Movable Type Spring 2016 - Edition 3.2

Movable Type Edition 3.2 Spring 2016

1

Table of Contents Man Repeller: How Leandra Medine is Taking the “Men” out of Women’s Fashion

by Natalie Beam

14 18

Commercialism and Consumer Culture in The Lego Movie

by Alison Lenert

The Inspiration for Sixties Advertising

by Emily Anthony

2

08

26 38

Marie Schrader, the Selfish, and the Stolen

by Carolyn Schmitt Vincent Vega: Finding Sanctuary in the Bathroom

by Callie Wright

LinkedIn: A Capitalist Promoter of Structuration and Commodification

by Emily Irwin

3

32

JACQUELINE JUSTICE / Multimedia and Layout Designer

I’m interested in the concept of commodification in terms of the patriarchal claim to the female body. I love what the film Moulin Rouge does with the character Satine in making her a packaged commodity, both in the sense that her body is for sale to the Duke, and that her utility is solely as a performer for profit.

KATELYN SAKS / Communications Coordinator

Branded content on Buzzfeed has emerged as a popular way for brands to align their messaging with media that appeal to a widespread audience. As new media, including native advertising, further permeate our lives, the line between media and consumerism will continue to blur.

ALEX FILLIP / Webmaster

I’ve recently enjoyed Margaret Scammell’s Consumer Democracy, which brings an incredibly instructive and refreshingly optimistic perspective to the study of political marketing. Through her work on the “citizen-consumer,” we can start to gain a better understanding of the intersection of consumer and civic culture.

GEORGIA ADAM / Vice Editor

Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age by Alice E. Marwick contends that social media only encourage a preoccupation with status, attention, and branding.

Marwick conducted her own original research for the book, and the topic is hugely relvent, whether you agree with her or not.

CAMILLE SIDES / Vice Editor

Having become the main spectacle of the Super Bowl for many viewers, the commercials are compelling evidence of the capacity of media to make us embrace our identity as consumers. The job of advertisers extends well beyond the selling of products, as they face the challenge of using a brand to leave an impression on society during a major cultural event.

DYLAN BEDSAUL / Assistant Editor

The tongue-in-cheek commentary in the “Feminist Bookstore” sketch on the show Portlandia uses hyperbolic customer interactions to bring to light real issues in our consumer culture. They leverage comedy’s power, lightheartedly encouraging viewers to question their own roles in a wide range of social issues within the context of consumption.

OLIVIA CANNELL / Peer Reviewer JORDAN FISH / Peer Reviewer VICTORIA TOVIG / Peer Reviewer

4

MEET THE TEAM BETHANY KATTWINKEL / Executive Editor

As a theatre lover, I would identify Stephen Sondheim’s musical Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street as a prime example of commentary on consumerist culture. The musical critiques the classist society of London in the Victorian era, playing out a cannibalistic metaphor, gruesome as it may be, of the rich’s overconsumption.

ERIC LEIMKUHLER / Executive Editor

I can’t think of consumerism without thinking of the character Cher from the 1995 movie Clueless. Though her materialistic, ditzy tendencies serve primarily as vehicles for the film’s sarcastic comedy, they also send a more nuanced message about the way we use “things” – clothes, shoes, cars, even food – to craft our identities. Her “Valley Girl” obsession with stuff is at once glamorized and mocked, which speaks to our society’s complicated relationship with material consumption.

5

Media and Consumer Culture 6

PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER ALI FACULTY ADVISOR

The student executive team would like to thank our Media Studies faculty advisor, Professor Christopher Ali, who who has been an invaluable source of guidance as we have worked on this journal throughout the semester.

Social media - especially Facebook and Instagram - have been brilliant at masking capitalism and consumerism within the practices of keeping up with your friends, posting status updates, and adding photos of your life. These platforms give us the illusion of self-expression and free choice, while ultimately commodifying our posts, photos, comments, and friends and then selling this information to marketers, who then sell it back to us in the form of advertising. It is brilliant. Scary. But brilliant.

-Professor Christopher Ali

7

Leadrea Medine knows how to turn heads on a busy New York street. But it’s not a strikingly pretty face or a “hot bod” that grabs people’s attention; it’s her undeniably stylish, yet often absurd-looking ensembles. Medine, writer and founder of the blog, “Man Repeller,” is on a mission to reject the expectations that men have of how women should look. The fashion-centric site serves as an oppositional reading of the conservative, traditional ideology that women’s fashion exists for the pleasure of men, that women should “dress to impress” them. In resistance to this ideology, Medine suggests that women should reject this sexist line of thinking by striving to dress as they themselves want to with no regard for men’s opinions, a concept that she satirically and hyperbolically aligns with the idea of repelling members of the opposite sex.

However, in combatting the sexist constraints and expectations placed on women and their sartorial choices, Medine, who, rather contradictorily, has become a well-known figure in the fashion industry, subtly insinuates that women’s problems can be solved by consumerism and materialism and unintentionally isolates lower-class women, who may not be able to afford the clothing advertised by Medine on her site.

Clothing is incredibly versatile. We use what we wear to communicate our personality, socio-economic status, social roles, religious beliefs, and, perhaps most blatantly, our gender. A woman dressed in clothing commonly worn by men, such as baggy jeans and an oversized t-shirt is regarded as masculine. Similarly, a man dressed in a skirt is frowned upon for being too feminine. Fashion constraints on both men and women have existed for centuries, and though women face significant institutional barriers that limit their advancement in the fashion industry,1 the idea of fashion itself is typically associated with a vague sense of femininity.2 “Fashionable” women know to avoid temptingly comfy, yet unacceptably androgynous clothing items because they are glaringly unfeminine. Women typically spurn masculine clothes in their underlying and often subconscious adherence to their traditional gender roles as wives and homemakers, dressing to impress members of the opposite sex, rather than making themselves comfortable. A woman’s appearance and clothing is regarded, both consciously and subconsciously, as a tangible manifestation of her worth and status.

Professor of Fashion and Textiles Jennifer Craik argues that the assignment of the role of the “fashionable gender” to women can be traced back to the Victorian era, when Victorian notions of etiquette, gender relations, and sexuality radically split men from women, assigning each gender specific roles, locations, and dress codes.3 The subsequent pressure on women to display their status via their clothing was perpetuated as members of the working class strived to raise their own status by obtaining what the upper class had.4 Remnants of that pattern are unmistakable in today’s media environment, where socialites such as Kim Kardashian amass millions of social media followers, many of whom are enamored with the privileged lifestyles depicted on their

“Being a MAN MAN REPELLER REPELLER in Medine’s sense doesn’t just mean dressing in a manner that disgusts men; if this were the case, she’d encourage women to simply abstain from using deodorant and go out in potato sacks.”

8

The Art of Man Repelling How Leandra Medine is Taking the “Men” Out of Women’s Fashion

By Natalie Beam Class of 2018 Media Studies

9

screens and will pay virtually any price to dress like the celebrities they admire.

Fashion blogs like Medine’s, that are targeted towards women, have similar effects on audiences, inadvertently insinuating in an often subconscious manner that any woman can be elevated to esteemed celebrity or blogger status if she simply purchases and wears the advertised clothing items.

At first glance, the idea that the whole industry of fashion is for and about women is deceiving; associations between the ideas of fashion and femininity facilitate the assumption that women are in a position of power when it comes to what they wear, that women are able to dress how they see fit. Instead, the association of fashion with women has only placed unnecessary emphasis on what women are wearing, rather than what they are doing, encouraging the ideology—the often taken-forgranted and distorted set of values and assumptions that help define and explain the world—that women should dress with the preferences of men in mind.5 The effects of this ideology are evident historically in the use of corsets to shrink waistlines, and today, as women hobble around in high heels and mini skirts, both of which are highly impractical but irrefutably trendy. It is this ideology—that women should look how men want them to look—that Medine has determined to deflate with her site, “Man Repeller.” Despite the explicit title of the blog, Medine takes a more subtle approach to dismantling the pressures that have been placed on women to look a certain way. Being a man repeller in Medine’s sense doesn’t just mean dressing in a manner that disgusts men; if this were the case, she’d encourage women to simply abstain from using deodorant and go out in potato sacks.

Instead, adhering to Medine’s guidelines for dressing to repel men involves more than the sartorial choices that women make before they leave their house every day. She advocates a complete alteration of women’s perception of fashion, emboldening them to reject fashion constraints imposed by men and subsequently discrediting the position of men as judges or evaluators of women’s clothing. Medine encourages women to seize the fashion industry and the freedom that women’s clothing has to offer and to claim their own identities in the realm of fashion, rather than being defined by men’s fashion preferences. In response to the traditional male ideology, Medine promotes the feminist message that women should dress as they wish, with no regard for how men will judge them. She argues that, if a woman wants to wear towering heels and a tight dress, she should feel empowered to do so, but her sartorial choices shouldn’t be affected by men’s opinions of how she should look.

It is easy to dismiss such claims that men have a strong hand in controlling women’s fashion, when the industry itself has such feminine connotations. In reality, however, women encounter the influence that men have on their appearances daily. In a recent issue of the feminist newsletter “Lenny Letter,” lawyer and former Reddit

10

CEO Ellen Pao writes about her experiences working in Silicon Valley, where women in the workplace are an extreme minority.6 Pao begins with her experience at Harvard Law School, where she says it was repeatedly reinforced that women were simply not welcome in the law industry. She describes her eventual employment at a law firm where she once again faced regular sexism. She recounts how one of her female colleauges was sent home by her boss for wearing pants to work.7 This is reminiscent of a scene from the film American Psycho, in which the sexist, psychopathic Patrick frequently tells his assistant what she should and should not be wearing.8 The film is a black comedy, and Bateman’s actions and dialogue are meant to shock the audience with their satirical extremity. Yet the startling reality is that such sexist restriction of women’s fashion is not constrained to the silver screen.

