I just happened to google "Culture Jamming" and found this ad that I thought was very shocking yet SO true..
Children, from the moment they're born, they are bombarded with culture and branding. Despite it being the purist time of their lives, they can't help but be corrupted by society's exploitations.. just something to think about and it definitely got me thinking!
here's the link!
http://mothership6x1.blogspot.com/2008/10/week-8-artistic-appropriation-or.html
Regina George
What I think is interesting is that the mother isn't covered in these logos. This reminds me of something I learned in Sociology. According to the Frankfurt School of social research there is much discussion about how the media (video games and advertising for example) have a strong impact on young people and creates a generation of "social dupes" who uncritically consume popular culture. This picture (because the mother doesn't have advertisements on her body) makes me believe that this is the point the author is trying to make: that the youth buy into mass culture because they are unable to think critically about the world around them.
ReplyDelete- Keekers
I completely agrre. I found it interesting to look at the individual brads that are on the baby. I realized that none of these brands apply to children and are simply brands that are being put into the child head for use at a later time ( for lack of a better way of putting it). For example, the mercades logo on the child's back will in no way influence the baby to desire a mercades play car but will one day probably tell this child that in order to be "cool" and "popular" that they need to drive a nice car.
ReplyDelete- Princess Consuela Banana Hammock
I love this image...great find. Good old Adbusters.
ReplyDeleteThe Doctor
There are two things I find particularly interesting about this image.
ReplyDelete1) Is it not a tad ironic that most of us will recognize most of the brands on this baby? As I scanned the logos I recognized the Ralph Lauren horse + man symbol and thought, "Wow, why do I know exactly what this represents?. We are not only bombarded with logos and brands from a very early age, but we also grow to associate meaning with those symbols. For example, when I see the Mercedes symbol, I think of all the moms driving through an affluent neighborhood in Toronto where I grew up. The power of the one logo is not only in itself, but in the persona it embodies. For me, when I think Mercedes and I think wealthy soccer mom, I also think Prada driving loafers, Channel sunglasses, and Coach purses. Yikes, right?
2) My second point connects to the first through the link between brands and wealth. The example I gave above was of a wealthy soccer mom, and to an extent, that stereotype pertains to many of these logos. Why to we strive to have a Ralph Lauren polo shirt or Calvin Klein bras? If we associate value to a brand, does that mean that we associate value to quality, or that we assume brand = quality? Let's think of the many many children influenced by North American media who will never drive a Mercedes Benz; why is this lifestyles, of all lifestyles, our cultural climax?
TVfree.
I found this image very interesting because although I knew that children were affected by media and logos (I.e McDonalds!) I did not realize how extreme it actually is.
ReplyDeleteResearch studies have found that each generation of children are recognizing these images at an earlier age, in the most recent of studies children aged 2-3 yrs could name atleast 8 out of 12 popular logos, one being Heineken beer and the other Camel Cigarettes. I would like to say that TV should take all the "credit" for this but sadly this logo branding is all around us (newspapers, sporting events, radio,clothing, etc).
This may be off topic but one of my biggest pet-peeves is when I see parents dressing their enfants and young children in brands that they themselves would wear rather that what the child would actually be happy wearing. The best example I can think of for this is babies wearing "Ed Hardy" (WHYYYYYY?!?) I mean I know when I was a two year old the last thing I would of ever wanted to wear is a tshirt with skeletons and half naked women tattoos on it. To each their own I suppose! :)
*Silver
PS. Check out this David Suzuki page, he writes all about logos and the branding affect on children. Enjoy!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly07290501.asp
I love....absolutely love this culture jam. We try not to bombard our children and siblings with name brand or non-name brand items, but unfourtunately they learn (whether through school or television) and are taught to feel less than another that has on Nike or Tommy Hilfiger. It is absolutely mind-boggling how easy it is to give into these name brands. The thing that I always say and question is, did this designer intend for me to wear their clothes, because I do not have a problem with name brands but I have a problem with how it labels people. I know that Tommy Hilfiger never intended for any "minority groups" to be wearing his clothing. I went into the store and asked a cashier and he completely agreed that it was sad, and I told him I refuse to support someone like that. I guess it's just the way of the world, the sad way of the world.
ReplyDeleteAaliyah Jasmine
Some really great integrative analysis in these posts! Thanks for taking up considerations of multiple social positions.
ReplyDeleteThe Doctor
Something I found interesting was the star tattoos (or whatever they are) around the woman's left breast. Maybe that is suppose to represent America? It seems to me that this is more than just a culture jam but also a social commentary and metaphor. The baby is suckling at the teat of America, and instead of consuming nutrients, the brands and consumerism is what are consumed, which then show up on the skin of the baby... you are what you eat?
ReplyDelete--The N3rd