OUGD501 - How does mainstream culture re-appropriate subcultural imagery and morality for its own benefit?

How does mainstream culture re-appropriate subcultural imagery and morality for its own benefit?

Rebellion as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is “the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention” (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2016), for instance, citizens standing up for their pacifistic beliefs during the Vietnam War during the 1960’s in the United States (News.bbc.co.uk, 2016). Design rebels against what came before in the world of design in an attempt to be interesting and unique. It has also been known to rebel against mainstream culture, to question authority. Dadaism was a rebellion against mainstream culture and values. The movement’s emotion was directed towards the First World War, questioning its morality. The art from this period was sarcastic and purposefully had no meaning, was gibberish. Dadaism generated questions about society, the artist, and what the purpose of art is.  The aim was to create new art and to get rid of traditionally valued ‘meaningful’ art. “Pop Art is a direct descendant of Dadaism in the way it mocks the established art world by appropriating images from the street, the supermarket, the mass media, and presents it as art in itself” (Artmovements.co.uk, n.d.). Pop Art, contrasted with Dadaism, “employs aspects of mass culture” (Wikipedia, n.d.), aiming to emphasize the twee and overtly normal elements of culture through irony. The movement was a direct reaction to the ideas of abstract expressionism.

This essay covers how rebellion leads to the development of historical imagery and influences mainstream culture as well as how modern designers rebel against the mainstream and how corporations use these developments to further their own agendas. It explores how technology contrasts with physical process and the struggle between those worlds. No matter how much designers and consumers fight against mainstream culture, the mainstream will always absorb subcultural ideas for its own ends.

In May 1968, a student revolution broke out in France. This was a volatile period of revolutionary civil unrest. During the year 1968, multiple French universities went on general strike and made occupations of factories. A first of its kind, as “in no other country did a student rebellion almost bring down a government” (The Independent, 2008). The year of student rebellions started at the Sorbonne. The university was declared an autonomous university that would be ‘open day and night, at all times, to all workers’. This was the year that birthed the French maxim ‘Egalité! Liberté! Sexualité!’, meaning ‘Equality! Freedom! Sexuality!’. Students demanded education for everyone.  On May 14^th, students started visualising their rebellion by creating images of counterculture questioning and critiquing the government, with these images having “their rightful place in the centres of conflict, that is to say, in the streets and on the walls of the factories” (atelierpopulaire, 2010). The students wanted to illustrate their revolution, making these posters “weapons in the service of the struggle” (atelierpopulaire, 2010).

After the May 1968 rebellions, there is little evidence to suggest whether the rebellions was or wasn’t successful. The rebellion led to others worldwide, as well as general strikes. The revolt gave students the ability to incorporate other parts of society into the campaign (Bernath-Plaisted, 2008). It could be argued that the rebellion brought “improvements in the rights of women and minorities” (Bernath-Plaisted, 2008). Universities expanded their admittance to accept from a wider societal range, which arguably is what the students rebelled for. Disputably, these students made an impact on design in the future. On the 40^th anniversary, exhibited posters showed how much power self-initiated protests demonstrate (Creative Review, 2008). The posters show a distinctive style of expression that is still used today. Students created these posters to unify themselves with protestors, and did so successfully. The use of screen-printing is popular with designers today, however, it is not a method used to uniquely promote ‘rebellion’. Instead, these methods, and even the style, are now used, as L’Atelier Populair dreaded, “for decorative purposes” (atelierpopulaire, 2010) which they say will “impair both their function and their effect” (atelierpopulaire, 2010).