In Medine’s attempt to encourage women to reject the opinions that men have regarding women’s clothing choices, both in the workplace and outside of it, “Man Repeller,” is presented as an oppositional reading of the traditional, conservative ideology stated above—that women should dress to impress men. As Stuart Hall argues in “Encoding/Decoding,” an oppositional reading of a discourse, or in this case, an ideology, entails the reader dissecting the ideology and then refiguring it in a new framework of reference.9 Following closely Hall’s trajectory of an oppositional reading of a discourse, Medine fully grasps the meaning of the conservative ideology that men can and should have a say in how women look. But, as is made clear by her site, she doesn’t agree with it, and thus rejects it. Medine’s rejection of the ideology is not shrouded or really even metaphorical in any way; she blatantly defines a man repeller as “she who outfits herself in a sartorially offensive mode that may result in repelling members of the opposite sex.”10 She embraces such utterly “unfeminine” clothing items as drop-crotch utility pants and oversized work shirts, dressing purely for her own enjoyment, taste, and comfort, and she urges other women to do the same. Her plea for women to attempt to literally repel men is only a joke, made all the more evident by her sharp writing – yet one can’t help but take notice of Medine’s own bold style of dressing; she tosses any preconceived notions of women’s fashion out the window.

Despite the progress that Medine makes with “Man Repeller” in reducing the power of men in the women’s fashion industry, the site presents a few problems. Firstly, in a contradiction with her mission to break down the traditional constraints that exist in women’s fashion, Medine has become a familiar face among some of the world’s most successful fashion designers and stylists. Her refreshing and somewhat groundbreaking style and objective have earned her an esteemed position as one of the most influential women in fashion, marked by her attendance at fashion weeks around the world and her mounting social media following. Her success and acclaim has steeped her in the culture that perpetuates the very ideology that she is working to break down. This raises the

11

question of whether or not her position of power in the fashion industry – which allows her front seats at fashion shows, where women parade down a runway to be judged on their physique and dress – compromises her feminist message.

Does this make Medine’s message any less deviant (and thus, less appealing to her site’s visitors, who may be looking for a something unique that they can’t find elsewhere on the subject of women’s fashion) or does it completely discredit it all together? With Medine’s growing fame, “Man Repeller’s” popularity has skyrocketed, as is evidenced by Medine’s considerable social media following.

More women than ever before are coming in contact with the “Man Repeller” message, but the feminist meaning may be cheapened or invalidated by Medine’s status in the fashion industry.

Secondly, the message that women can reclaim their power as females by dressing as they wish (or as Medine herself dresses) perpetuates the idea that women’s issues can be solved by clothing. Women who come to the site to feel empowered may be subconsciously convinced that their confidence and happiness as a woman can be easily boosted by a trip to the mall. Posts on the site are filled with clickable links that lead readers directly to the products being discussed, easing the purchasing process and facilitating the excitement that goes along with the acquisition of a new clothing item. This short-lived satisfaction that accompanies buying new clothes is thus closely associated with Medine’s site and may mislead women into correlating the feminist idea of man repelling with the purchase of new clothes. Promoting the idea, albeit indirectly, that women can and should claim their power as females by buying clothes is counterproductive to the feminist movement because it suggests

an unsustainable, short-term, materialistic source of empowerment.

Thirdly, Medine’s proposal that women follow her lead as a man repeller has limited reach because she dresses in designer clothing, much of which costs hundreds of dollars. Visitors to the site are met on the front page by eye-catching images of $700 Mui Mui shoes; packed tightly between the letters reading “Man Repeller,” is a large Gucci ad. The extravagance displayed on the front page pervades the whole site; articles range from “How to Dress for a Cool Friend’s Wedding,” to “Turtleneck PSA,” but they all feature items in the same high-end price range. This is not to say that less affluent readers can’t take Medine’s message and apply it to their own budget-friendly sartorial options; however, this requires more interpretive work on the reader’s part. Many readers may not be willing to do this interpretive adjusting of Medine’s advice to their own respective clothing budgets, and, as a result, Medine’s high end, high-fashion tastes might turn away the large population of women who cannot afford the chunky heeled Louis Vuitton boots or the Valentino trench coat donned by the women on the site.

Medine’s high-class status alienates lowerclass women, possibly unintentionally signifying to them that if they cannot afford to dress in the way that she does, they are not economically equipped to be “man repellers,” discrediting the feminist message of the site that all women should dress for themselves. These lower-class women may take a quick glance at the site and turn away, too busy or simply unwilling to expend the extra mental effort required to take Medine’s message and recalculate it at a discount. They may, instead, turn to another source for fashion inspiration that better fits their price range; in this case, the message of Medine’s site is likely to be lost on them.

Leandra Medine is breaking free from

12

the constraints placed on women one Valentino sweater-dress at a time, and her blog, “Man Repeller,” encourages other women to do the same. The site advocates, in an oppositional manner, a deviation from the traditional ideology that women should dress with the opinions of men in mind, instead projecting its own message: that women should be dressing to please themselves, and only themselves. Readers may take Medine’s satirically extreme status as a “man repeller” more seriously in theory rather than in practice, but the essence of the man repeller identity is one of reality. Medine attains it by dressing as if she is about to be photographed in an editorial shoot, regardless of whether she is running a quick errand or attending the Chanel show in Paris.

Her site has earned her a position among big-name fashion designers in the industry, contradictorily immersing her in the very

13

constraints that she is trying to break down.

Despite the feminist messages conveyed by the site, a deeper consideration reveals an underlying counterproductive assumption that women can simply solve their problems by purchasing different clothing. In addition, audience members may feel alienated by Medine’s minority status as a member of the wealthy upper class, leading them to reject the site and its feminist message.

Commercialism and Consumer Culture in

The Lego Movie By alison lenert / Class of 2016 / Media Studies

14

Despite its being deemed a “100-minute commercial” by some critics, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller’s The Lego Movie was the number four top-grossing film in 2014. The story follows an ordinary construction worker, Emmett, as he and a group of rebels work to defeat Lord Business, who wants to freeze their universe into a state of order and perfection. Ultimately, the film tells a tale of the power of imagination and creativity. It encourages individuality and a break from strict “instructions” of how to fit in or be special. It tells us that we are all special when given the opportunity. The Lego Movie itself is unique, because despite its existence as a consumer product (both as the Lego brand and as a big studio motion picture film), it critiques consumers, mass culture, and big business. However, given its medium, The Lego Movie cannot wholly denounce a capitalism system, and it does not try to do so. David Pierce explains that “Lord and Miller [do] their brand-building duty while simultaneously rolling their eyes at it.”1 This is The Lego Movie’s feat –its ability to comment on mass culture and conformity using (and creating) a product adored by the masses themselves.

The beginning of The Lego Movie establishes a world constructed and controlled by Mr. Business. It is one that values order, conformity, and perfection above all else. When we first meet Emmett, he wakes up for the day and immediately looks to his daily instruction manual: “How to: Fit In, Have Everybody Like You, and Always be Happy.” He turns on the TV to the one channel available, and Mr. Business tells all the citizens to “follow instructions or you’ll be put to sleep.” On Emmett’ s way to work, there are billboards for products and commands like “Enjoy Popular Music.” One billboard, even says “Conform,” then underneath in small text: “it’s the norm.” This one

is hidden toward the edge of the frame, almost as if it is not meant to be explicitly noticed. Emmett thinks it is awesome that he must pay for a $37 dollar coffee and then goes to work where workers are instructed to “take everything weird and blow it up.”

The film tells us in the opening scene that Lord Business is evil, and its elaborate representation of his society – one that discourages imagination and uniqueness by promoting extreme order and conformity – tells us that Lord Business’ society cannot remain – it is too “perfect.”

Within the first ten minutes of the film, Lord and Miller make clear that in order to save the universe, Emmett will need to disregard the rules and make his own choices. First, we see the construction workers march off in formation to leave work, but Emmett breaks from the uniformed crowd (ironically, to grab his instructions). This marks his initial separation from the order of the system.

Just minutes later, underground, he sees the “piece of rebellion” and wonders, “What do I do? I don’t have my instructions.” He decides to touch the piece, trusting his gut instinct. Confirming Emmett’s impending rebellion against society’s conformity, the camera cuts to a close-up of the instructions on the ground as Emmett steps on them and continues forward to touch the piece.This shot propels the narrative and gives it direction because Emmett’s break away from the ideals of Mr. Business and a culture in which people are forced to live with the limited products that are available for their consumption indicates a need for and a move toward societal change. The film critiques such a mass culture driven society by making Business the villain to be defeated. When Lord Business erases Bad Cop’s good side, claiming it’s “not personal, it’s business,” the film affirms the idea that business and consumerism can be blamed for many of these unrealistic societal ideals.

However, though The Lego Movie does

15

comment on consumerism and its ability to homogenize culture to a detrimental extent, it is not anti-capitalist. Firstly, the film’s title simply references a brand name; it does not describe the narrative.

