Here's a relaxing song for this stressful week! Take a break and listen:) Resting Hour by Green River Ordinane

Michelle Obama's unaltered and Photoshopped dress

            One part of the Oscars that surprised me was Michelle Obama's presentation of the best picture award. Since when did the White House mingle so closely with Awards Ceremonies, which are basically lengthy, fancy, and highly publicized promotions of films and Hollywood? The Oscars remind me of when we talked in class about Beyonce going on Oprah to speak about her autobiographical film, Life is but a Dream. Beyonce promoted her film and her brand by speaking to Oprah, and the Oscars promote the glory and glamour of Hollywood through the awards ceremony television event. 

            But now back to Michelle Obama. She wore a shiny, silver scoop-necked dress that showed some of her chest and shoulders. This much skin is unacceptable to show in Iran, and according to The Guardian the Iranian news coverage strictly mediated how the public saw our first lady. The Iranian media company called Fars edited the photos of Michelle to give her a more conservative neckline. The new photos complied with the Iranian dress code for televised, foreign women. This alteration to Michelle's dress is interesting because it clearly shows that the media controls how we perceive events. It would be easy for someone to believe that the Photoshopped, short-sleeved dress was actually what Ms. Obama wore. Most people believe what they see, and many people may not question if the dress was altered in photos. Most people believe what the media shows them, and this gives media the power to manipulate how people think about an event and the truth of an event. In fact, when the media covers a story, how does the public know what the truth in that story is? As Chomsky and Herman describe, the media is influenced by many factors including fear of flak and the government, so they cannot unbiasedly convey Truth. Because the media can take so many liberties when portraying stories for the public, people must always recognize that the media shows some truth, but not the whole, well rounded Truth.

The Theories of Music Videos

Una canción para vosotros:) "Tus ojos no me ven" por Joey Montana

           This week my friend got a compliment on her new shirt and quickly responded, “Thanks, I got it thrift shopping last weekend.” This reminded me of Veblen’s idea that non-conspicuous consumption is actually a way to show social status. The “new money folk” conspicuously consume, so people must show they are above that lowly “new money” status by non-conspicuously consuming. Today, buying from a thrift shop also seems socially and environmentally conscious because the buyer isn’t paying for new attire made by kids in sweatshops and he or she is recycling. When a person pointed out something positive about my friend’s new shirt, she responded by telling another great piece of information about it, it was from a thirft shop. Clearly saying that the shirt came from a thrift shop added value to it.

            Advertising that the shirt was from a second-hand store reminded me of the popular song by Macklemore, “Thrift Shop.” In the music video, Macklemore goes thrift shopping and makes second-hand, old-school clothes cool. At one point an admirer even says, “Oh he got the Velcros” about Macklemore’s new (well new from a second-hand store) sneakers. The chorus of the song glorifies non-consumption by saying, “I’m gonna pop some tags / only got twenty dollars in my pocket / I-I-I’m hunting, looking for a come up / this is fucking awesome.” Macklemore also boasts that he bought a “leopard mink” coat because “shit, it was 99 cents!” Thrift shop epitomizes the notion of cool conspicuous non-consumption. The music video, however, also makes it clear that Macklemore is choosing to thrift shop. He does it as a hobby, not because he can’t afford classy brand names. In the first part of the music video, Macklemore drives a DeLorean car, which would have cost $25,000 when the company was in business in 1981. Today, that is equivalent to spending $63, 909 on a car, so Macklemore makes a clear statement that he is voluntarily non-conspicuously consuming, and this choice to thrift shop is what makes it cool. Poor people who thrift shop to save money to feed their families are still not cool, but young white men who drive fancy cars and grab bargains at thrift shops are.