Artists rebelled directly against specific advertising campaigns, companies, and consumerism in general. Artists such as Adbusters, Banksy and Dotmaster all express their opinions and beliefs towards the attitude of capitalism. Adbusters, based in Canada,  “is a not-for-profit, reader-supported magazine concerned with the erosion of… physical and cultural environments by commercial forces” (Adbusters | Journal of the mental environment, 2016). Their work demonstrates a violent and aggressive attitude towards consumer companies such as McDonalds. They’ve rebranded the fast food giant ‘McFAT’, their new slogan saying ‘We’re feeding you!’. Adbusters “takes aim at corporate disinformation, global injustice and the industries and governments who actively pollute and destroy our physical and mental commons” (Adbusters | Journal of the mental environment, 2016). Before Adbusters, mainstream consumers were not challenged in such an aggressive fashion. Parallel to the grunge movement of the 1990’s, Adbusters helped to challenge public perception of capitalism, both visually and intellectually. Designers started expressing their opinions and ideas concerning corporate entities through the medium of art. Artists such as Banksy and Dotmaster use graffiti to voice their beliefs about politics, consumerism, and power. Banksy “shares his thoughts on the contemporary art world” (the Guardian, 2015). He created a theme park that is grungy, vile, gross, and unfriendly to children, compared to the Disneyland he mimics. Banksy likes his art to be outside. He thinks museums are shit and no place for art. Dotmaster is also a graffiti artist who looks at the relationship between consumerism and art. In one of his pieces, he illustrates a Gucci bag under a paint roller. He “set out to beautify the trash on London’s streets” (Braun, 2016) but the end result of the juxtaposition of a designer object with a pedestrian object is an interesting comment on the nature of consumerism. It shows how easily we throw ‘valuable’ (read expensive) things in the same trash as we throw rubbish.

Advertising has changed to embrace all these counterculture movements. Diesel, a clothing company, recently released a series of advertisements that promote stupidity. The ads don’t really relate back to clothes but instead the adverts focus on the philosophy “Be Stupid” (Simmonds, 2010). Diesel, as a company, allies itself with those who want to rebel against the ‘proper’, the ‘smart’, and the ‘polite’. In doing this, they rebel against the phrase ‘don’t be stupid’ that everyone hears, the phrase which Diesel identify as “the crusher of possibility [and] the world’s greatest deflator” (Simmonds, 2010). They understand there are many smart people around, but that, in fact, the stupid people are the interesting ones. This move against how society tells people to behave is what makes the brand seem exciting and interesting compared to other clothing brands (who mainly rely on sex appeal and high end graphics). It is a very sneaky move that makes Diesel appears to be part of the counterculture movement, when really this advertising campaign is simply part of a capitalistic manoeuvre to sell more jeans and promote its brand image.

The mainstream capitalistic culture only embraces counterculture when it suits its purposes. In 2003, Selfridges “secured the services of cult US artist Barbara Kruger to mastermind a series of eye-catching Sale advertising campaigns” (Tugby and Cooper, 2003). The irony of this is that Kruger, whose straplines such as ‘I shop therefore I am’ are a direct hit to the retail industry, yet they use her to help promote the very topics she protests in her work. They, like Diesel, make use of this irony to appeal to their customers.

In the classic 1998 Nora Ephron film, You’ve Got Mail, a lovable Meg Ryan runs a small bookshop, ‘The Shop Around the Corner’, that is eventually overtaken by businessman Tom Hanks’ big bookstore chain. While fighting to save her business, an article about the shop comes out in the Observer, saying: “Save The Shop Around the Corner and you will save your soul” (You've Got Mail, 1998). The neighbourhood gathers in the hope of saving this little shop because they don’t want the “big bad chain store” (You've Got Mail, 1998) to overrun the neighbourhood, but as Joe Fox (Tom Hanks) points out they are “going to sell them cheap books and legal addictive stimulants” (You've Got Mail, 1998) and that they will get the customer in the end, which they do. Even Kathleen Kelly (Meg Ryan) goes in and enjoys her time there. Around the world, big companies take over small shops, putting them out of business. Now, there is a demand for something more. Some people, even if they are a minority, want to see the return of the local shop and of a more responsible, community-based environment.

