How to Create a DIY Art Gallery
The Budget Gallery is a "temporary art show in co-opted public spaces" that are curated, promoted and executed with the intention of making fine art accessible to the general public. Stay Free/Anti-Advertising Agency man Steve Lambert has now created a wiki for staging your own DIY Budget Gallery.
Now hop to it!
Now hop to it!
Labels: art, creativity, pop, resources, social_movements
The Fog of War: Full Transcript
From The Fog of War:
"This is the Secretary of Defense of the United States, Robert McNamara. His department absorbs 10% of the national income of this country, and over half of every tax dollar. His job has been called the toughest in Washington, and McNamara is the most controversial figure that has ever held the job. Walter Lippmann calls him not only the best Secretary of Defense, but the first one who ever asserted civilian control over the military. His critics call him 'a con—man,' 'an IBM machine with legs,' 'an arrogant dictator.'"Get inside the mind of a very powerful man.
"Forty years ago this country went down a rabbit hole in Vietnam and millions died. I fear we're going down a rabbit hole once again. And if people can stop and think and reflect on some of the ideas and issues in this movie, perhaps I've done some damn good here. Thank you very, very much." —Errol Morris, Academy Awards acceptance speech
California Plans to Use Citizens as Guinea Pigs: Why Every U.S. Resident Should Care
Beginning this summer, airplanes will fly 500-800 feet over California, spraying hundreds of thousands of California residents with an untested pesticide called CheckMate. This will start one night in June, and will happen again three nights a month for nine whole months. None of us will know which nights our towns are being sprayed, and none of us will be able to stop it. Your children will wake up the following morning, head to the park, breathe in the air, play on the jungle gym, and you will have no idea if their little hands are coated in the CheckMate pesticide. You might even be walking home from the BART station one evening, and hear that low-flying plane hum over you as it drops its load.
This ain't no horror story - it's actually going to happen. The State's Department of Food and Agriculture is initiating the largest aerial pesticide spray in the history of the United States because it's afraid the light brown apple moth will take over our plants.
So what can we do? Do we sit back and inhale the fumes? Do we let agribusiness dump pesticides literally on our heads? Close our eyes and hope we don't get sick? This is not a joke, and this is not the State's choice to make for us.
Join the tens of thousands of other residents who refuse to be sprayed! You don't have to become an activist, and you don't have to give up your valuable time. Just pick and choose from the following easy steps, and make your voice heard.
This ain't no horror story - it's actually going to happen. The State's Department of Food and Agriculture is initiating the largest aerial pesticide spray in the history of the United States because it's afraid the light brown apple moth will take over our plants.
- Never mind that the evidence suggests that this moth has been with us for decades causing no harm whatsoever (and has, in fact, been controlled by natural predators).
- Never mind that scientists across the globe have dealt with this moth before, and advised California that widespread spraying will do no good.
- Never mind that the State's previous spraying last year resulted in well over 600 reported ill health effects.
- Never mind that a man named Stewart Resnick, an agribusiness man whose farming company happens to own the manufacturer of CheckMate (the pesticide to be sprayed on us) has made generous political contributions to our State's officials.
- And never, ever mind that 19,000 citizens and counting have said out loud that they do not want to be sprayed.
So what can we do? Do we sit back and inhale the fumes? Do we let agribusiness dump pesticides literally on our heads? Close our eyes and hope we don't get sick? This is not a joke, and this is not the State's choice to make for us.
Join the tens of thousands of other residents who refuse to be sprayed! You don't have to become an activist, and you don't have to give up your valuable time. Just pick and choose from the following easy steps, and make your voice heard.
- Sign the petition to stop the spray.
- Learn the facts about their plans.
- Write an email to Gov. Schwarzenegger, who currently supports the spray.
- Write an email to Sen. Migden, who's filed legislation to delay the spray.
- Send an email to everyone you know telling them about the spray (or linking to this blog post).
- Write a letter to your legislators voicing your opinion.
- Attend the meetings on 4/15 and 4/16 to add your voice.
- Flyer your block, neighborhood or town to inform your community.
- Send out a MySpace, FaceBook or other social networking bulletin about this.
- Blog about the spray, or simply link to this post.
Labels: green_design, maps, politics, pop, resources, social_movements, sustainability
Engaging Environment: The NYC Air Bear
I've mentioned Italo Calvino's Marcovaldo, or Seasons in the City, before and I'm reminded of it once again. The book is about a man who manages to see the bits and pieces of our environment that the rest of us overlook. I love what the Air Bear does: it captures what we can't see, using it to engage and entertain.
The work is part of a series by artist Joshua Allen Harris (if anyone can point me to his website, which I couldn't manage to dig up, please do).
The work is part of a series by artist Joshua Allen Harris (if anyone can point me to his website, which I couldn't manage to dig up, please do).
Labels: art, creativity, design, pop, vids
Headline Hilarity, or Giving the Vag the Respect It Deserves
The SF Chron is often accused of being a rag, and headlines like this one don't help dispel such a reputation. The play on words shown below is, while hilarious, a little too much personal info for my taste. Nothing's funnier than a nice play on words, but please mind the images you conjure up!
I also feel the need to point out that such a headline seems to reinforce the lack of respect given this particular body part. The headline manages to completely ignore the actual point of the article: Eve Ensler's visit to the Bay Area in support of V-Day, a campaign to stop violence against women. The sad truth, too, is that a headline about an anti-violence campaign is likely to draw in far fewer readers than the cheap joke that ran.