            It is interesting to think about “Thrift Shop” in comparison with 50 Cent’s song, “Window Shopper.” In the “Window Shopper” music video, 50 Cent cruises through Paris in a white Maserati and makes ridiculously expensive impulse buys. In the video he even labels everything with its price. For instance when he drives by in the car, the video pauses and words appear that say, “Maserati: 1.5 Million.” Also, at the end of the video, 50 Cent pays for a $16 million yacht in cash. This focus on money is completely different from that of Thrift Shop, which says “only got twenty dollars in my pocket.” “Window Shopper” is a perfect example of Veblen’s theory that people show off their wealth in order to gain social status and respect from others. “Thrift Shop” demonstrates that non-conspicuous consumption is a way to show pecuniary power, but conspicuous consumption is still a huge social class indicator.

            In both of these videos, males are the protagonists, so I looked up the music video of “Starships” by Nicki Minaj to see how a woman might try to show her social status. Macklemore and 50 Cent show off their status through consumption, but Nicki Minaj shows marks hers with her body. Throughout the music video, she wears bikinis and revealing swim suites that emphasize her “unreal” curves. All this attention on the body reminded me of Baudrillard’s theory about the value of females. Baudrillard says that women’s value comes from appearance and attractiveness. The better a woman looks, the more value she has in society. Nicki’s video doesn’t show her purchasing anything, but in every scene she is at least half-naked. “Starships” shows Baudrillard’s theory of women’s sign value in action just as Thrift Shop and Window Shopper illustrate Veblen’s theory.

            These music videos show more than DeLoreans, expensive yachts, and women in bikinis, they show theories about demonstrating status in action.

Vogue and Beyoncé

In light of missing the discussion about Beyoncé’s Super Bowl performance, I decided to write about her from Klein’s, Baurdrillard’s, and Veblen’s points of view. Instead of focusing on the half-time show, however, I chose to base my investigation on Vogue Magazine’s cover story about this chic, fiery diva.

            As I explored Vogue’s latest on Beyoncé, a link invited me to “Go behind-the-scenes of her cover shoot,” and I couldn’t resist the invitation. I rode up to the shoot in a black Cadillac SUV and stood behind the cameras watching stylists and photographers work with outfits and lighting to compile Beyoncé’s “Power Issue.” Throughout the entire behind-the-scenes video, a narrator’s voice, sometimes female and sometimes male but always a voice with a British accent, spoke about the definition of power. It’s fitting, therefore, that the title of the cover story article is “Beyoncé Knowles: The Queen B.” The photo shoot and article aim to (re)establish Beyoncé’s image as powerful and unstoppable, as a singer who doesn’t need to rely on lip-synching but rather one that can belt through songs while hip-hop dancing at the Super Bowl. The words that accompanied the backstage video promote, as Klein would say, Beyoncé’s brand of power, independence, and feminine finesse. The soothing, British narrative voice says, “Power means lots of different things. It means twists and turns and sort of has its own energy. To me there’s a power in discretion and there’s, you know, a power of intimacy, there is a sense of touch and humanity and we also catch all of that.” Analyzing this photo shoot from Klein’s perspective, it appears that Beyoncé is trying to strengthen her image as a strong, fierce music and fashion icon.

Beyoncé's Cover Photo

            Approaching the shoot through a Baudrillard lens, however, changes the picture. Baudrillard would disagree that Vogue’s photo shoot with Beyoncé captures the “sense of… humanity” that the British accent speaks about. In the chapter of The Consumer Society called “Functional Eroticism,” Baudrillard argues that the fashion model is turned into an object on which people hang signs and symbols of value. He says that the “disembodiment is ultimately encapsulated in the gaze. These fascinating/fascinated sunken eyes, this objectless gaze.” Interestingly as the narrator’s voice says the word “humanity,” Beyoncé’s cover photo flashes across the screen. This picture, however, fails to show humanity. Through the empty stare that Baudrillard writes about, it demonstrates Beyoncé’s portrayal as an object. How can Beyoncé hope that Vogue will promote her powerful, independent brand when the magazine’s cover photo objectifies her according to Baudrillard’s theory?