With every animation in the movie digitally designed to look like actual Lego pieces and structures, the Lego toy never leaves the viewer’s mind. Also, the son’s original creations using his father’s Legos (such as the spaceship) serve to illustrate the story’s promotion of imagination and creativity, but are actually sold as movie-companion Lego sets, complete with step-by-step instructions. Of course the message is that one can make whatever he desires, regardless of the given instructions, and that we should celebrate the fun of “jumbling ideas together and finding meaning in the mess.”2 However, the commercialization of the boy’s creations for real consumers and moviegoers almost detracts from this message, as the creative mess is redefined in ordered structure.The directors acknowledge,“the conceit is that anything in the movie could be constructed using real Legos.”3 The Lego Movie cannot, fundamentally, be an anti-capitalist product so integrally developed within a capitalist system. Though pronunciations are altered, there are constant references to branded (and un-branded) products throughout the film in Mr. Business’ relics: his Exac-0 knife, Band Aids, polish of nail, and the major weapon – Kragle – which is just a bottle of Krazy Glue with a few letters scratched off. The ease with which we, as viewers, identify these products keeps us aware of how embedded we are in a capitalist and consumerist system.

Acknowledging the film’s identity as a product, despite its non-conformist

message, gives way for closer analysis of the narrative. One writer, Emmett Rensin of New Republic, draws attention to the fact that the boy has created this story; he made Mr. Business the villain as a representation of his father, because he won’t let him play with the Legos.

Rensin says, “the kid isn’t upset that his dad pays employees a wage for their labor, he’s upset that his father is so fixated on his paranoid need to make everything the way it’s ‘supposed to be’ [...] that he’s going to literally glue them in place, preventing his child from using his imagination again.”4 Rensin claims that The Lego Movie is more about empathy than politics; rather than a call for an upheaval of consumerist culture, the film is more concerned with how these characters are able to realize their own individuality within this system that could easily define them and identifying with their plights. Lord and Miller use many close-up shots to allow us to identify with characters when they are uncertain of their value in the world, like when Wyldstyle tells Emmett she wanted to be “the special.” The film tells us that value comes not from a prophecy or what society says is right, but from forging one’s own path with imagination, creativity, and self-determination. The film critiques mass culture, with President Business representing megalomania rather than simply capitalism,5 as well as the idea that all people should sacrifice their individuality and creativity for conformity.

Even in real life, we are conformists; trends become trends when one deviates from the norm and others follow to be “cool.”

We are most often defined by what we consume, and it is almost impossible to be uninfluenced by big-name brands in the consumer culture. These corporations affect our behavior and how we live, and The Lego Movie brings attention to the

16

extent we conform in our every day lives without even knowing it – how easily we can lose ourselves and our own ideas and preferences in such a culture.

In a children’s film like The Lego Movie, it is easy to question “the degree to which adulthood imposes itself and its values upon the lived experience of childhood.”6 There is no denying this film as a product of natural advertising, completely encapsulating the Lego brand in the story by embodying the pursuit of life-long imagination and creativity. But the message, despite its brand association and ties into adult themes like commercialism, stays in line with a child’s sensibility in fostering creativity and originality. The film critiques blind conformity and mass culture, and the idea that people are limited by what society deems important or right. It tells children that it is okay to be imaginative and to go

17

against the grain.Ultimately, The Lego Movie does not fully denounce capitalism or consumerism, but instead highlights the value and self-understanding available apart from the pressure of societal norms and commercial products.

The Inspiration for

Sixties Advertising

18

By emily anthony / Class of 2016 / Media Studies distinguished major Thomas Frank’s The Conquest of Cool (1997) maps out the social and political changes in postWorld War II America, which led to a Creative Revolution among advertisers, most notably Bill Bernbach. Though Bernbach recognizes anti-establishment hippie culture as a determinate of this shift, he fails to credit the professional Pop artists of the movement who founded the techniques and principles that advertisers later repurposed for commercialism. A thorough historical and comparative analysis of the advertisements and art pieces leading up to and during the sixties will yield a clearer understanding of the symbiotic relationship between artists and advertisers of the decade. Ultimately, businesses successfully used Pop art ideas in their own work to ironically mimic the anti-materialism subculture, allowing advertisers to capture the spending power of the consumer once again.

The transition from the stagnant social and political environment in America during the Eisenhower period (1953-1961), to a new generation during Kennedy’s presidency initially informed advertisers of their need to reform the industry.1 In Frank’s discussion of the Eisenhower period, he recognizes how popular books such as The Hucksters and Madison Avenue identified an archetype for conformity: the WASPy grey flannel suit wearing white men living in identical ranch houses.2 At the time, advertisers further perpetuated this predictable, ubiquitous way of life by using the Taylorist style of a research-backed method for constructing advertisements instead of thinking creatively for new ways of selling.3 Therefore, most advertisements during this period looked similarly to a particular 1961 Oldsmobile ad, in which a traditional white middle class family is depicted driving through a quaint town; with text above and below that eagerly exclaims how much “better” this car is than any other on the market. The ubiquity of these standardized images eventually led to social upheaval that found enemy in the “establishment.”4 The “establishment” referred to the hegemonic social, political, and commercial power that the anti-war movement, the youth and free speech movement, the civil rights movement, and the women’s rights movement sought to dethrone.5 As the primary industry that exemplified this consumerist “problem,”6 advertisers had to think fast about how to gain relevancy again in a society that no longer approved of them.

19

Elizabeth Currid’s Warhol Economy compliments Frank’s work by outlining the symbiotic interactions different areas of the culture industry have with one another.7 She recognizes Dick Hebdige’s claims that producers translate subcultural goods into mass production and therefore morph them into the dominant ideology.8 Many agree Bill Bernbach’s “Think Small” campaign, launched in 1961, initiated this new trend in advertising, as he ignored the rules put forth by others in his field to redefine Volkswagen as an economic, honest, and uniquely cool car to own.9 Frank agrees advertising has, since the fifties, continued to revolve around this idea of “hip consumerism” driven by disgust for mass society.10 Hebdige, defines “hip” as a “moving equilibrium”; where hegemony must first be won by popular approval, and then reproduced and sustained by capitalist industries.11 Essentially, in the sixties, American advertising and business efforts prevailed by capturing the moving equilibrium of the individualism and difference narrative put forth by those critiquing mass society.12 To begin filling in Frank’s blanks on the timeline of this process, it is important to note the physical location of both advertisers and artists during the early sixties. Currid recognizes the significance of New York City over Paris in terms of art production as a result of Europe’s disarray after World War I and II as well as the immigration of European artists to the United States.13 Such an influx in creative minds and attention led to the Dada Movement, Abstract Expressionism, and the New York School beginning just before the 1920s.14 This artistic movement in New York contrasted with the general conformity occurring in the rest of the nation at the time, as it sought to break away from tradition and jolt people by

using commonplace objects to make art.15 Marcel Duchamp, a French artist who immigrated to New York City in 1915, created one of the most prominent examples of this artistic period. Fountain (1917) critiques traditional art culture by deeming a urinal with the words “R. Mutt 1917” written on it, worthy of gallery display.16 Later on in the City, artists like Jasper John continued to offend art traditionalists by creating works such as Flag (1955).

For this piece, Johns covered a canvas with newspaper and then painted a relatively ordinary, two-dimensional American flag on top of it. Johns initiates a direct reference to the American nation in his work, later inspiring other New Yorkbased Pop artists to continue critiquing America, but instead through the lens of commercialism.17 Thomas Wesselman’s Great American Nude #30 (1962) depicts this adaptation well, as the image includes both the consumer product of CocaCola, along with a red, white, and blue background that harkens back to Johns’

20

piece from several years prior. At this same time, from his Manhattan-based office,18 Bernbach and other advertisers were presumably brainstorming ways that they could respond to the general unrest of Americans as a result of their industry.

Other artists associated with presixties Abstract Expressionism, such as Jackson Pollock, gained popularity for their heightened emphasis on procedure when making their pieces.19 Pop artist Andy Warhol adopted this principle to fit into the then current mass production critique by using a silk screen-printing technique while working in his New Yorkbased studio, appropriately called “the Factory.”20 To achieve the repetition seen in his piece Coca-Cola Bottles (1962), Warhol hand drew one object a handful of times and then ordered a screen of it to be made, which was then used to print the image numerous times on a canvas.21 By using an exact replica of the drawing, Warhol’s work employs a “factory metaphor” to comment on how consumer goods are both innumerable and indistinguishable.22 Lichtenstein used a systematic technique as well to convey this mass production

message by mimicking the appearance of newspaper printing through a Benday dot technique.23 He applied paint to a canvas by pouring it through a screen perforated with a grid of identically sized and spaced holes, so that collectively the variously colored dots made up an image, such as the one depicted in Mr Bellamy (1961). The repetition of dots in Lichtenstein’s work and the repetition of subjects in Warhol’s evoke an assembly line motif that furthers the commentary on mass production in the U.S. during the time period.

As advertisers were looking for ways to modernize their work, they adopt this factory metaphor in Pop art themselves.

Examples of this include Holly Sugar advertisements as well as Bernbach’s still praised “Think Small” Volkswagen campaign. Directly feeding off of Warhol’s well-known style as exemplified in Coca-Cola Bottles, the entire background of this Holly Sugar ad is filled with identical, evenly spaced bags of the product. The resulting grid effect is contextualized with a man and a shopping cart in the foreground, which indicates that the subject is at the grocery store to buy the sugar in the advertisement.24

21

The visual therefore reads humorously, as the shopper tries to remember what he’s there to buy without realizing the numerous options of the product behind him. Though the Volkswagen campaign also focused on the repetition of assembly lines, it more explicitly references the factory metaphor of by including images of cars that are not completely built and ready for sale.

Bernbach accomplished this by either depicting half built cars, car parts, or finished cars that were marked with edits by their maker. This allowed consumers to have a more intimate, less traditional look in to the production process that they, along with Pop artists, were critiquing at the time.