Like in the film, people now rebel against mass production and instead want to support local run businesses over big box companies. The general feeling is “let's-support-local-business” (Schwartz, 2009). People don’t want to see massive corporations come along and bulldoze small run businesses. Economically, “when you buy local more money stays in the community” (Schwartz, 2009) because the money is recycled and returns to other community members, which “means those purchases are twice as efficient in terms of keeping the local economy alive” (Schwartz, 2009). Effectively, “by shopping at the corner store instead of the big box, consumers keep their communities from becoming what the NEF calls “ghost towns” or “clone towns” (Schwartz, 2009). People want their town (and the stores within it) to represent them rather than letting a big corporation define their home. When looking at design, consumers are now cleverer, more exposed to good design, meaning that they now want design to reflect their aesthetics, rather than purchasing cookie-cutter copies of the same bland repetitions. Demand for bespoke design with a personal touch is on the rise.

Since the general acceptance that humans are destroying the earth, groups of people strive to preserve the planet. On the whole, people have a more eco-conscious mind-set. Designers also need to consider this when making design choices. The “time has come to think more carefully about the materials they use” (Thrift, 1991) because the earth is running out of resources. “Designers are going to have to learn about and work with recycled papers; second, they will have to learn how to design so that the product they create can be recycled after use.” (Thrift, 1991). Not only this, but designers still need to please their clients. And clients want to please their customers. And the customers want a sustainable image to back. By creating eco-friendly design, designers give the client what they need to promote the success of their brand. The ‘green rebellion’ created a massive trend and, as designers, there is a duty to follow this trend. Designers are adapting to the changing needs of clients and, down the line, customers.

People want their children to have a safe world to live in. Consumers are starting to avoid companies that harm the environment. Because of this, companies are now adapting to a ‘greener’ policy. It makes financial sense: “companies that are supporting the eco-friendly movement are also seeing increasing numbers in their sales. Many companies are opting for the ‘greener’ option not only because they are contributing to a better, healthier Earth, but because it saves on costs” (Storm, 2010) and because their audience is more likely to buy from a company deemed ‘green’. Companies hope a greener image will influence consumers to choose their brand over a less green option. McDonald’s changed their European logo in 2009. McDonalds is “swapping its traditional red backdrop for a deep hunter green – to promote a more eco-friendly image in Europe” (Dunham, 2009) because the “burger behemoth [was] targeted by activists as being environmentally unfriendly” (Dunham, 2009). Not only did they change the logo, but McDonald’s also “warmed to ‘greener’ practices” (Dunham, 2009). Consumers want to support companies that share their same beliefs.

Consumers are surprisingly perceptive. Now that companies are starting to voice their beliefs, it poses “quite a conundrum” (Aziz Ansari: Buried Alive, 2013) for customers who want specific products but aren’t willing to sacrifice their morals. As Aziz Ansari comments in his stand-up show Buried Alive, he says, of the Chil-Fil-A gay marriage controversy, “obviously I’m very pro gay-marriage, but I’m also very pro-delicious chicken sandwich. It’s like, ‘Uh! What do you do?!’” (Aziz Ansari: Buried Alive, 2013). Ansari very astutely identifies the problem that many Americans face when they discover their favourite brands don’t share their moral values. People then have to choose if they want to update their beliefs or their brand preferences.

The rebellion against corporate greed stems from people wanting to buy from companies that share their morals. For instance, some people avoid companies that utilise slave labor, or at least who have publically admitted to using it. The same goes for practices such as animal testing. The fight against animal testing even led to an iconic product produced by Lush Cosmetics, a UK-based cosmetics company. Their ‘Fighting Animal Testing’ bag is an “ethical tote bag… made from 100% organic, fair trade cotton” (Lush.ca, n.d.) that helps support “the efforts of Re-Wrap, which empowers women in India through employment handcrafting sustainable textile products” (Lush.ca, n.d.). This image of two rabbits high-fiving represents the company’s beliefs and sells worldwide. While it doesn’t generate a big profit (as the profits from many Lush products go to charities or companies like ReWrap), the company’s customers expect them to demonstrate their values and to actively promote these beliefs through their graphics. Some big companies make decisions that are not solely based on economics. Howard Schultz, chairman and CEO of Starbucks, says, of his choices “the lens in which we are making that [promoting gay marriage and equality] decision is through the lens of our people” (Starbucks Newsroom, 2015). By demonstrating positive beliefs as a company, corporations like Starbucks or McDonald’s add “value to [their] relationship with the client” (Storm, 2010).