            Finally, signs of conspicuous consumption and leisure pepper the photo shoot. They demonstrate that even a century after Veblen wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class people still display pecuniary power to influence how others view them. First, the video whisks Beyoncé and the viewer to the photo shoot in a shiny, black Cadillac SUV, which co-brands Beyoncé with the luxury line of America’s General Motors Corporation. The fact that the car is an SUV also demonstrates the ability to pay for gas in a market where the price is steep and rising. Additionally throughout the video Beyoncé poses on plush, velvety couches and cushy lounges arranged on top of richly colored, dense carpets. These symbols point toward a life of leisure and illustrate the capability to purchase items that have no functional value. Photos with luxury furnishings suggest leisure time and an over all superior quality of life.

            Vogue takes Beyoncé’s brand of individuality and power into account in the backstage video and tries to propagate it by speaking about definitions of power. According to Baudrillard, however, Vogue actually portrays Beyoncé as an object. As in Veblen’s theory, Vogue fills the video with signs of pecuniary power to mark high status. Thus, the photo shoot demonstrates the branding and advertising theories from Klein, Baudrillard, and Veblen.

Links:

The Behind the Scenes Video

Vogue's piece on Beyoncé

The Calvin Klein Strategy

Feel-good song: "Ma Cherie" by DJ Antoine. Enjoy!      

            In Calvin Klein’s initially shocking Super Bowl commercial, twenty-one year old Mathew Terry gracefully flexes his flawlessly sculpted muscles to a pulsating beat. After the first seven seconds of watching tensed myofibers ripple under metallic-colored shining skin, the ad flashes a new image before the viewers: a turning gear dripping with clear oil. The commercial then jumps back to focus on Terry’s stomach and the product that the company is supposed to be selling, the underwear. But wait, there’s a hidden (or not so hidden) truth: Calvin Klein is not aiming to excite viewers about the underwear itself. Please don’t misunderstand me, of course the company’s goal is to sell product and make profit, but to do that it advertises an idea, a concept. Is it a coincidence that the new underwear line is named Concept? Definitely not. By showing off Terry’s taught thighs, rippling abdomen, and chiseled arms juxtaposed with lubricated machinery, Calvin Klein sells the “Concept” of masculinity: power, efficiency, dominance, and sexuality. According to Naomi Klein’s “No Logo,” Calvin Klein does not offer viewers a simple piece of cloth to throw on underneath a worn pair of work jeans. Instead the company sells a lifestyle of sleek executive authority by displaying Terry’s steely body and cutting to scenes showing turning machinery.

            In addition to illustrating Naomi Klein’s vision of brand ideology, this commercial demonstrates Baudrillard’s argument that “The fashion model’s body is no longer an object of desire, but a functional object, a forum of signs in which fashion and the erotic are mingled.” The man in the commercial has exchange value or functional value because of his athletic body. Athleticism is a sign of investment in oneself and symbolizes honed executive and sexual abilities. In Baudrillard’s assertion, the model is not something to fantasize about. He is simply the symbol, sign, or mark that represents economic and personal mastery, which is what people actually dream of. The model’s flexing, lithely twisting body is the object conveying the ad’s message: Calvin Klein underwear will transfer to you the superpowers it has given this model. You don’t even need to be sexy and twenty-one years old because the sign value or the exchange value of this underwear is so prestigious and elite that the underwear itself will give you all the power and athleticism you crave. Calvin Klein’s model and underwear embody the ideals that give men worth in society. The company wants people to buy its underwear, but more importantly, the business needs people to consume the Concept that allows this entire sign-system to function.

