't useful?

In layman terms, if I give too much and don't get the reaction and response I want then to keep giving is too much.

IDEO Question: Does This Make My Backside Look Big?

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:05:00 +0000

I've never asked that question of anyone seriously.

I don't know if that's because I've never worried about my figure, or if it's because of upbringing - My mother never worried about her figure.

I think the fact that question even exists as a stereotypical cliched term is a sure indication to the fascination we have, as a society, about appearance.

Just because I never asked the question doesn't mean no one else does. Many people do, that's why it's stereotypical.

My reaction to this question is: Who Cares?

Who honestly cares?

If you want to feel good about yourself just do it. If you think your backside looks big then either 1. Live with it, or 2. Don't wear the thing you think is making your butt look big.

If you don't feel happy wearing something, if you are going to be paranoid that people will talk about you then honestly and truly just wear something you are happy in. SERIOUSLY.

I also get that there are people with mental alterations that make them think they are fatter than they are, and I am so blessed that I am not of that frame of mind. But to those people, I say this, life is honestly too beautiful, too interesting and (cliche) too short to care about whether your butt looks big. No one else cares, and if they do then they don't really matter too much in your life. And they are rather pathetic for using something so ridiculous to ridicule someone.

Bottom line... no one cares. Neither should you.

How Do You Get Great Ideas?

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:18:00 +0000

Ideo are a design company that I hold in high regard. If Fabrica would ever reply to me I would be applying for jobs with them... or doing my masters in design writing in New Yoik.

Anyway.

I just downloaded a widget that asks a new question every day.

Today's question is: How do you get great ideas?

The grammar seems a little incorrect, but who am I to judge?

My thoughts are: that great ideas are not gotten. They do not just appear. They are not something that wakes you up in the middle of the night and by morning you are done masterminding your ideas.

A great idea is something that grew from an idea.

I'm going to use a quick and partially appropriate metaphor. It is like (or a simile if you're Ed Byrne) the Great Wall of China. It is great. It started with an idea, it started with a thought, it started with one brick, and one pair of hands, followed by many thousands of others. There was one person though that laid the first stone/brick.

And then as the chinese proverb says 'Many hand make right wolk.'

That's what an idea is. It's not something forced, and more importantly it comes from the want to fulfill and need (rather than the need to fulfill a want).

That is how great ideas come to be. From one thought, that is built on over time, and developed by other people to the point of it becoming great. More than likely your 'Great Idea' will far succeed your own meandering existence.

How do you get Great Ideas?

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:30:00 +0000

Adbusters 78 Quotes

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:33:00 +0000

I’ve had a couple of quotes thought out for a few months now from the number 78 issue of Adbusters.

It’s when you believe in something, when you stand for something, when you put forth not a symbol, but a piece of yourself – that’s when the sparks begin to fly. Rodchenko, Heartfield, Klaman – they were more than designers. They were the life, the blood and the voice of their struggles – completely immersed in the burning issue of their day. They didn’t depict culture, they were culture. To push the boundaries of global culture in a fresh way, you have to do more than just design, you have to live.

...things have really gotten out of hand... I push tidbits of information around computer screens until what I’m working on accumulates a kind of slickness..

Children who survive through adolescence surrounded by gray walls and little time in the wilderness may not necessarily spend the rest of their lives believing that nature is a scary place, but the evidence suggests that their deficit of experience will result in an adulthood of generally higher stress and poorer health. Preserving and encouraging a natural environment is basic wisdom for the twenty-first century. An attractive future for humanity will be one in which all kids have the opportunity to roam, without fear, in an unspoiled land.

With a Rock in my hand.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:49:00 +0000

It's so good to be back on the non-fiction. As much as I loved my break filled with vampire romance I am truely suited to reading non-fiction books, or fiction books that are non-fiction laced with a ficticious surrounding (like 1984, the catcher in the rye, on the road, Chuck Palanhuick's life works).

(can I just say, and this is off-topic, VLC plays ANYTHING, best media player ever for that.)

There were a couple of articles I read today in the most recent issue of Adbusters that really grabbed my attention.

Two of them are actually on the adbusters website and they can be found here:

This one is about hipsters.

I think Eilidh and I used to call them scene-sters back in the day, and now they have grown into hipsters.

I was quite alarmed when I read it because a lot of the things that they list off as 'ways to identify a hipster' are things that I have done in the past, or that I am currently doing. On futher inspection and with continued reading I realised that I am not a hipster, because I couldn't care less. The things that I buy and especially the clothes I wear are more-so because I don't give a rat's tail most of the time. Yes, there is a certain look I want, it's a Vikki Miller Queen of the World look, however, I just do, I don't really think about it any more. I used to go out of my way to try and stand out, but now I don't really care.

The other thing in that article spoke about trends of music and film and how things are popular among the hipsters until too many people like it. Now, this is something I am guilty of. I think I have a low tolerance level, or at least I used to, because I am certainly better and just getting on my with life and not worrying about what other people are doing or how they are perceiving me (not that I don't care completely, just that I am better than I was). I have been known to stop liking things when they get overly popular, this is moreso because I hate manipulation, market anything in the right way and it will sell, this has been proven on many occasions. For things to get overtly popular without the correct slow and painful method, means there has been some kind of subliminal marketing which tells people to buy something because it will verify their identity. Sounds harsh? Well it's the truth.

That's why I stop liking things, because I do not want to be associated with the fad, the movement, the genre that is being promoted and the meaning that gives to my identity. I want my own identity, not one manufactured by someone else. This is why popular songs from the 90s/80s and even a couple of months ago, I will now listen to again. Because the blood-sucking marketers have moved on to use something else to exploit the generation with.

I dislike, however, that art is getting mixed up with the hipster genre. Not all art school atendees are hipsters. There are plenty of genuine artists, and to use old film cameras or polaroid is not just to be cool, it's an attempt to bring reality back to a digital world. None of this is the hipsters fault and I hate the way the article segregates them and makes them sound like imposters or heathen's. They are recycling clothing like the environmentalists tell them to do, they are being creative in dress and with art. Granted, I hate that they are my competition, but that's just because they are better than me (at art, and angsty teen blogs - I no longer than the teen, just the angst).