This nuanced and ironic repurposing of Pop artists’ aesthetic and social interests continues with advertisers adoption of the movement’s emphasis on “total involvement.”25 Warhol exemplifies this concept with his installation Silver Clouds (1966).

With the help of engineer Billy Klüver, Warhol filled a room with silver, rectangular oxygen and helium balloons that drifted around on soft air currents.26 Viewers were meant to enter the room and interact with the balloons, creating a joyful environment that defied the traditional viewing experience of fine art in galleries.

Allan Kaprow also incorporated total involvement into his exhibition titled Yard (1961). He gathered hundreds of discarded tires into an outside city block and then encouraged spectators to walk on top of each to get from one end of the piece to the other.27 Works such as these encouraged consumers to consider the amount of waste Americans create as well as what they can do on an individual level to combat the problem.

Though advertisers did not find a way to physically incorporate authentic

consumers in the same way that Warhol and Kaprow do in their works, they began acknowledging the consumers in an informal way through the use of sarcastic rhetoric. In the Holly Sugar ad, the subject is looking directly into the camera, engaging the viewer with direct eye contact. Beneath the subject in plain black roman lettering the ad reads, “Now what am I supposed to remember?” which, paired with the eye contact, suggests that he is posing the question to the reader of the advertisement. As numerous bags of Holly Sugar sit just behind him on shelves, the ad invites consumers to be all knowing along with advertisers in regards the oblivious yet relatable shopper. Bernbach’s “Think Small!” campaign also uses this sarcastic rhetoric, as it encourages involvement by allowing viewers to laugh at the company’s self-depreciating messages.28 Like the Holly Sugar ad, often times these manifested in prompts such as, “Has the Volkswagen fad died out?”

The question encourages viewers to read further into the bottom three columns, which continuing with the theme of sarcasm, begins with “Yes.” This technique helped to level the playing field between consumers and producers, allowing the car industry (among others) to reestablish trust while growing sales despite a more than skeptical public.29 Though sarcastic rhetoric initially seems like a concept advertisers founded to address total involvement, Pop artists were using it in their art previously as well. Lichtenstein pioneered this concept by writing speech and thought bubbles, also known as “balloons,”30 into his comic strips. In Engagement Ring (1961), a head shot of a blonde, stereotypically attractive female character is positioned in the

22

foreground with a balloon to the upper right of her head that says, “It’s… It’s not an engagement ring. Is it?” Her stressed facial expression and nervous eyes are shifted towards the man (who hopes to propose) in the background. Though there is nothing immediately humorous in this narrative of turning down someone’s engagement proposal, the words become sarcastic, paradoxical, and ironic after considering how mass produced comic strips fail to translate the embedded emotion of such life events.31 For this reason, the balloons in Lichtenstein’s work act as an essential comment on the way commercial art is deprived of any legitimate or relatable feeling as it solely seeks to reap a profit.32 In almost a response to Lichtenstein, Canada Dry used sarcastic rhetoric by, instead of asking a question, teasing the consumer about anti-capitalist requests for lowering the cost of the goods in America.33 In a 1964 advertisement, the now commonplace bold black statement line reads, “Sure we could make it cheaper.” Drawing the viewer in, the bottom two columns then sarcastically explain how they could downgrade their ingredients of water, ginger, and carbon bubbles to cheapen the product. Throughout this explanation they continue to use first person to say, “Would it make any difference if we didn’t search all over the world for the best?”

Therefore, with this campaign advertisers sarcastically explain that, despite popular belief espoused by Lichtenstein, there are thoughtful people and decisions behind these mass-produced goods, with honest intentions in selling the best possible good to customers.

In addition to balloons, Lichtenstein uses onomatopoeias, or visual sound effects, to convey meaning through comic strips.34 In his work Whaam! (1963), the bold, capitalized, yellow “WHAAM” just

above a shot down fighter jet mimics the advertising imagery commonly stuck to storefront windows during a sale. Lichtenstein faced critiques for this work among others, as many accused him of seeming banal and overly commercial when jolting viewers with such commonplace storefront imagery.35 Of course, only a few years after Lichtenstein incorporated this style of word into his art, onomatopoeias began showing up in new ad campaigns in a similar format.36 In a Volvo 1966 advertisement, a long shot depicts a silhouetted man facing away from the image’s vantage point as he glares up at the words “WOW,” “ZINGO,” and “PIZZAZ” plastered to the storefront window of a car dealership. Beneath the image is the line, “Your car is obsolete.

Again.” With this statement Volvo admits to consumers that (at the time) the automobile industry is corrupt in how they intentionally produce cars that break down after a relatively short time period; while also coming out with new models annually with the intent of manipulating consumers into an unnecessary purchase.37 By distancing their brand from the types of companies Lichtenstein critiques with his commercialized art, Volvo manages to gain aesthetic credibility while redeeming their integrity to the consumer.

Lastly, “minimalism” serves as the final theme found within sixties advertisements that sought to utilize the aesthetic appeal of revolutionary Pop art. Those in support of the revolt against materialism and consumerism in the sixties found happiness by shedding excess in all areas of life.38 For art, this meant removing any overly embellishing detail so that a work consisted of only the bare minimum elements for meaning making.39 In

23

much of the Pop art depicted previously, this meant choosing two to three colors, while also using flattened, evenly toned and shadowed shapes to define different forms. Others, such as James Rosenquist, incorporated minimalist principles by making entire segments of his works in black and white.40 President Elect (1961) employs this simplicity, allowing viewers to focus on the intent behind placing a black and white image of a Betty Crocker cake in the middle of the work, which invariably eliminates the superfluous tonal and textural variation of the food. Furthermore, when Rosenquist chooses to use colors in the work, they are monochromatic and compartmentalized, such as with a yellow car and President Kennedy’s evenly tanned complexion.

These minimalist decisions exist strongly in the first “Think Small!” campaign ad, where one single Volkswagen beetle is placed in the top left corner of a massive gray box. The car carries just as little detail as that of the vehicle depicted in President Elect. The monochromatic background resembles the empty red, white, and blue spaces between the forms in Rosenquist’s piece as well. Lastly, the phrase beneath this ad— “Think small.”— directly advocates for a minimalist way of life. In this way Bernbach began creating socially relevant art that more importantly doubled as an advertisement.41 Though initially controversial in the art world, these subtle visual techniques eventually led anti-materialist consumers to agree that Volkswagen was one of their own.

The Pop artists described thus far worked independently in that they incorporated borrowed branding imagery in to their works as a means of satirizing capitalism.42 However, as companies noticed the

relevancy of Pop art aesthetics, they began seeking collaboration with artists to increase their appeal to growing sixties subcultures. Peter Max’s art reached national and international acclaim because it spoke strongly about the hippie, antiwar, drug-induced social and political environment of the time. This meant he frequently incorporated themes of “peace, love, ecology, and hope” into his works,43 such as in Different Drummer (1968) where he centers one individual within vibrant colors and astrological imagery to create a highly unique and inspiring image.

Initially, like they did with other Pop artists’ work, advertisers began incorporating Max’s look into their own imagery with the hopes of catching the eye of the evergrowing hippie community.44 In 1968, Campbell’s Soup redressed the children in their branding to wear vibrantly patterned clothing and floral headpieces and then immersed them in the art noveau style. In 1969, Plymouth/Chrysler conspicuously inserted a psychedelic “peace and love” tie into the grill of their upcoming Barracuda model to distance their brand from consumers unwilling to associate with the subculture.45 In 1969, this technique proved sound in that psychedelics had permeated the moving equilibrium of what was popularly cool.

Shortly after Max produced Different Drummer, he partnered with 7-Up to create art for their 1969 “UnCola” ad campaign. This move led critics to define Max as a “hip capitalist” for allowing the commercial world to coopt him without protest.46 Besides the product placement, these ads appear indistinguishable from Max’s earlier works in that they continue to use vibrant colors as well as external

24

pop culture references, such as the Beatles’ “Yellow Submarine,” which helped them engage further with the socially accepted media of the time. Though he received flack for capturing the spirit and neglecting the ideology of the counterculture,47 Max’s contributions helped companies stay afloat in a time when the growing anti-materialist population was not interested in buying.

With the exception of Peter Max, the primary aesthetic and rhetorical themes within Pop art have led to an ironic relationship between Pop art and advertising throughout the sixties. Artists translated commodities in to art as a comment on mass society, and then advertisers responded by borrowing from these works to attract the consumer. This sharing process indicates that both advertisements and art carry closely related roles as social communicators in the United States.48 Contrary to popular belief, not all Pop artists agreed on the role of their work; as Lichtenstein says, “People confuse this social business with Pop art – that it’s a comment. Well, if it’s art, who cares if it’s a comment.”49 On the other hand, Warhol claims his Pop art is about how everyone is taught to think alike. He says, “Russia is doing this under communist government. It’s happening here all by itself without being under a strict government.”50 Though there is little consensus on the social implications of art, advertising, and culture, advertisers learned to fix their formula for sales by looking to the creative thinkers of the time.

After comparing numerous examples of art and advertising throughout the sixties, it becomes clear that advertisers of the time would not have successfully overcome the social upheaval without the guidance of the Pop art movement in New York. They borrowed artists’ principles of the factory metaphor, total involvement, sarcastic

25

rhetoric, and minimalism to create content that might catch the eye and interest of a weary consumer population.