I also feel the need to point out that such a headline seems to reinforce the lack of respect given this particular body part. The headline manages to completely ignore the actual point of the article: Eve Ensler's visit to the Bay Area in support of V-Day, a campaign to stop violence against women. The sad truth, too, is that a headline about an anti-violence campaign is likely to draw in far fewer readers than the cheap joke that ran.
Labels: language, pop, social_movements, writing
I wonder what will this be used for: Scanning crowds for brands and logos
From BBC News:
Programs like these raise some pretty big issues: is spying on an innocent citizenry inherently bad? Even if used for good? How do we keep the technology and/or access to the already established systems out of the hands of those who would 1) do us harm, or 2) use the information against our will to achieve any number of ends (including marketing to us)?
I am by default opposed to systems—particularly government-sponsored systems—that collect information about my person without my explicit permission in order to advance their own cause. I'd like to just be left alone. But, of course, that's now impossible in this day and age. So how do we come to terms with a program like the Visual Images, Identifications and Detections Office?
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know the whole thing creeps me out.
[full story via Murketing]
"The Metropolitan Police is looking into technology which can automatically identify branded logos on clothing...The concept is being considered by Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville of Operation Javelin, who project manages the Visual Images, Identifications and Detections Office roll-out programme: a pioneering effort to turn the analysis of CCTV into a forensic discipline like fingerprint or DNA analysis...'What they do is they tend to go out in a kind of uniform, if you see a kid in a brand of 'hoodie' you can be pretty sure he'll be wearing that same brand of 'hoodie' the next time he commits an offence.'"I guess when they say the clothes make the man, they really mean it.
Programs like these raise some pretty big issues: is spying on an innocent citizenry inherently bad? Even if used for good? How do we keep the technology and/or access to the already established systems out of the hands of those who would 1) do us harm, or 2) use the information against our will to achieve any number of ends (including marketing to us)?
I am by default opposed to systems—particularly government-sponsored systems—that collect information about my person without my explicit permission in order to advance their own cause. I'd like to just be left alone. But, of course, that's now impossible in this day and age. So how do we come to terms with a program like the Visual Images, Identifications and Detections Office?
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know the whole thing creeps me out.
[full story via Murketing]
Labels: being_watched, branding, copyright, politics, pop, vids
Hoisting a glass in honor of Repeal Day
The following is an article from the New York Sun dated September 6, 1930. It's the story of one family in the restaurant business—my family—and not only is it a fascinating look at hospitality and daily life in the first half of the last century, it also seems an appropriate way to honor Repeal Day.
"A recent transfer of a lease for a restaurant property in Chambers street, near Broadway, brings back memories of a family who for fifty years or more catered to the eating and drinking appetites of some of the best known men in New York. It was the house of Schmidt—headed by the father Louis, and his two sons, Ollie and George. They actually put the liquor or saloon business on the business map and conducted it as one might conduct a banking institution.
Louis Schmidt opened and ran for many years the place at 6 Center street and it was known far and wide as Pier 6. Just why this name became attached to the place is not of record. It was in this place that two sons were instructed into the mysteries of drink mixing. From the start they liked the business and stuck to it as long as Andrew Volstead kept his ideas to himself.
It must be conceded that the Schmidt menage was good when it had upward of a dozen competitors in the triangle on which now stands the Municipal Building. It was then bounded by Tryon Square on the south, on which the Staats-Zeitung Building faces; Center street, Chambers street and Park Row. In the newspaper building there was a famous rathskeller. Next door was Pier 6. Then came Leggat's hotel and bar. Two doors away was Humpy Hanover's Curio and on the corner Paddy Shea's.
While all these places were going full blast, the Schmidt boys and their father kept right on selling good things to eat and drink. George, the younger son, was born over the saloon on Center street and has been in business barely three blocks away from there during his life. Ollie, being older, took over the burden when his father died and continued the name of Schmidt in the purveying business.
Not far away from the Schmidt domicile was the home of the Stender family in William street, just around the corner from Spruce street. Ollie was a live wire and so was Emma Stender, the niece of the elder Kate, who established the famous Kate's, which ran until a few years ago and which went out of business because liquor was taboo in the premises. Good food could be had until the day the key turned in the door for the last time. Some years ago Ollie died. His wife, Emma, assisted by sisters, Kate and Frieda, tried to carry on. Many of the old customers stuck, although they had to forgo their accustomed whisky sour or the seductive cocktail or a schoppen of Rhine wine with their meals.
Ollie had died and Emma had followed in a few years and the load was left for Kate and Frieda. It was too much of a load with only a few hours of eating each day, and they closed the place.
But to get back to the Schmidt boys. Ollie had a following. The Center street place was not magnificent as far as appointments went, but the bottled goods were of the very best. The small priced luncheons were tasty and the free lunch good. So when the place was forced to close the boys looked about to see what could be had to take over the trade who constantly reminded them they should stay in the neighborhood.
The place at 81 Chambers street long had been an established place and they took it over. Then the difference of opinions of the two brothers became known. Ollie thought the place should be closed at 7 o'clock each evening. George thought a later hour would be better. But the hour was 7 o'clock, and if a customer happened to be in the bar at that hour he was asked to take a "nightcap" on the house and everybody started away from 81 Chambers street, but the records do not show they always went directly home.
From the start the Schmidt ownership prospered, but Ollie thought he should have a place of his own and he therefore opened on Park Row at the apex of North William street, one of the handsomest cafes then to be seen in lower Manhattan. It was not a success and Ollie lost practically all he had saved and dumped into a place that was not wanted on a street of people who were rushing to catch subways and elevated trains. Brooklyn Bridge terminal was in those days a wonderful railroad terminus, but the Schmidt place did not seem to appeal.