Moving on though.

This article is about tupperware

After reading it I really want to go to a tuperware party, call me a molly mormon but I do. I want to go and bend plastic and oooo and aaaah over how strong and airtight plastic can be. I, however, do not want to go to a taser party. Well, not unless it was a self defence party, where we were actually taught something useful other than how to carry a weapon and still look good. I bet half of the women, if not all, that own those leopard print tasers (leopard print is pretty cool) won't even be able to get them out of their bags. They will be mugged regardless because no one told them they will be shocked, they will be scared but they have to be in the mindset and use their addrenaline rush to take action (if it's safe). I'm sure some of those women might end up injured because they resort to using their laser taser faser mcgaser instead of their own common sense.

It's a shame common sense isn't sold with leopard print patterns, the world might make a little more sense if it was.

Here comes the hard slaught for me. (how good a word is slaught?) The next two articles I am going to type-a type-a type-a (like lil vicky's school of dance, but not, because I have two k's I am borderline racist).

This is from an unknown page of Adbusters number 79.

the page number is unknown because they don't have page numbers.

9/11
When foreign fighters flew into the World Trade Centre, America's confidence was shaken to the core. But instead of reinventing itself once again, America has come undone.

Today, the US is bogged down in a war that is both unpopular and unwinnable. It's economy is on the verge of collapse. Washington is paralyzed with calcified politics and unable to create sustainable energy policy, break its addiction to debt or stop antagonizing foreign foes.

But for the first time, America cannot point the finger at an identifiable enemy. For the first time, America must come to terms with the fact that this is a self-inflicted crisis. The question now is whether America can survive this latest challenge and remain one of the world's most dominant powers, or whether its confidence has finally been broken for good.

There is no author for that. My comments on this are that what I've been saying for the past few weeks is correct. Granted, I say it as a proud joke, but I do believe that the United States are going to need help, and I suspect that the empire - that is the Great British Empire - will start to reform. The United Kingdom will need help as well, but we have picked ourselves up again and again, as a nation. Granted, i've not been alive for the past times and the quality of the majority of this nations citizens has somewhat deteriorated in the past few decades. So it will be interesting to see if we can stay afloat. I think our cynicism and our dour faced nature, our grip on reality, mixed with our inability to actually complain properly will see us through.

Okay, here's the next article:

begging for more by Kono Matsu

Two years ago, in his annual state of the union address, President Bush chastised America for its raginig addiction to foreign oil. In the stern language of disapproving patriarch, Bush let it be known that he intended to address the growing problem before his tenure was up.

Now, with only a few scant months of his presidency remaining, Bush has finally unveiled his energy plan. After begging and barely getting the Saudis to pump more oil, he is attempting to strong-arm Congress into lifting the ban on offshore drilling. Bush's plan, which would cause untold environmental damage, will only yeild enough oil to support our current level of consumption for two-and-a-half years. And were the drilling to start tomorrow, it wouldn't become available in the market for at least a decade.

Some plan.

So why didn't Bush start by suggesting that Americans drive less, drive slower, or stop driving altogether? Why didn't he urge funding for alternative fuel research or push for a carbon tax?

The reason is because, in addition to being the most inept leader this country has ever known, Bush is an oil man.

We never had a chance.

Seven years of Bush policy has left America crushed by debt, stuck in Iraq and isolated from the rest of the world. Bush will undoubtedly be remembered by history as the straw that broke the empire's back.

And yet, despite it all, the man himself seems to be faring well. Displaying the unflinching gusto for which he's famous, Bush's inner fortitude is nothing short of a phenomenon.

Despite his litany of flaws, I admire Bush for his unwavering sense of self-confidence. I am in awe of whatever force - be it will or ignorance - that shields him from the onslaught of public opinion. Still, sometimes before the sun sets on his presiidency, I'd like to see someone confront him for his crimes. I'd like to seee a reporter, a citizen or a disillusioned war veteran hold him accountable for the destruction his administration has wrought. I'd like someone to make him answer for the million people who have died on his watch or the eco-crisis he has left woefully unaddressed. But most of all, in front of the blazing lights of media cameras, I'd like to see someone wipe that smirk off his goddam face.

When I was in Utah in November there wasn't a lot of politics or debate. Since then the sub-prime mortgage nonsense, the 'credit crunch', the price of petrol, the fear of running out of oil has actually occured. It's been a busy year. So while I was in the republican Bush loving state of Utah in May I heard all about the oil in Alaska, and how people didn't care about the environment or the life of animals if it meant the sustainability of the American race. I kid you not.

There were many comments I heard, from all ages and wakes of life that suggested the solution was digging for oil in the United States.

Now, Oil in the states has been known about for a long time, but the US decided a long time ago to not use their own oil, they decided to buy North Sea Oil from Maggie the spazz Thatcher when she sold us down the river in the 70s, and they decided to buy up and use the Eastern oil in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc etc. Well, what the bloody hell have they done with it?

That was a lot of oil, where did it go?

It would be nice if we all had an unlimited supply and we could keep driving around until the cows come home, and live the life we think we all want. But the truth is, we just can't do it. We just can't keep living that way. We were given a pure blessing that we just stuck to. Rather than continuing technology and improving on our laurels we stayed there. We just sat back and enjoyed the wind blowing through our hair. We became lazy.

This had not happened before, think about how quickly other generations and other centuries have improved upon inventions and technology. We are no longer moving as rapidly as we once did because we no longer invent things for the sake of improving our life style, but we invent things to make money, to exploit people and to just shift all the numbers from one bank account to the other. Our forefathers discovered oil, invented cars, we've improved upon them but we just invent numbers. What do we have to show for decades of thinking? Hyperindividualism. Inventing things for the benefit of individual gain rather than the improvement of the lives of the members of our society.

When it comes to design this is the biggest question of them all. I think however, rather than the question being, how do we invent a new fuel or a new material to easily keep our current way of life? Perhaps the question should be, 'How do we change our way of life to be in accordance with the things nature has provided us with?'

We are not smarter than nature. That is man's biggest fall down and largest mistake. Thinking that we are smarter than nature and that we can live and survive without it.

We, technically, all should have that giant 'the spazz' name in between our first and surname's.