In some instances, brands blended in with the many voices of anti-establishment by coopting artists to create new ad campaigns. This led to a highly nuanced relationship between advertisers and artists during the sixties. Though Pop art proved instrumental in defining the way a capitalist society might need critique, advertisers like Bernbach ultimately prevailed in that they successfully put the American public back in their place, as a consumer.

Marie Schrader, the Selfish and the Stolen

By Carolyn Schmitt Class of 2016 Media Studies

26

According to Lewis Hyde, a “gift” is something that keeps giving beyond the exchange, and has the power to create connections and bonds between individuals. Breaking Bad follows Walter White and his family: his wife Skyler, his son Walter Jr., and his daughter Holly. Skyler’s sister Marie Schrader and her husband Hank also regularly appear. Throughout the series, the viewer is exposed to unstable bonds embedded in the family dynamic, and in one particular scene from “A NoRough-Stuff-Type Deal” the characters exemplify Hyde’s discussion of a gift versus a commodity exchange.

In Season One, Skyler is pregnant with Holly, and the White family hosts a baby shower. An event with family and friends, the party includes presents. However, the high-end tiara that Marie gives to Skyler at the is not a genuine gift as described by Hyde.

It is a commodity, which, according to Hyde, has implications for creating and maintaining relationships and “bonds.”

In contrast, the tiara and Marie’s behavior at the baby shower reinforce her position as a self-centered individual in the modern world. Through a close reading of the exchange of the tiara, Marie’s behavior and reactions serve as critical commentary on the modern world that places so much emphasis on the individual.

The tiara is a present, but it is not a genuine gift. A genuine gift involves an element of “transformation,”1 and ultimately a sense of “gratitude” that one is later able to pass on to another.2 However, the tiara is a commodity.

Hyde uses the word “disconnect” to refer to the event of purchasing of an item, or a “commodity,” at a store, in which one may briefly interact with the seller, but has no lasting connection.3 In contrast, “a gift makes a connection.”4 In the baby shower scene,

the tiara serves as another example of a disconnect that results from the exchange of commodities. The setting of the baby shower is in the White household. There are a few green, pink and purple balloons in the dining room and streamers hung around the living room. The gathering of women around the dining room table suggests there is food in the dining room. Overall it is a simple, modest gathering. The giving of baby clothes that the viewer sees Skyler receiving is appropriate for this type of party. On the surface, the Whites are struggling with money and have recently been dealt Walt’s cancer diagnosis, and clothes will offset the costs of having a child. The tiara thus stands out as a disconnected gift from the rest of the party and the White family’s financial status. The underlying motivations for this disconnect will be explored below in relation to Marie.

Hyde points out that “the contrast between gift and commodity…is the presence or absence of an emotional connection.”5 Skyler appears genuinely appreciative and grateful for the baby clothes from her friend Carmen, as she can be heard immediately reacting to the outfit and seen playing with the feet of the onesie. Skyler thanks Carmen for the gift graciously. This calm atmosphere is disrupted by Marie, who thrusts her present towards Skyler. Immediately, Skyler compliments the wrapping paper and tells the other guests that “Marie always finds the best wrapping paper,” to which Marie does not hesitate to confirm by saying, “I do.” This compliment before the box is even opened suggests that Skyler is aware of her sister’s need for attention and praise.

Skyler acts excited to open the wrapping paper, exclaiming, “oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!” However, after opening the tiara from Marie, it is clear that Skyler finds the tiara inappropriate and thus

27

does not have an emotional connection.

This is evident by her lack of words and her pause after opening the gift, which will be discussed in depth below. Also, there is tension in the air after Skyler opens the gift, as everyone in the room, and the viewer, waits in anticipation for how Skyler will react to the gift. The stillness of the air is broken when Skyler exclaims, “it’s a tiara!”

Further, the absence of an emotional connection is further evident as Skyler tells Marie that she “spent too much on this,” and Marie shakes her head dismissively. The camera cuts to a shot of Hank Schrader and Walter, who are standing afar from the present opening, as Skyler says slowly in a voice over, “you really, really shouldn’t have.” This line highlights the inappropriateness of the tiara. Hank glances quickly at Walter, who stands expressionless watching the incident unfold. Although from the “Pilot” episode of Breaking Bad Hank, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, takes every opportunity to attack Walter’s manhood, the look seems to have a sympathetic motivation, as though acknowledging that the gift cost too much and he appears embarrassed by his wife’s present. Also, Walter seems to be uncomfortable with his wife having to stumble and figure out how to react appropriately.

The camera cuts back to a close up of Skyler, who is holding the tiara closer to her face. She is at a loss for words, and can only come up with “it’s sparkly!”

Marie squeals and Skyler says in a high-pitched tone, “thank you!” Skyler and Marie hug as Skyler repeatedly says “thank you.” This repetition of “thank you” can be inferred as Skyler attempting to appear gracious for the tiara. Hyde says that “true gifts constrain us only if we do not pass them along—only, I mean, if we fail to respond with an act or an expression of

28

gratitude.”6 The tiara is not a genuine or true gift, yet Skyler’s persistent thanks may be inferred as a way to make Marie feel as though the gift was received as a true gift and to try to act as though there was an emotional connection to the tiara.

Marie uses commodities and material things to attempt to set herself apart and to make her appear of a higher social status than those around her.

Hyde highlights that “the excitement of commodities is the excitement of possibility, of floating away from the particular to taste the range of available life.”7 Marie’s present to Skyler, and Marie’s addiction to stealing expensive shoes and valuables from open houses throughout Breaking Bad can be inferred as an attempt to achieve something more than what is immediately available to her.

Andrew Delblanco questions whether “this ‘feeling of being in a wider life’ is still available.”8 According to Delblanco, Americans often no longer receive hope from religion or from the nation, but rather the emphasis is placed on the self to provide that sense hope and that feeling of something more.9 As Delblanco acknowledges, “the modern self tries to compensate with posturing and competitive self-display as it feels itself more cut off from anything substantial or enduring.”10 In the homevideo scene preceding the opening of presents at Skyler’s baby shower, Marie introduces herself to the camera by saying, in a dramatic, high-pitched voice, “hi, baby! I’m your Aunt Marie!” As she says this, she raises her hands and spins in a circle, showing off her outfit and her figure. Marie is wearing a dark purple, low cut cocktail dress with thin straps, and her

hair is styled. She continues by saying, “of course you already know this because when you watch this, 20 years from now, I will look exactly the same as I do now. I know, it is shocking. I have aged shockingly well, haven’t I?” Marie’s introduction to the home video reinforces her selfishness and her preoccupation with appearances, as it takes her going through fishing for compliments and discussing her looks before actually welcoming the viewer to the baby shower.

Marie also serves as the director of this home video scene, as she instructs Walter Jr. where and who to film. For example, she tells Walter Jr. to “show her, older brother, your face.” She does not like the angle of the camera and says, “back to me.” This reinforces Marie’s selfish attitude. Even when Marie introduces Skyler by exclaiming, “here’s your mommy, hello mom!” Walter Jr. zooms in on Skyler’s face as she waves to the camera. Suddenly, Marie is in the shot, pointing to Skyler’s

belly. Marie does not attempt to conceal her desire to be on film, to display herself and be seen.

The home-video is shaky, and the cuts are sudden and unexpected. Also, the lens is not as clear as the professional lens, tainting the colors to be darker than the viewer is used to seeing. Although in the moment of the baby shower, nobody except for Walter is aware of his double life as a meth cook, in the future, when Holly or another family member watches this home video, there will have been many changes. Presumably, the viewer of the home video will have the context of Walter’s meth lab and large amounts of money, as well as Hank’s eventual murder. Also, Walter’s message to Holly in the home video: “Holly, I am very proud of you and

Delblanco highlights that “we live in an age of unprecedented wealth, but in the realm of narrative and symbol, we are deprived.”19

29

I think of you all the time. Wherever you go, whatever you do in life, always know that you have a family that loves you very, very much”, will have a deeper meaning to the viewer because of Walter’s death. Thus, it is appropriate that this video, meant to be a keepsake for Holly, is viewed through a tainted lens, suggesting that even in the happiest of times, there was an underlying darkness pervading the family.

Marie’s focus on appearances and material goods is stressed when Marie is able to detail the jewels in the tiara as “white gold and several carats worth of zircons.” Marie likely believes that these details will make her seem as though expensive jewelry is nothing special, as though she can casually afford to spend that amount of money. Similar to Delblanco’s “self-display,”11 Hyde points out that “the narcissist feels his gifts come from himself.

He works to display himself.”12 Marie’s attention to herself is furthered when she is giving the tiara to Skyler. The camera is shot from mid-level and Skyler can be seen from the side. Marie is facing the camera, her hands extending a small, pink box to Skyler. Marie says, “from me,” and pauses, waves her hand and dismissively adds, “and Hank.” This brief occurrence exemplifies Hyde’s depiction of a narcissist.

Although Marie may believe that the tiara would make her look better and enhance her appearance, the tiara in fact leads to a severed relationship between Skyler and Marie. Hyde notes that “a bond…is absent, suspended or severed in commodity exchange.”13 Skyler attempts to return the tiara but is accused of stealing it. She tries to return the tiara because it did not have “worth” to her; it was not something she “prize[d],” the way Marie did.14 Rather, Skyler’s attempt to return the tiara in exchange for money reinforces the tiara’s “value,” which stems from “the comparison of one thing with another.”15 This furthers the tiara’s status as a commodity and not as a genuine gift.

As Skyler approaches Marie about the stolen tiara, Marie becomes visibly upset; not at the fact that the tiara was stolen, but at Skyler’s attempting to return the present. Marie refuses to admit that she did anything wrong, yet tries to place guilt on Skyler for not wanting the tiara.