Ollie therefore took over the William street place made so famous by Kate. City officials and newspapermen of note of other days congregated here and pleasant hours of reminiscence often brought to light interesting news stories that found their way into print. The Schmidt boys as well as the Stender girls were known to writers and public officials generally, but their support was not adequate to pay the overhead when the Volstead law became a part of the dictum of the day.
But George Schmidt stood his ground. When the law against the sale of intoxicating liquors became operative he stood by the law and never sold an illegal drink. But he did try to make his restaurant stand up a little straighter and reorganized hi place with full restaurant equipment and with this he has gone along until he decided he had been in the purveying business long enough and barely a stone's throw from the place he was born.
The Chambers street place had a couple of things to its credit that did not call for the use of alcoholic stimulant. True the corned beef and cabbage on Wednesdays have tasted a little better with a glass of real beer, but George's customers knew the value of the food and were satisfied to forgo the stimulant. On Saturday's he had a dish of pork and beans that attracted men from far and near. Men who had never called except on Saturday could be counted in the throng, for such it was, during the bean season, which seemed to run the year round.
George Schmidt has not served a drink behind a bar for many years and he probably will never mix another, but he has fond memories of his lifelong experience catering to men in public life in New York city. He has known personally Mayors and their cabinets and the writers followed him around as they did Kate and Ollie. Now he plans to retire from active daily routine and take a rest that may eventually take him up to Connecticut, where he has his eye on a cozy place that will be his home for the rest of his days.
Many years ago the Schmidts—father and sons as well as sisters-in-law—wrote their names into the hearts of good eaters and drinkers. All sorts of men—and no women—found their way into 6 Center street and the other places. One of the customers wrote a piece of poetry of fourteen verses which he had printed on good paper and was distributed to the patrons of the place. The man was retiring enough to withhold his name, but the author was known to those on the inside. On the first page titld "Pier 6" is a cut of Ollie and George Schmidt. It points out that Ollie is the owner and that George and Fred and Ollie Curtis are 'a brave quartet of bartenders, who only serve the best.'"
Now please, go out and celebrate.
"A recent transfer of a lease for a restaurant property in Chambers street, near Broadway, brings back memories of a family who for fifty years or more catered to the eating and drinking appetites of some of the best known men in New York. It was the house of Schmidt—headed by the father Louis, and his two sons, Ollie and George. They actually put the liquor or saloon business on the business map and conducted it as one might conduct a banking institution.
Louis Schmidt opened and ran for many years the place at 6 Center street and it was known far and wide as Pier 6. Just why this name became attached to the place is not of record. It was in this place that two sons were instructed into the mysteries of drink mixing. From the start they liked the business and stuck to it as long as Andrew Volstead kept his ideas to himself.
It must be conceded that the Schmidt menage was good when it had upward of a dozen competitors in the triangle on which now stands the Municipal Building. It was then bounded by Tryon Square on the south, on which the Staats-Zeitung Building faces; Center street, Chambers street and Park Row. In the newspaper building there was a famous rathskeller. Next door was Pier 6. Then came Leggat's hotel and bar. Two doors away was Humpy Hanover's Curio and on the corner Paddy Shea's.
While all these places were going full blast, the Schmidt boys and their father kept right on selling good things to eat and drink. George, the younger son, was born over the saloon on Center street and has been in business barely three blocks away from there during his life. Ollie, being older, took over the burden when his father died and continued the name of Schmidt in the purveying business.
Not far away from the Schmidt domicile was the home of the Stender family in William street, just around the corner from Spruce street. Ollie was a live wire and so was Emma Stender, the niece of the elder Kate, who established the famous Kate's, which ran until a few years ago and which went out of business because liquor was taboo in the premises. Good food could be had until the day the key turned in the door for the last time. Some years ago Ollie died. His wife, Emma, assisted by sisters, Kate and Frieda, tried to carry on. Many of the old customers stuck, although they had to forgo their accustomed whisky sour or the seductive cocktail or a schoppen of Rhine wine with their meals.
Ollie had died and Emma had followed in a few years and the load was left for Kate and Frieda. It was too much of a load with only a few hours of eating each day, and they closed the place.
But to get back to the Schmidt boys. Ollie had a following. The Center street place was not magnificent as far as appointments went, but the bottled goods were of the very best. The small priced luncheons were tasty and the free lunch good. So when the place was forced to close the boys looked about to see what could be had to take over the trade who constantly reminded them they should stay in the neighborhood.
The place at 81 Chambers street long had been an established place and they took it over. Then the difference of opinions of the two brothers became known. Ollie thought the place should be closed at 7 o'clock each evening. George thought a later hour would be better. But the hour was 7 o'clock, and if a customer happened to be in the bar at that hour he was asked to take a "nightcap" on the house and everybody started away from 81 Chambers street, but the records do not show they always went directly home.
From the start the Schmidt ownership prospered, but Ollie thought he should have a place of his own and he therefore opened on Park Row at the apex of North William street, one of the handsomest cafes then to be seen in lower Manhattan. It was not a success and Ollie lost practically all he had saved and dumped into a place that was not wanted on a street of people who were rushing to catch subways and elevated trains. Brooklyn Bridge terminal was in those days a wonderful railroad terminus, but the Schmidt place did not seem to appeal.
Ollie therefore took over the William street place made so famous by Kate. City officials and newspapermen of note of other days congregated here and pleasant hours of reminiscence often brought to light interesting news stories that found their way into print. The Schmidt boys as well as the Stender girls were known to writers and public officials generally, but their support was not adequate to pay the overhead when the Volstead law became a part of the dictum of the day.