What a mess. Rather than digging oil, we should be digging our way out of this mess, out of this dependency for oil, out of this black hole we have drilled our way into.

The Shock Doctrine.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:53:00 +0000

Before I went to Utah in May I was able to see a short talk by Naomi Klein where she spoke about the shock and awe theory. The theory is that a government will use a natural disaster, a large scale attack or any other society destroying event to push bills and laws through parliament quickly, without any protest, under the pretense that it is for the greater good and that it will help to rebuild society.

Usually, people are so in shock about the event that has just happened that they don't really care so much and are prone to become sheep and follow the herd and their self-professed shepherd.

Now, this has been seen with such events as 11th September. I have a feeling I blogged about this the other day.

Anyway.

July Seventh was supposed to be, in my opinion, Tony Blair's shock that would unite his people. But being Britain, we didn't really listen too much. Large scale was not the way because our society is something we might not value as much as our individual social networks and lives. So, knife crime, deaths, the possibility that bad things happen to normal people that no one knows of, but they have friends. This is the angle the news has been taking recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7502569.stm

And it says in there that Gordon Brown will fix it. This week in the Metro there was an article about the increase in the number of stab vests being sold. People are panicking already, or at least we are told they are. Is there really more knifes and knivings or are the government and media just trying to get some bills through office that will greatly compromise our human rights? Like national identity cards.

America.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:53:00 +0000

The Sure Repetition of Humans; or Why the Darjeeling Limited is amazing.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:39:00 +0000

I just watched the Darjeeling limited - as you might guess from the secondary heading. I wanted to see that film when it was released back in November/December but given my cross-continental living arrangements at the time I seemed to miss it in all cinemas in two continents.

In January I received in the post one gift voucher for £20 for HMV which I decided would be used to buy the Darjeeling Limited. I waited, and waited, and then spent a week toying with the online version of HMV only to discover that retail vouchers have to be spent in the shop and not online. This means that all dvds are £5 more expensive. Why? I have no idea, because I have to do the leg work to buy the product and the online site offers free delivery. This however is beside the point, a side note if you will.

I finished watching it only a moment ago: long enough to arrange some items to be posted in the morning, make an ebay payment, and make a chai tea latte (which is cooling). I loved it. Wes Anderson I applaud thee. A stunning piece of cinematography that is, without a doubt, a true reflection of life - whether we notice it or not.

When I was a fiction writer, in my early high school years, I would write stories that would end in the same way they began but with a newer depth and different perspective. I was obsessed with this artistic form of writing; being able to bring something fully back to the point that was made at the beginning: like we had all been on a long elaborate journey that brought us back to where we originally were. An amazing concept. One which the Darjeeling Limited captures so beautifully.

That is life though, isn't it? We keep looping in large circles without really knowing. Things change. People grow. We learn. We don't. I suppose because time itself is circular it provides a lot of opportunity for repetition, we can cast our minds back to what we were doing this time yesterday, a week ago, or a year ago (if our memory serves us so kindly).

Perhaps this is the only way that we can discover our growth, is by reflecting on our past selves; by looking at where we came from and seeing where we are now. Sometimes we will see what we set out to achieve, sometimes we might no longer like who we have become, but we always return to a centre point of comparison whether the result is positive or negative.

I don't think we were made to exist on a linear path, although Western society seems to teach that principle. Eastern beliefs, i'm sure, are purely based on cycles - in my mind I visuals spirals more.

Perhaps this is where the mental bombardment of life sets in, when we start to look at things in a linear perspective rather than cyclical.

Wes Anderson has such a wonderful talent for capturing true life in his films through symbolism, artistic actions and short term events that culminate in the entire movie. Perhaps that's how we should be living and viewing our own lives and progression: in shorts (not literally in short cut trousers, but in short movies) - Short term goals; short term adventures. Give ourselves a chance to see our gradual progression, growth and change, so that we can assess it and ensure it's where we actually want to go. Right now, for me, I would love to be running after a train in India with no baggage (as I drink my Chai tea and sit in awe of the Darjeeling Limited).

Hillary (Hilldog) Clinton

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:27:00 +0000

I hate American Politics. Fact. It's not really democracy, and the winner is the person with the most money for advertising. It makes me sick.

This is what life boils down to: a popularity contest. Based on manipulating people using propaganda about yourself; using clothes, flyers, slogans, cars etc.

Anyway.

I read today that Hilldog Clinton has threatened to pulverise Iran if they launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

The terminology she used to describe such an event and act is disgusting, disgraceful and clearly only used to get the republican vote.

What makes me even more mad/sick is the fact that we have to hear about it; that the United States has interfered so much in everyone else's business, to the extent, that we all dread who will be elected, that we are all put in a position that we care. This should not be the case.

However; I read somewhere, I'm not entirely sure where, about the simple fact that no one can stay on top forever. The article was predicting the rise of India, China and the rest of the Asian world. I think they are the next contenders for the top.

Britain was once Great (now it's just Britain regardless of its outdated GB title), the USA believes itself to be currently great and forced itself on everyone else. But soon China will rise up and take the lead (if America don't pulverise them because of their lack of democracy). It's just like McDonalds and Coca-Cola. They are no longer on top. They won't be around forever. Greatness comes before a fall. I suppose the Buddhists call that Karma.

So, has anyone started brushing up on their Chinese language skills? All 7,000 dialects?

Image from flickr by user: jgmphotography

Yours and Mine, Happy Days.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:29:00 +0000

We are in a world where our attitude and our personalities do not appear to count for much more than an accompaniment to our possessions. Cool is sunglasses, cool is soft drinks, cool is a burger with fries, cool is a fast German, cool is running shoes, cool is a leather handbag, cool is going with the flow and never questioning the status quo. But what, exactly, is cool?

Back in the ‘Happy Days’ the epitome of cool was the Fonze. Even now, in the not so happy days, he is held in high esteem as the pinnacle of cool. His slicked back hair, his leather jacket, his denims, his attitude and suave way with women all ensured that he had what it took to be deemed as cool. I don’t think there has been anyone cooler, or that there ever will be. As the definition of cool, the Fonze’s components seem to be based upon his consumer choices, his attitude, and his ‘thumbs up’ gesture. Is this the recipe for cool? Is it still that easy?