Link:
Calvin Klein's Commercial
Even The New York Times recognizes Terry
Matt Terry with Ellen DeGeneres
The scoop from International Business Times

My Mac

MacBook Pro

Dell Inspiron

         In this post I want to continue analyzing brands from Naomi Klein’s perspective and start thinking about them in relation to Veblen’s and Baudrillard’s consumption theories. Instead of studying another Tommy Hilfiger ad, I will reflect on the MacBook Pro I’m using to write. What would Klein, Veblen, and Baudrillard say this brand represents and what does it show about my consumption?

I started using Macs because my family always had. For many years, Macs were the only computers readily available to me, but now I would certainly choose a Mac over a PC. I’m a Mac lover for a few reasons. On the superficial level, I understand how to use them and do not particularly want to relearn PC programs even though I know I should expand my computer comfort zone. On a deeper level, my desire for a Mac matches well with the Klein’s, Veblen’s, and Baudrillard’s consumer theory. In No Logo, Klein reports that Renzo Rosso, Deisel Jeans owner, said, “We don’t sell a product, we sell a style of life… It’s the way to live, it’s the way to wear, it’s the way to do something.” This brand-determines-value mindset helps me understand why I consume Macs. I want to adopt the innovative, sleek, and speedy Mac identity. My MacBook’s curved corners and aesthetically pleasing black keyboard mounted on a silver base give it a modern, high-tech look. PCs, however, tend to be more chunky and boxy. Frankly they are less sexy. Like Diesel Jeans said, the brand denotes a way of life, and I prefer to live in line with Mac’s chic look than associate myself with bulky PCs. By purchasing a MacBook Pro, I invest in a forward thinking, creative, and beautiful lifestyle.

Similarly to how Klein views brands as signs, Veblen thinks of conspicuous consumption as a way that people demonstrate wealth and power. When people attain pecuniary power, Veblen says they gain the ability to “discriminate with some nicety between the noble and the ignoble in consumer goods.” When I needed to purchase a laptop two years ago, I could have chosen almost any model available. My family had the resources to invest in a MacBook even though it cost hundreds more than some other models in the market. In Veblen’s opinion, the decision to purchase a computer with many capabilities that I will probably never utilize instead of a cheaper laptop with only the necessary functionalities was a way to display social and economic status. The Theory of the Leisure Class argues that Macintosh was the “noble” product because it illustrated my family’s economic freedom and that PC was “ignoble” since it was cheaper. I never consciously thought to buy a Mac to show off financially, however that might have been an unconscious motive. Klein would add to Veblen’s theory by saying that I actually decided the concept, attitude, and lifestyle propagated by Mac was the “noble” consumer good, not the physical computer. While conspicuous consumption might have influenced me to purchase a Mac, the brand identity certainly did.

Baudrillard’s voice mixes with Klein’s and Veblen’s dialogue about consumer theory. He asserts, similarly to Klein, that all products have a social value, a social price tag, and a social significance apart from their monetary value. This social exchange value is what differentiates products most. As Baudrillard states in The Consumer Society, “this personalization, this pursuit of status and social standing, are all based on signs. That is to say, they are based not on objects or goods as such, but on differences.” I have a tendency to assume that while everyone else in the world may be driven by pursuit of status and social standing I am an exception. Examining the reasons I own a Mac, however, show me I am wrong. Even though functionally Macs and PCs can easily handle my everyday computer needs such as checking email, writing papers, and surfing the web, I value the Mac “sign” more. The high exchange value of a half-eaten apple differentiates a MacBook Pro from a Dell lnspiron. As Klein would say, Mac’s intentionally created and maintained brand empire distinguishes the company’s products from the plethora of other computers and computer makers. Baudrillard assets that Apple’s sign gives its products a higher social exchange value, and therefore Macs have more perceived prestigious.

Klein, Veblen, and Baudrillard agree that consumption is not solely about obtaining a good. Purchasing a product, whether it be a MacBook Pro, Tommy Hilfiger clothing, or a Starbucks coffee, identifies the consumer with a lifestyle, displays wealth, and helps determine social standing.

Interesting Link:

You can block ads from Chrome!