The art processes of 60-100 years ago are no longer ‘old-hat’. Because everyone can look at tutorials on Youtube, the appeal of learning a hand skill is more stimulating. Having a physical object to hold is more exciting than looking at a computer screen because everything is now digital, and therefore it is no longer special.

Technology is exponentially advancing. People can now become pseudo graphic designers by searching for tutorials online. However, a lot of these amateur designers don’t appreciate the fundamental history of the medium to actually practice design. These quasi designers create projects simply to fulfill briefs, rather than out of love for design. Anyone can go online and find out how to use programs. Slowly, the public opinion is starting to sway on artwork that looks too computerized. The computer-generated style is going out of fashion as people wish to “make [their] mark on the tradition mediums” (Vangool, 2015).

Still, traditional styles are losing traction with designers due to the rise of the computer and of illustrative programs like Photoshop and Illustrator. Methods such as screen-printing, hand lettering, and crafting are falling by the wayside. What was seen as traditional is now seen as precious and with a need for preservation. With the increase of digital outputs, the future looks bleak for traditional methods. Luckily, subcultures are embracing these techniques.

Local design duo Max Bainbridge and Abigail Booth founded Forest and Found in early 2015. They distance their practice from technology and instead have a direct relationship with the natural world and “set out to make products [they] hope will be passed down from generation to generation” (Bainbridge and Booth, 2016). They combine traditional techniques with contemporary design. Their craft-based practice still thrives in a digital world, showing that not everything needs to be created digitally. They have a strong relationship and are making products that they love.

There is a movement angling towards a minimalistic, less digital lifestyle for both visuals and for one’s life. The rebellion for personal and for authenticity is starting. Gentlemen of Letters - A Dublin Sign Painting film talks about how “signage is an art” (Brady, 2014) and how we are “bombarded with visuals nowadays” (Brady, 2014). The movement towards a simpler life starts with these people.

Using a physical medium like paint or printmaking is starting to appeal more to designers than a life of sitting in front of the computer because of “the desire to create work that [has] a lasting value” (Vangool, 2015). Designers and consumers connect more with physical mediums because they yearn to “regain the sense of touch” (Moodie, 2015). To learn skills like printmaking, craft, or painting, one must actually go out into the world to learn the skills from other people. It’s more authentic and more visually pleasing to see something in one’s hands than on a big billboard or a screen.

Technology itself is not all bad. Artists use technology to promote their work using social media like Instagram and Facebook. Designers who are self directed are able to contact more clients. There is also a shift away from printed and into digital media; print is declining whilst digital media is rising. This could be seen as a positive because it allows the designer to communicate with a larger audience worldwide. Trends are more accessible and software is constantly updated, meaning the designer has a duty to keep abreast of this information through technology. It is impossible to ignore digital media and soon everyone will be involved with digital media whether they want to be or not. 

In the end, whether it be the cult processes or ideals, mainstream culture, the capitalistic goliaths, will always take advantage of subcultural creations in order to use them for their own purposes. Technology continues to best physical practices because the consumer, in the end, is truly controlled by whims of big business and tech giants, rather than by the human need for touch. That rebellion seems to only be beginning, as a handful of people take their opinions out into the public eye. Until everyone comes together to demand for change, like in May 1968, the world will be dominated by the ‘Fox Books’es of the world.