When we were children, I’m sure, the majority of us wanted to be cool, popular and accepted. We would look at our peers and see what they were doing, see how they behaved and acted and we would behave like them so that we too would be perceived as cool. Things seemed very black and white then, you were either cool or you were a loser. You either had the recipe the Fonze did, or you didn’t. The cool kids would skip classes, have an arrogant attitude and, maybe most importantly, dress in the best and latest designs and fashions that would appear on advertising hoardings everywhere. Everyone knew which brands would make you cool and which ones would not - it appeared to be common knowledge.

The world is not that black and white though and the Fonze is a fictional character immortalised in a simpler decade. There are whole spectrums of colours that now complicate and interfere with the process of determining someone’s coolness level.

The current state of consumer affairs has left us in a position that means we are mentally under attack from advertising messages informing us about what products will make us appear cool. This increase in ethereal, intangible messages and imagery exists as an accompaniment to the overwhelming mass production of commodities and tangible objects that has occurred, subtly, during the past few decades. These increases have severely confused the meaning and equation of cool. These are not the only cultural changes: we, now, also have an extended amount of social circles and communication methods that keep us in a fleeting position where we are constantly looking for the correct objects and attitudes that bind us to a certain group of people and ensure our success and popularity within those groups; that help us to communicate and speak the same consumer language as our friends, our family and our peers.

Even the explanation of this complicated world is complicated. It is no wonder that we are all mentally strained. No one knows how to keep up, or where to turn to, which brand to choose. Every product claims to provide the same gratification. All of the brands fight over the market place with little thought to the mental confusion they cause the individual.

It is natural to want to feel self-gratification, and we are told, by advertising, that we achieve it by being cool and popular. We all search for the correct combination of commodities and attitudes; we alter whom we are around different social groups in order to impress and gain approval. There is a desire within us all that wants to be cool like the Fonze, wanting to find the right combination to be accepted, to be popular. The thing is, the cool kids were never actually cool. Cool was a concept that never really existed. The people who were deemed losers are actually the interesting people of this world.

There is no cool - it is a myth. Coolness can never actually be achieved because it is fleeting and relative to the circumstances and situations that surround an individual. The Fonze was cool because he was made that way and the audience only ever saw him in infallible situations. He is as fictional as the concept of cool – a concept that advertisers sell very well because they know a small part of every one of us seeks to achieve it. The only way to escape it all is to let go of cool and embrace the fact that we are losers.

Once we declare with confidence our pride in being losers we will sincerely see Happy Days that will most definitely rival those of our fictional friend the Fonze.

Black Friday and the Mass Production Line of Consumers.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 08:42:00 +0000

I stood in a queue that lasted over an hour because there was no order, there was no etiquette - there was just shopping.

On the stroke of midnight on the evening of thanksgiving thousands of people took to the mall, to stand in whatever extreme weather condition their state of residence felt like throwing at them that night. In the state I was in, it was freezing temperatures, I cannot give you the exact temperature because I have the inability to convert fahrenheit to celsius. These people were not queueing for Harry Potter or hot tickets, they were queueing for clothes, for televisions, for lingerie, for make up, perfume, shoes, bags, hats, jeans, mobile phones, computers, and every other object that has been created for the sole purpose of being consumed.

As I walked in to the mall at a little after midnight three young people darted across the car park shouting 'I've gotta get to the sales.' It was their way of mocking the consumer world they understood to be a farce, how long would it be, however, until they were saying those words with sincerity. With age comes responsibility and does that, in effect, bring unnecessary consumption?

The mall was packed, every shop and fast food area was open - I couldn't believe it because it was the evening of a holiday (granted a holiday I don't celebrate being British and all). There was one shop in particular that had a queue outside of it, and my accompanying consumer wanted that shop. So we queued, and queued. As we did I watched the line of people travelling up a nearby escalator, the noise that the escalator made, as each person was deposited on another level of shops, sounded so mechanical and so rhythmic it was almost as if the people themselves were being spewed off of a mass production line.

Then I realised that they were. Every single one of us. We are moulded and shaped in to consumers. We no longer have the upper hand. We are told that we need need need. So we buy buy buy to fit those needs. The prices of certain objects in the United States are so high in comparison to those of Britain, why? Because the population of the United States have been told that they 'need' certain things, so they won't refuse to buy something based on price if they 'need' it - will they?

That is where Britain and the United States vary. The dense population of the U.S. is such that companies can charge what they like because there are enough people to buy products to keep their company in business. Where as the UK have to fight over the target market, which leads to price slashing and deals in favour of the consumer. It doesn't matter which way you look at it, both populations are being persuaded to buy.

Black Friday is a purely post-thanksgiving U.S/Canada day, but the UK have their January sales and the pre-Christmas spend. It all started when shopping centres started opening on a Sunday. I remember hearing the radio advertisements for the first rare and unheard of occurrence. It was a grimy winter back in the mid 90s. I can only hope that the future of Britain is not a day named after the mirkiest and hopeless of colours where people will risk their health to queue outside a store and fight for the products they are under the impression they need.

The Three Little Pigs: A Once Upon A Time Conclusion.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:15:00 +0000

The enemy of the three little pigs was the wolf. He tried to persuade and manipulate those pigs
in to granting him entrance inside their houses. The story of the pigs starts with them all leaving home and starting their own lives, they are each very different because they choose different materials to construct their houses. Three different materials, of three different qualities and strengths. This could either mean that the pigs differed in intelligence, or in financial means.

The Wolf preys on the weakest first, cajoles him and then when the pig does not relent he blows his house down.

To apply that to the consumer world, the first little piggy would be those who want more, and who are seriously caught up in using objects to obtain happiness. The wolf is consumerism and he preys on those of us who want more, who cannot afford more, but that believe objects will provide the gratification required to be a part of the social circles we desire to be in.

The consumer world eats us all up, and we end up caught up in something that there is not an easy escape from.

But there are some of us that put up resistance, piggy two and three. Pig two put up a fight but was swallowed in consumerism in the end.