Delblanco highlights that “we live in an age of unprecedented wealth, but in the realm of narrative and symbol, we are deprived.”16 Both Marie and Hank have wealth in the form of jobs, nice cars and a big house, yet Marie nonetheless feels the need to steal and get more in her life.

This may be attributed to her emphasis on the self and not on the community. Marie’s behavior at the baby shower, her exchange of a commodity in place of a genuine gift and her actions of compulsively stealing in order to achieve more and to improve her image all serve as critical commentary of the modern world Delblanco portrays. Marie thus represents the modern American focusing on her own self, and the familial tension and disconnect that results from her behavior can serve as an example of the negative side of having a community of selfish individuals.

30

31

Vincent Vega:

Finding Sanctuary in the bathroom

By Callie wright / Class of 2016 media studies and Anthropology

32

In his acclaimed film Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino submerges his characters in a culture of consumerism, one to which most of his American audience members can relate.

Each and every character is shaped by an American consumerist ideology, and Vincent Vega is certainly no exception. Whether it is a vanilla milkshake, a cigarette or the highest quality heroin, Vincent is constantly fixated on the value of what he consumes as determined by American society. As an Italian-American gangster whose accomplice and boss are both African Americans, Vincent is uncertain of how to assimilate to the host culture. The only place he seems to be able to find an escape from this consumerist environment is in the bathroom. In the safety of the bathroom, Vincent can determine what is valuable without the judgments of society. He gets to decide, for lack of a better term, what is shit and what is not.

This space allows him to become his own cultural authority and to escape, even for just a moment, the struggles of identifying with consumer goods. Vincent Vega represents the Italian-American gangster caught up in a consumer culture who seeks sanctuary from his anxiety about how to determine what is culturally valuable in the safety of the bathroom.

From head to toe, Vincent attempts to depict the stylish American gangster by defining himself through consumption.

The clothing and products he chooses to consume allow him to redefine classifications for himself. In his piece, “Dressed to Kill: Consumption, Style and the Gangster,” David Ruth discusses the power of mass produced goods to portray a certain identity for the gangster. He claims that these products “promised distinctiveness and identity” and thus “purchasers could restyle themselves at will.”1 Throughout the film, Vincent is struggling to understand what is deemed valuable by American society. He is longing to find markers of validity in order to represent himself as a true American.

Vincent’s daily attire of a full black suit and tie exudes an image of respectability.

Only when he goes out to dinner with

33

his boss’s wife, Mia, does he lose the black tie and instead dons a bolo tie.

The bolo tie is widely associated with the American West and the rugged, handsome, American cowboy. Perhaps Vincent chooses the bolo tie in order to convey this accepted American image.

It is apparent in his conversation with Jules that he has been nervous about this encounter with Mia and probably wanted to dress in order to impress. He certainly does impress, but not only with his clothes. Mia is intrigued when Vincent begins rolling his own cigarettes.

This savvy and sophisticated technique allows him to control the quality of this item he regularly consumes while also displaying an American Western skill. Ruth would say that Vincent’s respectability in this particular scene “was manifested in refined consumption.”2 He is becoming a product of his environment by attempting to assimilate to the host culture. Still, as an Italian-American gangster and thus an outsider to the host culture, it is apparent that he has anxieties about meeting the standards of consumerism in America.

Vincent Vega is constantly surrounded by the American consumer culture and struggles to understand its material value. Klaus Theweleit would argue that his boundaries are flooded by and thus dissolving in this culture. He might say that Vincent represents the pulp of “pulp fiction,” whose hybrid character makes him soft, moist and malleable.3 In the very first scene where Vincent is introduced, we witness this difficulty and anxiety as he describes little differences in consumer culture in Europe versus America. In order to assert himself as a true American, he confidently describes all the “little differences” about Europe to his friend Jules. In this instance, Vincent is attempting to prove that he is worldly, intelligent, and understands how American consumer culture works. In short, he is trying to be a true respectable American, all while dressed in his black suit and tie. He explains that a person can buy a beer in a movie theater in

Amsterdam and in a McDonalds in Paris.

He suspects that Jules already knows that a person cannot do the same in America, as most American adults should. He then goes on to explain what some of the most iconic consumer goods of America, the McDonalds’ Big Mac and Quarter-Pounder, are called in France. In this scene, Vincent hopes to establish himself as a knowledgeable American that contributes to the consumer society. Still, it is interesting that Jules is the one driving and thus in control in this scene.

This might represent Vincent’s anxiety as an Italian-American and thus an outsider. This is not to say that Jules’ race does not make him somewhat of an outsider in this era, but one might consider the fact that African Americans came to America long before Italian-Americans did. While Vincent is attempting to demonstrate his true American identity, Jules is still the one in the more powerful position.

It is also significant that the setting of this discussion is in a car on the streets of Los Angeles, a centrifugal space. In his piece “Centrifugal Space,” Edward Dimendberg describes the centrifugal space as one marked by speed, where freeways were designed to move people as fast as possible in an “unimpeded, frictionless flow.”4 The quicker a person can move from place to place, the more productive they will be as a consumer.

Vincent embodies the consumer that is always on the move, and thus does not hold a stagnant place in society. As an ItalianAmerican, perhaps he does not feel like he really fits the part of a productive American consumer. He is worried that he cannot keep up with the speed of culture, as speed is both an “aesthetic experience and a functional demand of modern life.”5 Vincent is having anxieties about understanding and meeting the demands of his society, which is perfectly exemplified in this particular scene.

The next scene that depicts Vincent as an anxious consumer is when he goes to purchase heroin from his friend and drugdealer, Lance. It opens with Lance’s wife, Jody, describing the process of piercing, and all her many personal piercings to her friend Trudi. It is significant that Trudi has an Irish accent and thus might be considered an

34

outsider to American culture. After Jody lists off her multiple piercings, Vincent steps in donning his black suit, bolo tie, and long brown trench coat and interrupts the conversation by asking, “Why would you wear a stud in your tongue?” Jody responds with a simple answer: “sex thing.

Helps fellatio.” She says this as if it is a fact that Vincent should already know as an American citizen. It is no coincidence that immediately after she answers, the camera quickly pans over to Lance calling Vincent by his Italian name, Vincenzo. He then asks Vincent to “step into [his] office.” Vincent is forced to look up as Lance is standing and Vincent is leaning over. Lance is depicted as the authoritative American producer and Vincent as the Italian-American consumer.

Next, we see three small bags of heroin on a bed. Lance describes each one, its quality and its price. He convinces Vincent that the more expensive “madman” is well worth the money. He then goes on to say, “white people who know the difference between good shit and bad shit, this is the house they come to.” This line almost threatens Vincent to think that if he wants to be seen as a truly white American consumer, he should purchase the good stuff. Vincent questions the validity of what he is hearing and then submits and agrees to buy the most expensive heroin. Again, he is caught up in the consumer culture and is forced to question the value of a product.

Next comes Vincent’s night out with the boss’s wife, Mia, which becomes a night filled with culture and consumption. The two pull up to her restaurant of choice, Jackrabbit Slims, in his bright red Chevrolet Malibu. Owning a nice car is such an integral part of America’s consumer society that it has become a part of the American dream. It is clear why Mia chose to reserve a car as their table, the best seat in the house. When they first arrive, Vincent queries, “what is this place?” and upon hearing that it is called Jackrabbit Slims says, “come on, Mia, let’s go get a steak.”

He does not trust that this place is valued as a part of high-class culture and wants to go wherever he can find a high-quality steak.

After Mia embarrasses him by calling him

a square, Vincent finally agrees to go inside and see if the restaurant is all that she says it is.

They enter, and Vincent walks around the entire place, taking in all of the pop-culture references around him.

From Ricky Nelson singing to Marilyn Monroe waitressing, Vincent seems to be overwhelmed by his surroundings. He calls the place a “wax museum with a pulse,” a place that is completely fake and focused on the consumer culture. Still, Vincent’s anxieties do not cause him to stop being a part of the consumer society. He orders a steak just as he wanted and a Vanilla Coke—Coke as yet another mass-produced and loved American good. When Mia orders a five-dollar milkshake, Vincent questions why it is five dollars if all it is made of is ice cream and milk. He seems to wonder why the cost is so high when the value is clearly not. When the vanilla white milkshake comes to the table, he asks for a sip. He exclaims that it is a “pretty fucking good” milkshake, though it still may not be worth five dollars. Vincent is obviously still having difficulty fully understanding how consumer goods like this milkshake are valued. It is notable that both the milkshake and the Coke are vanilla flavored, representing the all-white American that Vincent clearly is not.

These three scenes prove that Vincent is indeed caught up in this American consumer society and still is apprehensive about how to value certain goods as a guest to the host culture. Perhaps Vincent sees the dangers of consumer society which include “not only infiltration but moral contamination as well.”6 And what better place to rid oneself of contamination than the bathroom? Much like a rat or bodily excrement may seem repugnant but also powerful, the bathroom in Pulp Fiction is a place to relieve oneself of filth and also to build oneself up. For Vincent, the bathroom provides a perfect escape from his consumerist anxieties. This is a private space where no one can tell him what to do, how to think, or what to consume. In fact, the bathroom is a space where one is meant to do exactly the opposite of

35

consuming and let things out. In the bathroom, Vincent seeks sanctuary from his struggles to determine what is valuable. In her article entitled “The Fathers Watch the Boys Room,” Sharon Willis calls the bathroom a “private zone embedded in public spaces… [it] operates in densely woven communication with a particular public space–that of popular culture.”7 Tarantino constructs the bathroom in this film as a place that is speaking to, yet separate from, the chaos of pop-culture. It is where Vincent becomes his own cultural authority and is able to make decisions out of the gaze of American culture.