But George Schmidt stood his ground. When the law against the sale of intoxicating liquors became operative he stood by the law and never sold an illegal drink. But he did try to make his restaurant stand up a little straighter and reorganized hi place with full restaurant equipment and with this he has gone along until he decided he had been in the purveying business long enough and barely a stone's throw from the place he was born.
The Chambers street place had a couple of things to its credit that did not call for the use of alcoholic stimulant. True the corned beef and cabbage on Wednesdays have tasted a little better with a glass of real beer, but George's customers knew the value of the food and were satisfied to forgo the stimulant. On Saturday's he had a dish of pork and beans that attracted men from far and near. Men who had never called except on Saturday could be counted in the throng, for such it was, during the bean season, which seemed to run the year round.
George Schmidt has not served a drink behind a bar for many years and he probably will never mix another, but he has fond memories of his lifelong experience catering to men in public life in New York city. He has known personally Mayors and their cabinets and the writers followed him around as they did Kate and Ollie. Now he plans to retire from active daily routine and take a rest that may eventually take him up to Connecticut, where he has his eye on a cozy place that will be his home for the rest of his days.
Many years ago the Schmidts—father and sons as well as sisters-in-law—wrote their names into the hearts of good eaters and drinkers. All sorts of men—and no women—found their way into 6 Center street and the other places. One of the customers wrote a piece of poetry of fourteen verses which he had printed on good paper and was distributed to the patrons of the place. The man was retiring enough to withhold his name, but the author was known to those on the inside. On the first page titld "Pier 6" is a cut of Ollie and George Schmidt. It points out that Ollie is the owner and that George and Fred and Ollie Curtis are 'a brave quartet of bartenders, who only serve the best.'"
Now please, go out and celebrate.
Labels: foodbev, hospitality, personal, pop, writing
Unmarketable: Read This Interview
From Anne Elizabeth Moore, author of Unmarketable: Brandalism, Copyfighting, Mocketing, and the Erosion of Integrity:
"...those of us that actually are dedicated to ethical, sustainable, and autonomous cultural production—is really tiny, and kinda lonely, and we’re rapidly running out of beer. And all we can do when we run into each other is sigh deeply."Read the whole interview with her on Murketing; it's worth it.
Labels: being_watched, branding, copyright, marketing, politics, pop, products, social_movements, sustainability, writing
Sustainability vs. Luxury: Are They Really At Odds?
Whatever you personal feelings about Al Gore, he must be doing something right (you don’t win the Nobel Peace Prize, after all, for failing miserably). Thanks in no small part to Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, the American public’s awareness of environmental concerns has grown considerably in recent years. This increased awareness brings with it a fascinating process of learning, questioning, justifying, arguing and, sometimes, changing. Since our industrial revolution, America has been a society of consumers, embracing values of luxury and carefree (careless?) spending. With the advent of the climate crisis, this consumerism is being challenged. But is luxury truly anathema to sustainability? Must we really choose between consumption and abstinence?
Ask the average citizen what it takes to be sustainable, or green, and you’ll likely hear something along the lines of, “Give up the fun stuff.” This model is perpetuated by the environmental movement itself, whose primary motto is “reduce, reuse, recycle,” implying we must reduce our indulgences before anything can be done to save us. Charlotte McGuinn Freeman, of the Living Small blog recently summed up this pervasive attitude rather bluntly in a recent entry for The Ethicurian: “I hate to be the one to point it out, but luxury and sustainability are contradictory values.” Clearly, this belief runs deep, regardless of which side of the fence you shop on.
Is it true, though?
Is it possible to live in extravagance without damaging the environment? Is it possible to thoughtlessly consume without essentially shitting your waste all over the place? Right now, the answer is no. Thanks to an unchecked economic system that has never once factored environmental resources into the cost of doing business, we now have a world of goods made from toxins, that produce toxins, and end up as toxins in landfill.
Just imagine if companies— the building blocks of our current economy—assigned a real dollar value to the cost of natural resources. I’m not even talking about the expense of strip mining, for example, with all its OSHA regulations and heavy machinery. I’m talking about costs like the lost productivity of worker-drones who don’t have access to sunlight and fresh air, or the long-term cost of depleting oil reserves without a sufficient energy source to replace them. These are real costs to businesses of all sizes, but when was the last time you took a hard look at the “waste disposal” line item on your P&L?
The truth is that the products we make and sell and buy are damaging us even as they make our lives easier in the short term. Pesticides that help us produce more food faster actually leach into water sources, for example, then leach into the fish swimming in those water sources, then leach into those of us who eat that fish. Or, on a simpler level, take your latest purchase at OfficeMax: how much of what you just paid for is actually for plastic packaging that you sent to a landfill as soon as it passed through your business’ doors?
It’s not doomsday yet, though.
As I write this, R&D departments throughout the world are racing to find new, better alternatives. At one time, recycled paper was a crappy alternative to virgin pulp paper but thanks to technological development, we now have gorgeous, affordable recycled paper options at our disposal. The Prius is another, if imperfect, example. A process once hidden from the public’s gaze is now snowballing into the limelight. Companies are recognizing that the up-front R&D costs generally pale in comparison to the ROI to be seen down the road. And we small businesses get to piggyback on their innovation.