It was only when the wolf came across pig three and his solid fortress that he admitted defeat. Although, he was still trying, until the very end to infiltrate the house of pig three. He tried every possibly entry, including the chimney. Consumerism does the same, it will stop at nothing to try and tell us about a product; to try and persuade us to buy and spend; to encourage
us to own things we cannot afford; to ensure that we become brand loyal; to force feed us information about the social implications of a product; to cajole us in to believing that happiness comes in the form of a car, a washing detergent or a breakfast cereal.

We can no longer sit idly by, in our houses of straw and twigs and let advertising tell us about apparent social standards in an attempt to manipulate us in to buying things we do not need. Consumerism does not provide everything it promises to. It is necessary for our survival and to fulfil our social needs, but we need to focus on our inner identity to fulfil the needs of love, gratification and self-actualisation. We are all amazing, and we all have the inner superhero power necessary to not let the wolf blow our houses down.

The Wonder Years: A Two-Point Episode.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:13:00 +0000

‘What would you do if I sang out of tune…’ Those lyrics, accompanied by the visual of a poor quality film reel, cause goose bumps on my arms. The life of Kevin Arnold was not just a piece of light entertainment; it was a way to understand life. Although it was set twenty years before it was written it appealed to and bridged the gap between generations.

I’ve been watching some episodes again recently, and to be honest I remember none of them. I have vague recollections of small events or things that might have happened, and yet I still get goose bumps when I hear the first chords of the opening theme tune. This is because of what The Wonder Years actually means to me. It symbolises the family and all of the typical social and personal trials, problems, and experiences that happen to us all. I was watching events on a screen that were happening to me in reality at the same time. The Wonder Years is a family show, constructed for family viewing and so the family viewed it - all of us. Like a weekly ritual.

The genius of the script lies in its ability to appeal to such an eclectic audience. By setting the episodes twenty years in the past it ensured the interest of the ‘grown ups’ who had actually experienced those things first hand, and could empathise or criticise with every authority. The experiences of Kevin Arnold - friendship, love, school, cliques, unwanted crushes, family problems, family holidays, family in general – were understood by the younger members of the audience, because they were experiencing those same trials and discoveries at the same time. This was life. It was almost like a manual for life, with many little morals, and learning achievements added in. It dealt with themes that people can relate to, that people could understand and this is why it is not dissimilar from The OC.

The decade that lies between the final episodes of The Wonder Years and the first of the OC saw many cultural changes. The west grew richer, and objects became cheaper and in greater abundance. The typical social classes continued to change and reality TV took prominent popularity over fictional TV programmes.

I was never the intended target audience for The OC, I was at University when the characters were still in high school. We had a 4 or 5 year age difference, and we came from completely different worlds. It was with that foundation that I watched The OC knowing that it was all purely fiction. The audience it was targeted at were smitten. They were the 14-16 year olds, who coveted the celebrity lifestyle strewn across magazines and reality television. The OC’s characters were their age and living the celebrity lifestyle without the famousness. The themes of The OC were the equivalent of the trials and experiences of the target audience: high school, friendship, love-triangles, finding an identity, teenage-life in general.

There was however, an element of The OC that runs parallel to The Wonder Years and that is the theme of the family, it was the foundation of the programme. The main characters included the parents, their story-lines were just as important and enthralling and realistic as the teenage characters. The reason that The OC wasn’t viewed by the whole family and The Wonder Years was is the shear fact that the volume of objects, in reality, had increased, and every family had at least two television sets, which meant it was no longer essential for everyone to watch the same programmes. The potential that the OC had to bring family entertainment back was defeated by the abundance of objects and in effect the ‘rich’ lifestyle that the script for the OC was, in fact, telling the story of.

The cancellation of The OC happened because it failed to continue to draw the parallels between reality and fiction. The OC characters were experiencing things that most of its audience were not and so the viewings dropped and I was left alone loving it for what it was: a story, filled with romance, wit and family unity.

The family is fundamental, and whether we did watch The Wonder Years as a family or not, does not matter in the grand scheme of things, just as long as we had the same interactions, experiences, trials, arguments, and togetherness that the families from The Wonder Years and The OC and every TV programme that has ever addressed the family, had.

The second point of this double bill essay leads on from there. There was one episode, in particular, I watched of the Wonder Years, where Kevin’s Dad was torn about selling the family car. He had felt an emotional attachment to it. It held memories of family trips, of life, of the experiences that we had watched the characters go through in previous episodes. The value of an object is two fold, it has a financial value and it has an emotional value, and that emotional value will never and can never be really expressed or understood by anyone except the owner or those who interact with the object. Our relationship with objects do affect who we are because the objects provoke different reactions, memories, and opinions.

When I started to think more about it, I related his story to my own car. My car is called Missy and her naming has good reason, I bought her second hand and she is a very good secret keeper because I know nothing of her past life. But since being in my possession we have travelled forty thousand miles and clocked a lot of time together. I’ve slept in her, I’ve eaten in her, I’ve carried loads of different friends and family in her, I’ve become synonymous with her. The memories will always
be mine, but the car is the vessel, and object that I use to remember. It might appear silly to think the memories will be sold with her, of course not. The memories will always be mine, but the object has become attached to those memories, and to let go of that object is letting go of a small, but significant part of my life.

The importance of objects in our life has brought us to the point that everything has become objectified. Nostalgia, memories, preferences and our personal thoughts and values have all become objects that can be compared in value to another object. Even my experiences of being with my family and friends have become objectified through Television shows. Just as I value the time I spent watching The Wonder Years with my family, I value the time I spent discussing and watching The OC with my friends.

The object that is my car; the object that is the OC; the object that is the Wonder Years, they all hold emotional value, because I have had different experiences and interactions with them all that have become intrinsic to my personality, life,
and opinions - their value can never be measured.

Need: The Consumer Religion and the Hierarchy of Needs.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:02:00 +0000

Our identities are based on several components, some of those are fixed and some of those are changeable. The fixed ones are things like nationality, age, and gender. The changeable ones include birth given aspects that can be changed, like hair colour, upbringing, language, and, for some of us, religion.

Most of the generations living just now will remember when our lives were based upon, predominantly, Christian principles of loving fellow man, love for ourselves, humility and integrity. Most religions preach the same fundamental values so, essentially all religion is the same in the context that it is nourishment for the ‘soul.’