References

Adbusters | Journal of the mental environment. (2016). Adbusters | Journal of the mental environment. [online] Available at: http://adbusters.org/ 

Artmovements.co.uk. (n.d.). Pop Art. [online] Available at: http://www.artmovements.co.uk/popart.htm 

atelierpopulaire. (2010). Statement by the Atelier Populaire. [online] Available at: https://atelierpopulaire.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/statement-by-the-atelier-populaire/

Aziz Ansari: Buried Alive. (2013). [DVD] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Aziz Ansari.

Bainbridge, M. and Booth, A. (2016). About. [online] FOREST + FOUND. Available at: http://www.forest-and-found.com/about-us/

Bernath-Plaisted, S. (2008). French students and workers campaign for reform (May Revolt), 1968 | Global Nonviolent Action Database. [online] Nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu. Available at: http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/french-students-and-workers-campaign-reform-may-revolt-1968

Brady, C. (2014). Gentlemen of Letters - A Dublin Sign Painting Film. [video] Available at: https://vimeo.com/81921161 

Braun, M. (2016). The Dotmasters: High Roller. [online] WideWalls. Available at: http://www.widewalls.ch/the-dotmasters-print-release-graffik-gallery/

Dunham, M. (2009). McDonald’s rolling out green logo in Europe. [online] msnbc.com. Available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34111784/ns/business-us_business/t/mcdonalds-rolling-out-green-logo-europe.

https://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2008/april/may-1968-a-graphic-uprising. (2008). May 1968 A Graphic Uprising. [online] Available at: https://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2008/april/may-1968-a-graphic-uprising.

Lush.ca. (n.d.). Fight Animal Testing Bag. [online] Available at: http://www.lush.ca/Fight-Animal-Testing-Bag/29955,en_CA,pd.html.

McQuiston, L. (1993). Graphic agitation. London: Phaidon.

McQuiston, L. (2004). Graphic agitation 2. London: Phaidon Press.

Moodie, M. (2015). Maryanne Moodie. Uppercase, (24), pp.76-79.

News.bbc.co.uk. (2016). BBC NEWS. [online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/asia_pac/05/vietnam_war/html/introduction.stm.

Oxforddictionaries.com. (2016). rebellion - definition of rebellion in English from the Oxford dictionary. [online] Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rebellion.

Pretty ugly. (2012). Berlin: Gestalten.

Schwartz, J. (2009). Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. [online] TIME.com. Available at: http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1903632,00.html.

Simmonds, R. (2010). How Diesel Called a Generation Stupid and Got Away With It. [online] Ross Simmonds. Available at: http://rosssimmonds.com/inspiration/how-diesel-called-our-generation-stupid-and-got-away-with-it.

Starbucks Newsroom. (2015). Starbucks Applauds Supreme Court’s Ruling on Marriage Equality. [online] Available at: https://news.starbucks.com/news/starbucks-applauds-supreme-courts-ruling-on-marriage-equality.

Storm, N. (2010). Going Green in Graphic Design | Creativeoverflow. [online] Creativeoverflow.net. Available at: http://creativeoverflow.net/going-green-in-graphic-design/

the Guardian. (2015). Banksy: ‘I think a museum is a bad place to look at art’. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/aug/21/banksy-dismaland-art-amusements-and-anarchism

The Independent. (2008). Egalité! Liberté! Sexualité!: Paris, May 1968. [online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/egalit-libert-sexualit-paris-may-1968-784703.html

Thrift, J. (1991). Eye Magazine | Review | Reasons to recycle. [online] Eyemagazine.com. Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/review/article/reasons-to-recycle.

Tugby, L. and Cooper, B. (2003). Selfridges draws in cult artist for Sale promotions. [online] Retail Week. Available at: http://www.retail-week.com/selfridges-draws-in-cult-artist-for-sale-promotions/1719031.fullarticle.

Vangool, J. (2015). Denyse Schmidt and the Modern Quilt Movement. Uppercase, (24), pp.31-33.

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Pop art. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_art.

You've Got Mail. (1998). [DVD] Hollywood: Nora Ephron.