What they’re working on is really incredible, and incredibly sexy. Cars that run on air (they exist!); treatment plants that clean wastewater using the gas from their own processes (okay, that last one's not so sexy, but it's really cool). These advances have already been made, and now it’s a matter of applying our technological capabilities to their mass production so they become the norm and not the exception. Quickly. And that happens through publicity (cue Al Gore) and the build-up of demand.
It’s a beautiful cycle, isn’t it? And it’s why I believe that luxury and sustainability are not contradictory values in and of themselves. With our current production framework, no, of course they can’t coexist. But our current framework is changing. If regenerative products become the norm—products that add to the health of our environment rather than detract from it—it could conceivably mean that carefree consumption can actually be an environmentally friendly action.
One has to happen first for the other to be true, of course. But the change is happening. So as we continue to demand that the end-user change their habits, we need to also demand—even more strenuously—that the producers change theirs.
Ask the average citizen what it takes to be sustainable, or green, and you’ll likely hear something along the lines of, “Give up the fun stuff.” This model is perpetuated by the environmental movement itself, whose primary motto is “reduce, reuse, recycle,” implying we must reduce our indulgences before anything can be done to save us. Charlotte McGuinn Freeman, of the Living Small blog recently summed up this pervasive attitude rather bluntly in a recent entry for The Ethicurian: “I hate to be the one to point it out, but luxury and sustainability are contradictory values.” Clearly, this belief runs deep, regardless of which side of the fence you shop on.
Is it true, though?
Is it possible to live in extravagance without damaging the environment? Is it possible to thoughtlessly consume without essentially shitting your waste all over the place? Right now, the answer is no. Thanks to an unchecked economic system that has never once factored environmental resources into the cost of doing business, we now have a world of goods made from toxins, that produce toxins, and end up as toxins in landfill.
Just imagine if companies— the building blocks of our current economy—assigned a real dollar value to the cost of natural resources. I’m not even talking about the expense of strip mining, for example, with all its OSHA regulations and heavy machinery. I’m talking about costs like the lost productivity of worker-drones who don’t have access to sunlight and fresh air, or the long-term cost of depleting oil reserves without a sufficient energy source to replace them. These are real costs to businesses of all sizes, but when was the last time you took a hard look at the “waste disposal” line item on your P&L?
The truth is that the products we make and sell and buy are damaging us even as they make our lives easier in the short term. Pesticides that help us produce more food faster actually leach into water sources, for example, then leach into the fish swimming in those water sources, then leach into those of us who eat that fish. Or, on a simpler level, take your latest purchase at OfficeMax: how much of what you just paid for is actually for plastic packaging that you sent to a landfill as soon as it passed through your business’ doors?
It’s not doomsday yet, though.
As I write this, R&D departments throughout the world are racing to find new, better alternatives. At one time, recycled paper was a crappy alternative to virgin pulp paper but thanks to technological development, we now have gorgeous, affordable recycled paper options at our disposal. The Prius is another, if imperfect, example. A process once hidden from the public’s gaze is now snowballing into the limelight. Companies are recognizing that the up-front R&D costs generally pale in comparison to the ROI to be seen down the road. And we small businesses get to piggyback on their innovation.
What they’re working on is really incredible, and incredibly sexy. Cars that run on air (they exist!); treatment plants that clean wastewater using the gas from their own processes (okay, that last one's not so sexy, but it's really cool). These advances have already been made, and now it’s a matter of applying our technological capabilities to their mass production so they become the norm and not the exception. Quickly. And that happens through publicity (cue Al Gore) and the build-up of demand.
It’s a beautiful cycle, isn’t it? And it’s why I believe that luxury and sustainability are not contradictory values in and of themselves. With our current production framework, no, of course they can’t coexist. But our current framework is changing. If regenerative products become the norm—products that add to the health of our environment rather than detract from it—it could conceivably mean that carefree consumption can actually be an environmentally friendly action.
One has to happen first for the other to be true, of course. But the change is happening. So as we continue to demand that the end-user change their habits, we need to also demand—even more strenuously—that the producers change theirs.
Labels: creativity, green_design, politics, pop, products, social_movements, sustainability
Photography Is Cool Again
After discovering the latest evidence that anyone can and should do everything, I'm tempted to rail about the rise of the cultural creatives. For now, though, I'll hold my tongue and simply show you this:
It's the White Stripes' latest promotional item, and it's a doozy. Hot, ain't she? Meg has one, too, but it's the Diana model. These cameras are fun as hell, take phenomenally wicked shots, and are pretty much what's made toy cameras a cult phenomenon right now.
Funny how it took technology to convince the general public that artistic creation was an accessible, worthwhile pursuit and now everyone's creating with obsolete technology.
It's the White Stripes' latest promotional item, and it's a doozy. Hot, ain't she? Meg has one, too, but it's the Diana model. These cameras are fun as hell, take phenomenally wicked shots, and are pretty much what's made toy cameras a cult phenomenon right now.
Funny how it took technology to convince the general public that artistic creation was an accessible, worthwhile pursuit and now everyone's creating with obsolete technology.
Labels: branding, design, music, packaging, photography, pop, products
Simplify This.
One of the easiest ways I have found to simplify my life is to stop reading the absurdly long list of ways to simplify your life continually posted by life-simplifying blogs.