Our lives are based upon the fulfilment of five levels of needs. These start with the fundamental physiological needs like eating and drinking, then as the hierarchy moves up it passes the need for security, love, self-esteem, and finally self-actualisation is the highest level. Religion used to provide for those needs, it used to encourage us to love and be loved, to feel safe in the knowledge of our faith, to have self-esteem in ourselves and finally to help us feel one hundred percent gratified with our lives, and our success, because we had a belief and a knowledge that there was more to life than the objects that surround us. Our needs were fulfilled through our faith in religion and our belief and awareness of an inner soul. Attendance at church is evidence enough to claim that we were aware of the need to nourish our inner, psychological selves.

It all started to change though, as consumerism became the forefront of living, and the material possessions in the world started to provide a social gratification, there was no longer a need to believe in something that was intangible. Why would you need to when you could believe in Nike, Coca-Cola or Sony: the lust and desire for objects overshadowed the religious precepts that our nation was, not too long ago, built upon.

This has lead to a paradigm shift in the hierarchy of needs. Based upon my own research and theories I have come to the conclusion that the needs of the individual are no longer represented by a triangle, but more-so a circle, or sphere.

Based upon the original hierarchy determined by Maslow, my own theory starts similarly with the Physiological needs in the centre. It is a small circle that is the pinnacle and inner most important need. It ensures our basic survival and it always requires us to consume in order to fulfil it.

The middle circle is our need to love and be loved, our need for belonging, stability and security. This ring encases the physiological needs because we are now more focused on achieving more than just survival. Basic survival is taken for granted and our concentrations now lie on making consumer choices that will ensure we feel safe, and we are loved. This includes making fashion decisions in order to be accepted by friends, and selecting brands that will ensure stability – those that are known and expected to provide high quality, thus, making the consumer decision process easier.The last ring and circle is self-actualisation and self-esteem. It is our top priority and we use consumerism to make us feel good about ourselves, to help us feel like we belong, or that we are more successful than others.

This is our new religion, this is what we have replaced spirituality with: objects. Christmas time is one of the prime examples. What used to be a pagan holiday, adopted by the Christians to honour the birth of their saviour has now been passed on to the corporate companies to exploit and make profit.

My Mum recounted a story to me recently about the introduction of Cabbage Patch Kids dolls. It would have been somewhere in the mid 80s. Presents, gifts and toys were always a treat, and the smallest present would suffice. I remember Christmas in my young childhood, I would be overwhelmed with excitement at the prospects of receiving presents, and new toys. I’m sure I had already formed my Sindy doll and My Little Pony obsession, so any new additions to the fold were always welcome.

This particular year there was a huge push and market for Cabbage Patch Dolls. Everyone wanted one, and everyone had to have one for Christmas. It was this point that, my Mum has decided, was the turning point for consumerism - she stakes the blame solely on the Cabbage Patch. Naturally, like every other child in school, and everyone on the street who had a TV, I wanted a Cabbage Patch doll. They were in short supply and high demand, and they also cost £20. Which, in the mid 80s, was a lot of money. Usually the average Christmas gift would total in around £10, to double that price was a huge risk taken by manufacturers and the marketers. It worked though, and since then the prices have risen and the quality has dropped,
but as long as the product is in short supply and high demand, it is the must have toy for the Christmas season. If you receive one, you are the luckiest, most popular and coolest person in school, on the street and in life.

I never received a cabbage patch kids doll until a while after their release, and it was only a 4-inch plastic figure. But it made me happy. It had the brand, it had the woollen hair, and it almost looked like me. I had made a connection with an object that I had longed for, and when I achieved it, it fulfilled my need of love, and self-gratification, because socially, I had the object it would take to be successful.

That is the consumer religion, obtaining the inner happiness and joy with a product. Unfortunately we will grow out of that product socially, which means we will loose the inner happiness it had provided. This will lead to a constant feeling of instability and a need to keep looking for the item that will never let us down, that will always portray our changing inner identity and that will always satisfy our wants which, appear, to us, to be needs.

Financial Value: Branded Gratification.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:50:00 +0000

Every object has two ways of measuring its value. One is financially the other is emotionally, the latter will be discussed as part of the double-bill finale, the former will be discussed now.

If I was to show up to a business meeting driving a BMW, wearing a Prada skirt and jacket, Monolo Blanihk shoes, and brandishing a leather bag with the word Dior engraved subtly on the metal catch, I would be emitting sings of financial success and therefore, professionalism, ability and confidence. Whether this was my intention or not, it will happen. This is because there are certain brands that everyone knows, and understands the financial cost of, whether it’s cheap or expensive.

I drive a Ford Ka, it’s small, impractical for large loads of people or luggage, but it does the job, it’s served me well during the four years that I’ve owned it. But I am aware that I will have to upgrade one day, as I earn more money and I can afford more, the social implications of the consumer world will encourage me to change my car, to upgrade it to one that reflects how I feel I have progressed in life. This is a form of self-gratification.

According to the social implications of branding I have not ‘made it’ in life until I own a car, or a house, or any other branded object that holds such successful symbolism. The brands that cost the most, that have the best advertising and that apparently produce the best quality objects are the ones that reward the consumer by physically emanating success.

Without a healthy advertising campaign and brand presence the object’s social value will be worth nothing. It is through preconceptions of a brand and the stereotypical opinions of those owning it and not owning it that its financial value exists.

However, unless there are cars like mine on the road, with dents, and rust, then the new BMW or Porsche would be worth nothing. Our gratification and personal financial success might be emanated to the external environment by our brand purchasing decisions, but the true value only exists when it is compared to another object, when we know we are better off than our neighbours and our friends because of the kind of car we drive, the brand of jeans we wear, the supermarket we use.

This results in psychological damage, when we end up over-worked, seeing our friends and families less and less, and becoming too stressed about the things in life that are less-important. Success is measured from the inside, but it is so easy to be caught up in the social hype that demands us to buy out of our means in order to feel like we are achieving, and to feel like we are meeting the goals, demands and expectations of our neighbours, peers, and colleagues.