The first time we see Vincent in the bathroom is after his night out with Mia when they arrive back at her house. They dance across the threshold of her front door, have a moment of “uncomfortable silence” staring into each other’s eyes and at this moment Vincent feels that it is the perfect time to retreat to the bathroom. In this scene, the camera is placed below Vincent, angled up at him as he speaks to himself in the mirror.

The camera angle places Vincent in an authoritative and powerful position.

Because he is alone in a private space, he is able to decide for himself how to act. The walls of the bathroom are green and white, representing white America and its addiction to money and consumption. The motif of the mirror might represent his double identity, as a member of the American consumer culture and as an Italian-American outsider. David Ruth would also argue that the mirror is important because the motif of the gangster’s self-evaluation in the mirror is often used to project the identity that stylishness and consumption have created for him.8 Willis claims that a bathroom is a perfect place for a person to “consolidate his position or his image, as Vince Vega does when he spends several minutes in Mia’s bathroom posing before her mirror and earnestly talking himself out of sleeping with her.”9 Vincent is able to think clearly and to himself without culture or consumerism

influencing him. He eventually decides that loyalty is more important than sex or consumption. Meanwhile, Mia is outside in the living room dancing and singing, consuming music, smoking cigarettes, and snorting heroin.

The next two scenes that involve Vincent and a bathroom are short but still significant. In the very last scene of the film, Vincent and Jules are eating in a diner, arguing about Jules deciding to quit the gangster life and walk the earth like a bum. Vincent tells Jules that he cannot become a bum, just like “all those pieces of shit out there who beg for change, who sleep in garbage bins, eat what I throw away.” If Jules becomes a bum, he will no longer fit the standards of a comfortable American consumer lifestyle. Vincent is troubled by this idea and is not sure how Jules plans on maintaining this lifestyle in such a judgmental, consumer driven society.

Vincent becomes visibly frustrated and interrupts the conversation by retreating to the bathroom. Soon, a couple decides to rob the diner and Jules is left to fend for himself at the table while Vincent is in the bathroom. As chaos ensues in the main dining area, the scene cuts over to Vincent sitting on the toilet reading his book Modesty

Blaise. A spy fiction novel by Peter O’Donnell, this book can be classified as pulp fiction. At the beginning of the film, the word pulp is defined for the audience as “a soft, moist, shapeless mass of matter” or as “a magazine or book containing lurid subject matter and being characteristically printed on rough, unfinished paper.” Pulp fiction is thus thought of as a lowbrow product that is read by people with little intellectual or respectable taste. In the privacy of the bathroom, Vincent is able to read whatever he wants no matter what the consumer culture might think. He makes his own decisions on what is valuable and what is not. This bathroom is also complete with green and white tiled walls. It is much smaller than the bathroom in Mia’s home, but still represents a space of privacy within the consumer society. Vincent’s costume change from a black suit to a banana slugs T-shirt and colorful shorts further symbolizes his escape from society. He uses his time in the bathroom to be at peace with himself and his choices.

As he sits on the toilet and reads his lowbrow book, Vincent is completely oblivious to the outside world and the robbery that is happening just beyond the bathroom door.

The final bathroom scene to note comes just before the end of Vincent’s life. The audience is led to believe

36

that he has been staking out Butch’s apartment all morning, awaiting his return. When Butch finally does return, Vincent is hidden in the safety of the bathroom oblivious to the new visitor. When he emerges from the bathroom, his safety is completely lost and he becomes vulnerable to Butch’s gaze. Not only does Butch hold the power here because he is armed with a gun, but he also represents the power of the white American over the ethnic minority. Outside of the bathroom, Vincent is again subject to the anxieties of the American consumer culture and is no longer safe as an ethnic outsider.

As soon as the toaster pastries pop out of the toaster, Butch reacts and fires his gun at Vincent, forcefully sending him back into the bathroom. It is significant that a consumer good, the toaster pastry, ignites Butch’s fire and leads to Vincent’s downfall. Butch probably would have killed Vincent had there been no pastries at all, but Tarantino uses this metaphor to reiterate Vincent’s anxieties over consumption.

The camera cuts to the floor of the bathroom, where Modesty Blaise is lying at a now deceased Vincent’s feet. This leads the audience to believe that he was again reading the pulp fiction in privacy.

The camera moves up to show a bloody Vincent lying dead in the bathtub. Back in the safety of the bathroom, Vincent is now forever freed from the struggles of consumerism.

In the film Pulp Fiction, Vincent Vega is a gangster whose identity is shaped by the American consumerist ideology. As an Italian-American and thus not a fully assimilated member of white American

society, he is constantly struggling to determine the value of cultural products.

He finds solace in the bathroom, a safe space separated from consumption where he can be his own cultural authority. One should note that in the scene at Jackrabbit Slims, it is Mia and not Vincent that goes to the bathroom. This is because in this scene, Vincent understands the pop-culture references surrounding him and feels secure in his intellect and respectability.

So what are the consequences of avoiding the consumer culture in the privacy of the bathroom? Willis notes that in Tarantino’s film “with striking frequency, people emerge from the privy to find the world has changed in their absence, the situation has exploded or imploded.”10 This is certainly true for Vincent, for each time he exits the bathroom in the scenes discussed, the affairs on the other side of the bathroom have changed for the worse. Mia’s overdose, the robbery of the restaurant and Vincent’s murder may never have happened if Vincent had stayed out of the bathroom. It seems that Tarantino is making a statement about the dangers of making one’s own decisions separate from the ideals of the consumer culture.

Like Bonnie and Clyde’s deaths, Vincent’s is brutal and bloody, conveying to the audience that those who do not follow the norms of society will eventually perish.

In the end he let his guard down and, as Willis would say, was humiliated and “caught with his pants down.”11 If Vincent had not taken his time dealing with his anxieties in the bathroom, his fate as well as the entire plot of the film would have been drastically different.

37

Apply skills Now business

professional resume

Linkedin revenue

asset connections

talent network 38

A capitalist promoter of structuration and commodification

By Emily Irwin / Class of 2017 Leadership and Public Policy and Media Studies

According to Business Insider writer Jay Yarow, LinkedIn, one of the largest and most powerful social media companies in the world, has turned itself into a valuable media company.1 LinkedIn is a career site and online network that uses complex algorithms to analyze users’ profiles and help connect them with other professionals or career tools in order for people togrow their professional networks.2 The company seeks to create a central hub of “skills, workers, and jobs across the global economy,” says Washington Post business reporter Sarah Halzack.3 The three ways that the company generates revenue are by premium memberships, ad sales, and its sale of professional products, created by its talent solutions division, to corporate clients.4 LinkedIn also produces its own media content through its platform “LinkedIn Today”, which sells sponsored posts so that companies can advertise to professionals.5 Most college students seeking careers or young professionals in the working world are active on LinkedIn, comparing resumes and hoping to gain professional opportunities through networking and connections. LinkedIn claims their “mission is simple: To connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and more successful.”6 LinkedIn provides a brief history on their website of how they began and got to where they are now, demonstrating the company’s gradual gain of influence over the past thirteen years. The company was launched in 2003 by

39

a team of old colleagues from SocialNet and PayPal. Although the first year of operation was slow, the company experienced massive growth in size, members, and revenue between 2004 and 2007. In 2008, LinkedIn became “a truly global economy, opening its first international office in London and launching Spanish and French language versions of the site.” Today, the website offers nearly 25 different languages.

Growth accelerated enormously in 2010, with 90 million members from around the world by 2011. The site transformed significantly over the next couple years before turning 10 in 2013, reaching 225 million members. Since then, LinkedIn has emphasized a major focus on connecting the world together through the digital economy.7 With such a prominent and globally influential media company as LinkedIn, itisimportant to analyze the ways in which the company holds such power and value through its political economic practices of structuration and commodification. According to Zizi Papacharissi in her article “The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysisofFacebook, LinkedIn, and ASmallWorld”, LinkedIn functions to help individuals build relationships and broaden their professional networks.8 It provides tools for users to find out their level of closeness or “links” to other users and allows users to join groups or networks of other professionals with potentially similar interests or goals to one’s own.9 LinkedIn is an almost limitless social network with endless possibilities for people across the world to connect; yet, ithas elements of structuration that cannot be ignored.

Vincent Mosco argues that understanding how social class is structured through particular media can teach us a lot about its production, distribution, and consumption.

Structuration is a political economy

40

process whereby human agency constructs structures that often create or reinforce inequalities in social relationships.10 In the case of LinkedIn, membership “presumes technological literacy and computer-friendly occupations, which tend tobe white collar”, according to Papacharissi.11 This means that one must be able to understand, speak, and technologically navigate the structure and unified language, which includes professional verbal cues and sophisticated working vocabulary, of LinkedIn upon joining.

For LinkedIn, it’s all about resume building; thus, itis difficult for a bluecollar worker to find interest in a platform that favors those seeking to rise through the employment ranks.

One must be technologically savvy enough and well versed professionally in order to decipher social cues on LinkedIn. Papacharrissi describes how there is a sort of language on Linked In of “contextual clues that set the tone for an introductory conversation to begin.”12 This way that LinkedIn is set up tends to exclude people of lower socioeconomic backgrounds who lack fluency in this professional language. This favoring of white-collar individuals is a practice of structuration, causing a social class divide of digital inequality between higher and lower class individuals.