Labels: creativity, internet, personal, pop
Hilly Krystal Was a Millionaire
Can't say I was surprised to learn that Hilly Krystal, the late owner of CBGB, was worth $3.7 million when he died. Of course, he told his ex-wife and son that he was broke, and he didn't pay rent on the club for years before his death. Kind of sad, really:
"At 82, [Hilly's ex-wife] Karen Kristal still has bright eyes and the vocal projection of a trained actress, but she slipped in her apartment over the Labor Day weekend and broke her elbow. She appears to be slipping in other ways, too: She asks questions over and over and exhibits other signs of a mind affected by age. [Hilly's Son] Dana says that his mother's brain scans show marks that are indicative of mini-strokes and that she has water on the brain. He also says that his sister Lisa, who was a fixture at Hilly's side, pressured Karen to sign away her rights to the club when she didn't have the presence of mind to understand the consequences of her actions."[via The Village Voice]
Spreading an Ideavirus
Seth Godin makes a very interesting point when he talks about how best to respond to the virus that is fundamentalist terrorism:
"The best way to counter an ideavirus, any ideavirus, is not by challenging the medium in which it spreads. It didn't stop pirate radio or salacious TV shows or online porn. What has always worked the best is countering one ideavirus with another one. To use the same medium to spread a different, better, more powerful ideavirus. You don't counter racism by making the act of uttering racist statements against the law. You do it by spreading an idea (racism is hateful, wrong and stupid) that keeps the racist from expressing his ideas because all his friends will shun him if he doesn't.If you want moderate ideas to spread in a community, promote the people who are spreading those ideas. Make them heroes. Amplify their message and help it spread..."
Labels: creativity, free_speech, internet, politics, pop, social_movements
Target Practice
As the anti-consumerism wave ebbs and flows, so does the ubiquity of advice for simplifying your life. From there, it's a short skip to advice for getting things done. Most of this stuff is just common sense, some of it is a load of hooey (yes, that's hooey), and some of it is pretty solid.
In the pretty solid category falls Open Source Inspiration's incredibly simple, incredibly sensible, and ridiculously doable target practice.
In the pretty solid category falls Open Source Inspiration's incredibly simple, incredibly sensible, and ridiculously doable target practice.
Labels: creativity, design, pop, writing
The Thing Quarterly
What's better than a gift wrapped up in a brown paper box? Try original art wrapped up in a brown paper box and delivered to your mailbox four times a year. The Thing Quarterly is an "object based quarterly publication," featuring an original work conceived by a different artist each issue.
At a time when many claim that print magazines are on the outs and digital ephemera seems to be the only thing anyone can relate to, it's exciting to see someone focus on the artifact—on physical art. And apparently others are excited by it, too; over 500 people have already subscribed at $120/year. Not bad for four works of original art if you ask me.
[Read a brief and somewhat meaningless interview with the founders of The Thing.]
At a time when many claim that print magazines are on the outs and digital ephemera seems to be the only thing anyone can relate to, it's exciting to see someone focus on the artifact—on physical art. And apparently others are excited by it, too; over 500 people have already subscribed at $120/year. Not bad for four works of original art if you ask me.
[Read a brief and somewhat meaningless interview with the founders of The Thing.]
Labels: creativity, design, pop, products
Hilly Kristal Dies
Rolling Stone features rock 'n' roll memories of the inimitable Hilly Kristal, founder of CBGBs, including words from Patti Smith:
"...it was a shithole. The sound was crappy, there was always things breaking down and glasses breaking and people vomiting and the rats scurrying around in the back, but it was our shithole and that was the greatest thing. I’ve played a lot of places and it was the only place I’ve ever played that felt like our place...CBGBs wasn’t just about Hilly or the people who played there or New York City, it represented freedom for young people...Hilly offered us unconditional freedom."
Labels: music, pop, social_movements
Limited Edition Life
Why on earth would Pepsi pull the plug on a wildly successful product that sold 4.8 million units in just two weeks? Simple, really: "The value of Ice Cucumber is that it's gone already," says a Pepsi spokesperson. According to a recent BusinessWeek article, the move is part of a larger trend to limit the availability of products in order to increase their value. Apparently, the Japanese have a thing for being told you only get access to this very briefly:
I was thinking about this very idea a couple of weeks ago while reading about how digital photography has vastly altered the nature of the human experience. The SF Chronicle quotes artist J.D. Beltran:
Or has it? Is Pepsi's limited edition schtick a sign of new times, of new appreciation for fleeting moments and unrepeatable experiences? After all, what cell phone feature or computer algorithm can really beat that impermanent burst of flavor from a ripe strawberry just picked? We love the idea of capturing our fading memories, memorializing them in bits and bytes, but what about the warmth that spreads through you when you simply close your eyes and remember your loved ones who've passed on? Is it really possible for the sense of not-there to be so powerful that it trumps the need for constant access? The Japanese seem to think so, and I think they're onto something.
"The warm reception the Japanese gave Ice Cucumber is just one manifestation of a national obsession with the ephemeral. Millions turn out every spring to view delicate cherry blossoms that open and then fall to the ground in just a week. And a word that sends consumers flocking to stores is gentei, Japanese for 'limited edition.'"But I wonder how much of this attraction is a Japanese thing and how much of it is in response to the ubiquity of Stuff these days. When every experience and information byte and thing that can be purchased is there for the taking, it's not surprising that some people might begin to remember the beauty of the ephemeral.
I was thinking about this very idea a couple of weeks ago while reading about how digital photography has vastly altered the nature of the human experience. The SF Chronicle quotes artist J.D. Beltran:
"It's really changed the way we think of photography to have this literally instantaneous image of something that just happened, and it dramatically changes the way we experience things."That we no longer live in the moment but in the technology is significant. I continue to be stunned by friends and colleagues who feel it's entirely appropriate to answer their cell phone in the midst of a face to face conversation. The sense that human contact should supercede technological experience seems to have been almost entirely lost.