It’s hard to break such expectations; it takes a lot of inner self-confidence and the knowledge to exist in the consumer world by standing out and going against the grain; by questioning the social expectations and blatantly challenging them.

Harry Potter and the Social Community.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:42:00 +0000

I have never really been a fan of Harry Potter. I don’t remember exactly when I first heard the name Harry Potter, I guess it was sometime around 2001, when I was getting ready to leave Secondary School and move to Dundee for University. I was fully submerged in my ‘unique’ phase, during which, I would go out of my way to be different and to against the grind. The foundations of my standards and morals had already ensured that my teenage conduct was contrary to the expected, so when something over-popular appeared I was not interested in the slightest.

Harry Potter continued to increase in popularity and before long there was a huge fan base that was hard to avoid. There was always someone that I knew that loved Harry Potter. The natural commercialised order of entertainment soon ensured that a movie would be released. This, I had no qualms about seeing. I think I was even one of the first people in the UK to see it.
The years passed on, and so did the movies, until 2004 when The Prisoner of Azkaban suddenly surpassed the entertainment of the previous two movies. I remember thinking that it was an exceptionally well thought out and planned piece of cinematography, I have always been partial to films that embrace the space time continuum, because I am a child of the eighties and therefore a born and bred fan of Back to the Future.

Moving on to the fourth movie, and I found myself in attendance of the midnight showing in Glasgow with two of the greatest friends I will ever have.It was this year that I was working full time as a web-designer and I would spend many hours listening to music and on occasion I would dapple in some comedy or audio books. After the fourth movie I really wanted to know what happened next. So, I obtained the fifth book on mp3 and ensued to listen to it for twenty-six hours of my working week.

Having previously never read any of the books, I was amazed at the finer details and the deeper story line that is simply brushed over in the movies. I somehow, prior to my listening of the fifth book, had learned of the deaths of certain characters in the fifth and sixth books, therefore at the end of the fifth I refused to read or listen to the sixth until I knew for sure the seventh book and the definite ending had been written. I would have hated to have a two-year cliff-hanger. The ‘real’ fans though, were dedicated to the cause, that was for sure. I felt more like a fly on the wall of an epic tale that had taken years to discover.

Then the end came. 2007. The release of movie five spurred my Harry Potter curiosity once again, and I found myself enthralled in the movie that I had listened to 18 months previous. I wanted to understand the Harry Potter hype; I wanted to know why it was so exciting, for weeks talk of the seventh and last book had been hitting headlines. It had been the talk of many conversations with friends and the number of friends that I have who are avid fans have increased, this is either because of the growing popularity of the series or because my social circles are always changing.

I found myself cramming the sixth book into 4 days. I listened to it on mp3 as I worked - I was ‘catching up’ essentially. In comparison to the Harry Potter fans, who have been with him from the word go, I was cheating. An intensive seventeen hours worth of listening brought me right up to the day the seventh book was released, with a few hours to spare.

I decided to head out early and observe the ‘hype.’ Borders was the first port of call - they were hosting a Harry Potter party. Families, friends, the old and the young were dressed to the wizarding-nines, some assuming outfits of significant characters,
but everyone part of something bigger than themselves. Every person in the shop, past 10pm was there for the same purpose. You didn’t have to be a fan to feel the connection and the sense of social community.

A short distance away there were huge queues forming outside the two other bookshops in the city, supermarkets were plagued with hoards of Potter fans, and there was still 2 hours before the launch.

I waited outside one of the other bookshops and witnessed the queue increase in size and variation. (I say variation because the people who were there didn’t have one particular obvious trait in common with another.) There were hecklers, people jeering, and laughing; people intent on ruining the ending, or mocking the queuing people for their passion, dedication and care for Harry Potter, we will call them un-fans. At one point during the wait there was a short-lived fight between some of the un-fans and one of the Harry Potter fans. Unfortunately for him he did not have the magical power Harry possess in order to protect himself from the un-fans.

Just before midnight we were allowed into the shop and then there was a ten second countdown and consumer madness ensued: Book after book leaving the shop ready to start the race to the finish.

I hadn’t expected to read the book so quickly, I felt that life would get in the way. My reading began after my drive home from town and it ended that night around page 90 and at 3am.

When I awoke the next morning my flatmate had reached well in to the 300page mark. By Sunday I was hearing of the hoards of people who had finished the book. I ended up in conversations with people about the few chapters I had read, and then I found myself growing nervous and anxious in case the conversation developed in to a plot spoiler. Around 3pm on Sunday I shut myself off from society. I could no longer communicate with anyone just in case they knew something I didn’t.

On Monday I kept a low profile and on the Tuesday, I refused to leave the house until it was finished.

By the end my reading was no longer for pleasure, it was for self-discovery, and the chance to learn for myself what happened. It was not a race to the finish, it was a race to be free. Free from the paranoia and fear that the ending might be spoiled for me.

For those brief days I was part of the Harry Potter hype, although I felt like somewhat of an impostor because I had cheated my way to where I was. I had no 2-year wait between books, and I had not grown up with or developed along side Harry, Ron, Hermione, or Neville. My view was very passive and disconnceted because I had to look back to compare my own life and experiences with the character’s lives.

I started to understand why Harry Potter was so important to those younger than me, and to those whom had found him years before I had. He was a comfort to them; he was a connecting object - he brought people together and helped them find a common interest. Rather than settling in to a pre-existing social circle Harry Potter was the basis of social formations. As one of my friends said ‘it’s how you wish your own childhood had been.’ The appeal of Harry Potter is the mythology and the magic; the ability to reach beyond the normal constraints of society and live a completely parallel life filled with fantasy and adventure. The books appeal to such a high range of people because the writing style encapsulates the reader and allows them to feel part of something bigger. That something boils down to two things: One. The fictionalised wizard community, with its intricate details and ability to co-exist with the contemporary world we live in, thus making it completely possible to be less than fiction. Two. The worldwide community of Harry Potter fans, with it’s many nationalities, and different types
of people, with different interests all united over the one book and story.

Reading the same book as the rest of the world for a few short hours or days is something that I will never feel again. I don’t think there has ever been such a hype and such a popular demand for a book that causes hundreds of people to be awake and queuing for hours just to be a part of something and I honestly believe that it might never happen again.

