Todd Stadler's blog

[untitled #524]

According to The Washington Post, "Apple generally enjoys positive PR in print media and perky goodwill in the marketplace, especially from younger, hipper demographics trained from birth to shun expensive labels or corporate identity, and who view the Apple as both superior product and finger gesture toward the prevailing Microsoft/PC worldview."

I can think of no better way to eschew corporate identity and expensive products than to purchase a Mac.

[untitled #523]

You know, if I had a healthcare company that I wanted to convince people really cared about its customers and wasn't some evil behemoth that lorded it over sick people, I would probably name the company "Emporer Forever" or "Eternal Tsar".

Don't you think that's a good idea?

[untitled #522]

I bet that somewhere, in some glossy magazine's editorial department, there is an editor sitting around waiting for Eminem to star in some product's new advertising campaign so he can use the headline "Ad Eminem".

[untitled #521]

As I was walking home, I thought of something I needed to remember to do next week at work, so I called to leave a message on my work voicemail.

I ended my message like I probably end every message I leave, by saying, "Okay, I'll talk to you later. Bye."

As much as it was my brain running on autopilot, it's still probably true that in the near future I will find myself mumbling to ... myself.

If you're having trouble deciding whether to label me a nerd or a dork, I understand.

[untitled #520]

An astronomer has written an article explaining why the sky in Munch's "The Scream" is red: because the eruption of Krakatoa had caused unusually vivid sunsets at the time when Munch was inspired to create the painting.

I have yet to find any articles from physicists explaining why so much else in the painting appears so wavy (convection currents?), or from physicians explaining the strange shape of the screamer's head, or its curious lack of hair (positional plagiocephaly?).

But now that I know that everything in art can be explained scientifically, I look forward to finding out why the sky in van Gogh's "Starry Night" is so swirly, or why all the watches in Dali's "Persistence of Memory" seem to have melted.

Finally, art will make sense!

The emporer's new shoes

I can't tell if this is too postmodern or just stupid, because it's a false dichotomy. Adbusters is selling a shoe.

Of course, they're doing this because they hate Nike. Not only is Nike the biggest force in the shoe industry, but at one point they employed sweatshops and other horrible conditions to produce their shoes. For all I know, they still do.

While I'd like to think that it's the latter point ? the horrible working conditions, the sub-living wages ? that causes people to lash out at Nike, it's clearly the former point ? that they're #1 ? that causes folks like those at Adbusters to get so riled up. Does the #27 company in the shoe industry use slave labor? Does anyone care? Does anyone even know what company that is?

So Adbusters is angry at Nike for being successful. Maybe the sweatshops contribute to their ire, but given Adbusters' general "up yours" demeanor towards American capitalism, I doubt it.

Nike could be the most righteous corporation, but as long as they remained, as Adbusters said, the "undisputed champion of logo culture, [their] swoosh an instant symbol of global cool," Adbusters would find a reason to make up a clever, if juvenile, poster mocking Nike.

All of which is fine. One could debate whether Adbusters' tactics, such as their famous spoof ads, actually accomplish anything besides amusing the viewer and increasing his resolve that he was right in the first place.

But this BlackSpot shoe goes beyond simply mocking a corporation's ads by changing a few letters.

What Adbusters is doing is selling a very-slightly-modified Converse Chuck Taylor. As far as I can tell, they painted a white circle on the side and a red dot (?) on the front.

I'll ignore for a minute that, in order to take a swipe at Nike, they have ripped off Converse*. Does Converse employ sweatshops? I don't know. Most of their shoes, I have read, are made in Asia. But whose shoes aren't?

Certainly not Adbusters. Theirs will apparently be made in South Korea. But hey, if you're going to play with the big boys, you sometimes have to act like them, right?

Which is what's so puzzling about this move. Adbusters isn't waging cultural warfare against our corporate overlords here, they're just adding to the cramped advertising space with their own strange brand.

One of the main complaints about Nike is the way they pollute our minds with their branding, selling not so much a shoe but an image.

Of course, Adbusters, by selling a shoe that thus far doesn't exist, that already looks like an existing shoe, and the entire raison d'?tre of which is to not be a Nike shoe, is doing the very same. They're not selling the shoe. They're selling not-Nike.

And they're branding it with a black dot, which is supposed to symbolize a lack of a logo, but looks suspiciously like one anyhow.

All of this so that the anti-capitalist iconoclast can shell out ? what, $65? ? for a shoe they'll wear with all the other iconoclasts while they laugh at all the dumb sheep who stupidly buy their expensive Nikes. Right.

I'm all for discussing the effect that massive amounts of advertising have on our society, as well as the ramifications of decent labor and trade laws and all that. But pretending to be ironic while only contributing to the problem isn't really helping.

*I was unaware when I first wrote this that, as of summer 2003, Nike owns Converse, including the Chuck Taylor All Star shoe. But the point is that I didn't know this. How many other people will percieve this Converse rip-off as pertaining to Nike?

[untitled #519]

I was thinking today that, of all mohawks, Mr. T's was probably the best.