Or has it? Is Pepsi's limited edition schtick a sign of new times, of new appreciation for fleeting moments and unrepeatable experiences? After all, what cell phone feature or computer algorithm can really beat that impermanent burst of flavor from a ripe strawberry just picked? We love the idea of capturing our fading memories, memorializing them in bits and bytes, but what about the warmth that spreads through you when you simply close your eyes and remember your loved ones who've passed on? Is it really possible for the sense of not-there to be so powerful that it trumps the need for constant access? The Japanese seem to think so, and I think they're onto something.
Labels: branding, creativity, foodbev, marketing, photography, pop, products
So Much for a Greener Apple
Steve Jobs is killin' me. After a rather lengthy and well-publicized attempt at demonstrating Apple's environmental policies, the computer giant goes and releases the iPhone all bundled up in superfluous packaging. This is a perfect example of not walking the talk.
To wit:
I get that Apple is known for their sleek and sexy packaging. But this kind of look actually lends itself to the less is more aesthetic, so reducing the amount of packaging "stuff" would actually reinforce that look.
I also get that Apple is trying to create an experience out of the opening of the package, as if it were a Christmas gift. But this can be done without multiple layers of materials and unnecessary trays. Self-contained boxes with multiple folds (think a self-mailing envelope) produce this effect, for example.
Finally, I can't speak to whether or not Apple is using recyclable materials in its plastic and paper packaging, so if anyone who has purchased an iPhone would like to let me know, please do.
To wit:
- An external box that measures approximately 2-3 times the size of the internal components;
- A box inside a box (is that second box actually doing anything that the first box couldn't?);
- An internal box made from two separate same-sized components (a bottom and a removable top);
- A phone set inside a plastic tray resting on top of...
- A set of manuals contained within a folded sleeve resting on top of a...
- Plastic tray holding phone components.
I get that Apple is known for their sleek and sexy packaging. But this kind of look actually lends itself to the less is more aesthetic, so reducing the amount of packaging "stuff" would actually reinforce that look.
I also get that Apple is trying to create an experience out of the opening of the package, as if it were a Christmas gift. But this can be done without multiple layers of materials and unnecessary trays. Self-contained boxes with multiple folds (think a self-mailing envelope) produce this effect, for example.
Finally, I can't speak to whether or not Apple is using recyclable materials in its plastic and paper packaging, so if anyone who has purchased an iPhone would like to let me know, please do.
Labels: branding, design, green_design, packaging, pop, products, sustainability
Imagine a Billboard Cemetary
Imagine a city with no outdoor advertising: the billboards become naked skeletons, bare taxicabs and buses drive past leaving you with no final message, there are no posters, or flashing neon, or cardboard cutouts begging from you and teasing you and screaming for your wallet/mind/soul. When you close your eyes and imagine this new city, does it look something like this?
Welcome to Sao Paulo, Brazil, where the mayor has outlawed all outdoor signage. He's been called a fascist for doing so, hailed as a visionary, and generally gotten a whole lot of publicity. But will it work? Will stripping the city bare really mark a "victory of the public interest over private, of order over disorder, aesthetics over ugliness, of cleanliness over trash," as writer Roberto Pompeu de Toledo described the new law?
I can think of three possible arguments against the ban:
And what about the second argument? Is it possible that advertising isn't all evil? (Bill Hicks is rolling over in his grave as I type.) Gustavo Piqueira is a designer who "worries that much of the 'vernacular' lettering and signage from small businesses—'an important part of the city's history and culture'—will be lost." I think this is a valid point. Hand painted signs, storefronts and artisan vendor advertising all add to a visual language that is inevitably unique to the community that produces it. Can it be ugly? Sure. Should it be banned? Not so sure.
And, of course, there is the final question of money; only time will tell if the law will put people out of work and negatively impact Sau Paulo's economy. I suspect it will cause more problems than it solves, although the government does expect to slowly allow a more regulated advertising industry back on the streets.
But more importantly, it raises some interesting questions about what is and what isn't culturally worthwhile. Will stripping away ads while leaving the physical framework really look better? And will it impact consumer habits? I have to admit that I'm excited that a city as large as Sau Paulo has actually taken such a dramatic step to find out, regardless of whether or not it's the right step. Some questions you just can't answer without actually acting first.
Welcome to Sao Paulo, Brazil, where the mayor has outlawed all outdoor signage. He's been called a fascist for doing so, hailed as a visionary, and generally gotten a whole lot of publicity. But will it work? Will stripping the city bare really mark a "victory of the public interest over private, of order over disorder, aesthetics over ugliness, of cleanliness over trash," as writer Roberto Pompeu de Toledo described the new law?
I can think of three possible arguments against the ban:
- It restricts free speech.
- It ignores the possibility that advertising might actually add to the public good.
- It will put an industry out of work and affect the livelihood of thousands of small businesses.
And what about the second argument? Is it possible that advertising isn't all evil? (Bill Hicks is rolling over in his grave as I type.) Gustavo Piqueira is a designer who "worries that much of the 'vernacular' lettering and signage from small businesses—'an important part of the city's history and culture'—will be lost." I think this is a valid point. Hand painted signs, storefronts and artisan vendor advertising all add to a visual language that is inevitably unique to the community that produces it. Can it be ugly? Sure. Should it be banned? Not so sure.
And, of course, there is the final question of money; only time will tell if the law will put people out of work and negatively impact Sau Paulo's economy. I suspect it will cause more problems than it solves, although the government does expect to slowly allow a more regulated advertising industry back on the streets.