One of my main reasons for partaking in the Harry Potter hype this time was because I realised it is and was a cultural phenomenon. I still don’t believe that I am a Harry Potter fan, I think I missed that opportunity years ago. What I have come to realise is that whether you are a fan or not, that on the stroke of midnight on the 21st of July 2007, where you were and what you were doing matters. It will become a part of who you are. Whether you were queuing, sleeping, waiting, unknowing, not-caring, a full fan, a half fan, or an un-fan, your actions will be marked as your identity. The way that we react to an object and the way that we perceive other people interacting with that object in effect becomes a part of who we are. The value is undefined and varies from person to person, but for me Harry Potter will always be a cultural phenomenon that gripped the world and forced people to choose a position: for, against or neutral. The magnitude of that choice will never really be understood, social circles will continue to form around other objects, but an individual’s reaction to Harry Potter will always mark what kind of person you were and are. Whether you regret not partaking of the universal read, whether you waited until it was less popular, perhaps you still don’t care or perhaps you were one of the hecklers. My explanation for the hecklers lies in the fact that we all, as human beings, want to be part of something bigger and we want to feel a social, collective belonging. Essentially, they are jealous of what Harry Potter fans have. This reasoning also includes those who wanted to know the ending to feel a small connection to the social Harry Potter collective.

The emotional and sentimental value of the events that Harry Potter has created will be a part of every individual’s identity. For me personally, the value that lies in the experiences of the book launches I have partaken in, the people I have talked to about Harry Potter, the people I have queued with, the people I have watched the movies with (and the experiences before and after the movie viewing); the general memories that I have attached to the significant events that Harry Potter has created will always be a part of who I am. It could be argued that I do not need Harry Potter to appreciate that kind of value, but without it I would not interlink the experiences as an epic journey that resulted in me feeling like I could almost be a Harry Potter fan.

Advertising: A Stable Diet.

noreply@blogger.com (Vikki Miller) — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:32:00 +0000

Watching television in Britain in the 80s and 90s was quite limited. We had channels one to four - and sometimes Sky One if your aerial could pick up the signal. Two of those channels had commercial advertising.

Watching ITV or Channel Four meant only one thing, that when your programme was interrupted half way through or at least every 20 – 30 minutes you would play the ‘ad game.’ No one really invented it, it just happened. During every ad break there would be a race to see who could guess what the advertisement was selling before the product was revealed. Scores were kept and extra points were gathered by changing and adding rules.

I never really thought about it much at the time, but with hindsight, it’s almost terrifying to think that because of a certain song, or a certain character in an advertisement I would know exactly what I was being sold: the brand, the product and the object. I was receiving those advertising messages loud and clear, and I was also creating a bond with them.

I used to get excited about the next installment of the ‘Oxo’ family, and I wanted to see how Lurpack’s Douglas would next attempt to play his trombone. That is one of the many methods advertising uses to captivate the target audience. It encourages the viewer to feel a bond and an affiliation to a particular campaign.

I was once standing in Holborn tube station in London waiting for the next train. There’s not much to do on those platforms other than watch the mice, watch the people, or read the large advertisements strewn across the panels on the wall that you are ‘supposed’ to stand facing. I was doing just that, and I was enthralled in the wit, humour and relevance of a FedEx campaign that used their corporate identity to sell their services. That seems like a pretty obvious and common thing, but the manner in which it was executed was so clean, and clever that I instantly felt an affiliation to the brand. I felt like I had been allowed in to their ‘club,’ because I understood and deciphered the dual meanings of each of the posters in the campaign.

This method preys on our need to feel stability and belonging. Stability was provided through the continuous use of the corporate colours, and belonging provided by giving the viewer the chance to solve a simple puzzle. There are so many techniques that advertisers use, but it all comes down to the basics of type, colour, image and knowing the target audience.

Two further examples of knowing the target audience starts in my homeland, Scotland. Since I remember being alive I remember Irn Bru. One of the country’s most famous productions, which has maintained its orange and blue corporate livery has become a renowned and honoured piece of national identity and culture. Their advertisements have always been quirky, humourous and in par with the sense of humour shared by the majority of Scots.

My other example brings us to the underground subway system in New York. I was making a platform transfer somewhere in the middle of Manhattan, which involved a lot of stairs - moving and stationary. I remember reaching the top of one flight of stairs and being surrounded by eloquent but dirty tiles on the walls that were covered in advertisements that had been rawly affixed, so that the advertisements themselves had geometric bumps and grooves.

The one that struck me depicted a lone figure photographed in the middle of a sporting event, so he was kitted up (in Adidas), sweaty, and his facial expression appeared to emanate passion. Beside his image sat a large paragraph of text. The text was almost a mantra or a manifesto; a declaration to the world that sport was serious, and that everything was possible. The exact coined phrase was ‘Impossible is Nothing.’ I was impressed by the power of this campaign and the thought was embedded in my mind that Adidas are serious about sport, and help people to achieve the impossible. I returned home from that trip to see
a live advertisement on television, that depicted an athlete performing to their best and beyond, while a dramatic voice, filled with conviction, recited the mantra that I, myself, had read on that tiled wall in Manhattan. I felt close to the brand, I felt that somehow a 3000-mile gap between the United Kingdom and the East Coast of America had been bridged by Adidas.

I believe the ‘impossible is nothing’ slogan is still running after three years and still a synonymous part of the Adidas brand and promise, the promise that you can achieve anything as long as you choose Adidas.

It appears a little ridiculous now, but that was the power of that campaign in my life. Granted I didn’t run out and buy new clothing branded with Adidas, but I did start to respect the company to the point that when I would make my next sports good purchase I would seriously consider their brand, the one that helped me feel connected to the world.

Isn’t that what we all crave? It is a need, to feel stability and belonging and that is what branding and advertising provide. The problem lies in the fact that placing our ethereal needs in the hands of tangible products can lead to a reduction in the social interactions and experiences that would usually fulfil that need. And is life not just about that, experience? What do we honestly own or possess? What have the brands given us back? All we have are memories of how we used those products, how we interacted with them, and how others interacted with them. But at the end of the day, we will still have as many experiences and just as many memories with or without the products.