Since the beginning of this BND assignment, I've been struggling with the idea of using the same tactics advertising/marketing uses to promote mass-consumption. I think we articulated it well the other day in class when we called it "fighting fire with fire." Something about it just doesn't sit right with me. Anyway I came across this connection in a reading for another class which outlined the way that the DADA poet Tristan Tzara used the conventions of advertising to subvert its original intentions and accomplish his own. The article says:
"Dada also made use of the advertisement, but not as an alibi, an allusion, but as a utilisable material w/ aesthetic and suggestive ends...It used the very reality of advertising in the service of its own publicity needs."
Is this still a legitimate option in a day when advertising is not as new and its audience not so naive to its manipulative nature?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
i know what matt is feeling here--that to use the same tactics that you feel uneasy about does seem like a strange contradiction. i wonder if it ispossible at all to work from a totally different model, if one exists. i've only thought about it a little bit, but maybe it's worth brainstorming about as a group. what other modes of operation are possible?
garrett, your mention of pirate radio uses parts of the "fire"--the medium, but the distribution is slightly different. it is an illegal and localized distribution with totally different motives. graphic programs can be (and are) implemented in this way--using alternative forms of distribution while still utilizing the standard tools of production--computer, web, ink on paper, etc. also, locations of the distribution are often unsanctioned spaces (not magazines and billboards, but the street).
my instructors here at ncsu have challenged me with the idea that how you make something (tools used, the aesthetic look of the forms, etc) is a political act in itself, regardless of the content. for example, a barbie package obviously made on the computer with neon inks and slick paper sends a different message than a barbie package potato stamped onto re-used grocery bags. that's a crazy example, but it makes the point.
i know adbusters, and pretty much all other forms of subversive design are pretty explicit in claiming that they fight fire with fire. it is, in fact how design and advertising both work--a specifically crafted (verbally and visually) message from the author to a wider audience. now that i think about it, if we work from a different model, it may not be "graphic design" at all. battling against advertising can take other forms of protest, as in traditional modes like demonstrations, picketing, letters to the company or "letters to the editor". but these can be augmented by graphic design in major ways. design can give some serious credibility to grassroots movements that othewise would have none.
i'm still interested in wether i've answered my own question here. are there other ways besides "fighting fire with fire"?
Post a Comment