But more importantly, it raises some interesting questions about what is and what isn't culturally worthwhile. Will stripping away ads while leaving the physical framework really look better? And will it impact consumer habits? I have to admit that I'm excited that a city as large as Sau Paulo has actually taken such a dramatic step to find out, regardless of whether or not it's the right step. Some questions you just can't answer without actually acting first.
Labels: ads, censorship, free_speech, photography, politics, pop
The Commoditization of Creativity
An interesting interview on Murketing, and the cheap art in limited editions it discusses, has me thinking (again) about the role of experts and commoditization of creativity. Our economy has embraced the "idea as artifact" so enthusiastically that we keep overlooking some really important things:
As a designer, too, I see this. Clients don't know the difference between a useage license and copyright ownership. In other words, they don't differentiate between the finished product and the creative process used to produce it. Now that everyone can "create," there is no longer a distinction between the challenges of problem-solving/thinking/experimenting/innovating and a factory assembly line.
Of course, this argument begs the question: isn't a mass-produced artifact the fruit of someone's creative idea? Not really. It may have been when it was just a prototype, but once it becomes mass-produced, it becomes a commodity.
- People who produce ideas (a.k.a. creatives) are being transformed into production lines. This results in commodity ideas that are less organic, less researched and more simplistic. The ideas are, in fact, often crappy or hogwash.
- Access does not equal quality. Just because something is online, or available cheaply, doesn't mean it's worth owning or reading or believing.
- Who owns all these ideas?
As a designer, too, I see this. Clients don't know the difference between a useage license and copyright ownership. In other words, they don't differentiate between the finished product and the creative process used to produce it. Now that everyone can "create," there is no longer a distinction between the challenges of problem-solving/thinking/experimenting/innovating and a factory assembly line.
Of course, this argument begs the question: isn't a mass-produced artifact the fruit of someone's creative idea? Not really. It may have been when it was just a prototype, but once it becomes mass-produced, it becomes a commodity.
Labels: business, copyright, creativity, design, pop, products, writing
Life Lessons/TV Lessons
Michael Beirut has posted a brilliant(ly hilarious) post over at Design Observer, titled "Everything I Know About Design I Learned From the Sopranos."
A taste:
A taste:
On creative blocks:Just be warned: this is an HBO-rated post.
"My advice? Put that thing down awhile, we go get our joints copped, and tomorrow the words'll come blowing out your ass."
Paulie's advice to frustrated amateur screenwriter Christopher is pretty much exactly the same as every book on creativity I've ever read: if you're struggling with a problem, put it aside and inspiration will come when you're not expecting it.
Old Navy and Others Co-Opt the Indie Voice
Admit it: what did you really think when you watched that Nike commercial so many years ago featuring the Beatles' Revolution? Was there a pang in your heart at the idea that one of the most fiercely independent and revolutionary bands of the modern era had sold out?
While the concept of integrating rock music—a universally "outsider" area of our culture—into mainstream commercials was completely new at the time, none of us bat an eye anymore when the likes of The Who start shilling for Hummer. We can thank the megaconglomerates, of course, who own the TV stations and the recording companies and who often even have a stake in the products themselves. Bands' entire careers are now made by their big debut on the latest iPod commercial. So why do I find myself wretching violently at the latest wave of corporate co-opting of the indie voice?
I'm referring, of course, to the bold-faced misrepresentations found in commercials and ads from Virgin Mobile, Old Navy and others. These ads inevitably feature a narrative voice of some sort exhorting the joys of the indie scene. They seem to whisper in your ear it's okay, you can buy our products because we get you. We've got cred because we know what "indie" means. And, as usual, the irony of a corporate chain store touting indie street culture falls on deaf ears.
While the concept of integrating rock music—a universally "outsider" area of our culture—into mainstream commercials was completely new at the time, none of us bat an eye anymore when the likes of The Who start shilling for Hummer. We can thank the megaconglomerates, of course, who own the TV stations and the recording companies and who often even have a stake in the products themselves. Bands' entire careers are now made by their big debut on the latest iPod commercial. So why do I find myself wretching violently at the latest wave of corporate co-opting of the indie voice?
I'm referring, of course, to the bold-faced misrepresentations found in commercials and ads from Virgin Mobile, Old Navy and others. These ads inevitably feature a narrative voice of some sort exhorting the joys of the indie scene. They seem to whisper in your ear it's okay, you can buy our products because we get you. We've got cred because we know what "indie" means. And, as usual, the irony of a corporate chain store touting indie street culture falls on deaf ears.
- See how Old Navy pretends they're capable of producing a "cult classic."
- Virgin Mobile sympathizes with neighbors faced "newcomers who want to change Bed-Stuy into some sort of yuppie strip mall."
- Thanks to everyone who provided
their input and opinions; look for
a fresh new site thisJuneJuly.
NEW SITE COMING SUMMER '08!
- Choose your feed
- Subscribe via email
Subscribe to Blog!
- Advertising
- Art
- Articles
- Branding
- Business
- Censorship
- Copyright
- Creativity
- Design
- Food and Beverage
- Free Speech
- Frequencies (aka trends)
- Green Design
- Hospitality
- Information Design
- Internet
- Language
- Maps
- Marketing
- Music
- Packaging
- Personal
- Photography
- Politics
- Popular Culture
- Products
- Public Relations
- Resources
- Roughstock
- Service and Relationships
- Social Movements and Organizations
- Sustainability
- Videos, Movies, TV
- Writing
- You Are Being Watched
Blog! Categories
- About | Services | Clients | Sustainability
The Studio
- News | Blog! | Articles| Roundup Archives