In their article “Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet”, Eszter Hargittai and Amanda Hinnant describe how individuals with higher levels of education seek “capitalenhancing” activities on the Internet, which tend tobe more user-friendly for them than less-educated individuals.13 Because LinkedIn is specifically geared towards upper-level, white- collar, career and networking-seeking people, the structure of the company allows some users to benefit more than others.

Additionally, as Hargittai and Hinnant argue, users enforce this digital divide through the different ways they use

media like LinkedIn. Studies have shown that highly educated and wealthy individuals are more likely to seek news and product information orutilize the Web for work purposes than less educated or lower income individuals.14 The less educated a user is, the less likely he or she isto join a capitalenhancing site like LinkedIn. Why does LinkedIn believe in making individuals more productive and successful, asitclaims, and how does LinkedIn wield power through this mission? The fact that LinkedIn promotes capital enhancement through tools like professional networking and skills-based education demonstrates how the company subscribes to capitalist ideology to drive its business model— one that political economists like Mosco would seek to challenge. The very idea that people should build their capital online is a result of our capitalist culture, and it is important to recognize how this aforementioned structuration process, through the distribution and consumption of LinkedIn’s services, leads to inequalities. Additionally, LinkedIn exercises its power through this structuration. As a powerful media company, LinkedIn gets to decide whom its main audiences or users are—in this case: higher social classes. It can create media that appeals to these capital-enhancing individuals, in turn allowing the company to profit. While LinkedIn may view this relationship as mutually beneficial, a closer look reveals the inequalities that result from this wielding of corporate media power.

Someone who does not automatically subscribe to the capitalist ideology that LinkedIn promotes is naturally irrelevant to this media company and therefore excludable.

Aside from structuration, perhaps the most prominent political economic practice that LinkedIn engages with is commodification. According to Mosco, commodification is the process of transforming something of value

into a product that is marketable.

Rob Heyman and JoPierson argue in their article “Blending mass selfcommunication with advertising in Facebook and LinkedIn: Challenges for social media and user empowerment” that LinkedIn commodifies personal identifiable information (PII), otherwise knownas personal profiles, into marketable advertising.15 Through their conduction of a study that analyzes the ways in which Facebook and LinkedIn capitalize on their users’ information, Heyman and Pierson conclude that mass self-communication is commodified in favor of increasing revenue through advertising. LinkedIn does this through targeted advertising based on PII is users’ profiles.

Essentially, LinkedIn takes the data and information users provide such as their gender, job, interests, and search history tooffer advertising that caters specifically to the users’ interests.

In addition, LinkedIn uses social advertising, whereby ads for products appear socially endorsed because one of your connections is already connected to the brand or product.

Heyman and Pierson also explain how LinkedIn was the first social network to “commodify its network of users outside its own platform” through the use of its Audience Network tool, which can direct users to webpages outside of LinkedIn.16 Ultimately, LinkedIn is commodifying users’ personal information, Internet data, and preferences to generate profit through these various forms of advertising in ways that are typically undetectable to the user.

Why is this significant? Heyman and Pierson point out that knowledge of this commodification practice allows users tobe aware of processes that are kept hidden from them.17 Whereas LinkedIn users may fall under the impression that they are benefitting themselves by joining, the very actof signing up for LinkedIn already subjects

41

a user to commodification of his or her information; in other words, LinkedIn benefits just as much, if not more, than the user because the company is able to capitalize on every piece of information gathered from users. LinkedIn “mines” its members’ data not only so they can assist them, but also soitcan maintain its current monopoly as a professional social media network18 These practices are major ways that LinkedIn exerts power as a media company, often without the knowledge of its members.

We can also look to the LinkedIn Today platform that Yarow describes in Business Insider to understand how LinkedIn uses commodification to wield power. LinkedIn Today is a content marketing platform that commodifies news, ideas, and information. The platform creates its own media posts as well as sells sponsored posts so that companies can advertise toprofessionals, and marketers put the message in familiar formats to the users based on their data and PII.19 The content is focused around the key “buzz words” and ideas featured throughout LinkedIn such as innovation, growth, and marketing. Yarow argues that this is a clever way to do advertising as a social network because LinkedIn can monetize on sponsored posts without seeming irrelevant to the professional nature of the social network.20 In other words, users will be less likely to get aggravated with random and irrelevant ads on their screens. A brief scroll through my feed on LinkedIn Today reveals an unsurprising similarity between the posts/advertising, and my personal information/resume. Assigning value tomy personal data that canbe used for exchange and monetization is common of a capitalist institution, relentlessly seeking profit. Nevertheless, LinkedIn’s ability to cater my content in a way that serves advertisers over my own preferences is something tobe critiqued and challenged through the lens of political economy.

Halzack of The Washington Post takes a political economic approach to LinkedIn through her analysis of the products it creates and sells to corporate clients. This process accounted for $205 million inrevenue during a single quarter in 2013.21 These products might look like tips on how to build your business oran education module for companies about networking, which clients view as valuable and therefore purchase from LinkedIn. LinkedIn staffers frequently refer to their professional, capital-enhancing products as an“ecosystem”22, which is a capitalism-coined metaphor for the equilibrium between their network and their products; essentially, the company commodifies valuable information into products that can be bought and sold on LinkedIn so that it can generate profit in order to continue operating as a free network. In a capitalist economy, the assumption is that you cannot have one without the other—it is impossible for a company to maintain power and continue offering free services without commodifying something.

Thus, LinkedIn supplements its free subscription with products itcreates, commodified from things of capitalenhancing value for consumers.

Most importantly, LinkedIn commodifies the very ideas themselves of networking and innovation (and other central ideas to the network).

Aside from the various tools and products that the company offers, it also offers the valuable product of professional networks. This is a relatively new idea, as a formal market for networking did not exist before LinkedIn. LinkedIn brilliantly recognizes the value of these ideas of professional networks and career opportunities and assigns them market value, thereby capitalizing on and commodifying these previously nonexchangeable ideas. These commodities have only gained more value over time as LinkedIn has grown into a more

42

Americans. But, my political economy analysis indicates that LinkedIn is not all itpretends to be. Itis powerful, exploitative, persuasive, and extremely influential in ways that should be assessed beyond its capitalist aims.

valuable media company. One could argue that as a result of LinkedIn’s commodification of these ideas, itis exponentially more powerful and influential than it was when it first launched. The mission behind giving LinkedIn users access to entities of value like “people, jobs, news, updates, and insights” is to make the world’s professionals “more productive and successful.”23 But do these capitalist incentivizes of productivity and success correlate with the principles of American principles of democracy and equality?

To answer this question, we can look to the practices of structuration and commodification with which LinkedIn engages. The process of structuration through LinkedIn makes itso that people from a higher socioeconomic class can access tools to help them rise higher in the professional ranks much more easily than people of a lower socioeconomic class. Not only is this perpetuating inequality, but also itis widening the gap of inequality, as people with higher income and social status compound their productivity and success while lower income individuals remain stagnant.

This strongly goes against the values of equality and democracy that would favor a level playing field of opportunities with equal accessibility tothem. Not everyone has a voice or place of belonging on LinkedIn, as they would in a fair and equal democracy.Inan ideal democratic system, we should have our own say in how our information is used. Yet, the commodification process through LinkedIn demonstrates that this isnot the case; personal information and data is exploited for the company’s use so that itcancontinue expanding and generate profit, all the while selling the ideas of “success,” “innovation,” and “growth” through media and advertising to its nodding consumers. A glossing glance over LinkedIn as a media company makes it appear a worthwhile and useful media outlet for everyday

43

The Art of Man Repelling: How Leandra Medine is Taking the “Men” Out of Women’s Fashion 1

Wilson, Eric. “In Fashion, Who Really Gets Ahead?” The New York Times. Dec. 8, 2008.

2 Craik, Jennifer. The Face of Fashion: Cultural Studies in Fashion. London: Routledge, 1993, 176.

3 Ibid, 196.

4 Crane, Diana. Fashion and Its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, 16.

5 Croteau, David, and William Hoynes.

Media Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2003, 152.

6 Pao, Ellen. DzEllen Pao: Silicon Valley Sexism IS Getting Better.dzLenny Letter.

November 11, 2015.

7 Ibid.

8 American Psycho. Dir. Mary Harron. Perf.

Christian Bale and Justin Theroux. Lions Gate, 2000. Film.

9 Hall, Stuart. “Encoding, decoding,” The Cultural Studies Reader, 41-49.

10 Medine, Leandra. “What Is a Man Repeller?

- Man Repeller.” Man Repeller. April 25, 2010.

Commercialism and Consumer Culture in The Lego Movie 1

Pierce, David. “‘The Lego Movie’ Review: The Best Film about Blocks You’ll Ever See.” The Verge. February 10, 2014.

2 Walters, Ben. “The Lego Movie - A Toy Story Every Adult Needs to See.” The Guardian. February 11, 2014.

3 Steinberg, Don. “Building ‘ The Lego Movie,’ One Brick at a Time.” The Wall Street Journal.

January 30, 2014.

4 Rensin, Emmett. “‘The Lego Movie’ Isn’t Just Anti-Capitalist. It’s Anti-Fox, Too.” New Republic. February 11, 2014.

5 Ibid.

6 Eaton, Anthony. “The Lego Movie Understands What Separates Kids and Adults.” The Conversation. April 7, 2014.

The Inspiration for Sixties Advertising Warlaumont, Hazel G. Advertising in the 60s: Turncoats, Traditionalists, and Waste Makers in America’s Turbulent Decade. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001, 2.

2 Ibid, 10.

3 Frank, Thomas. The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997, 39.

4 Ibid, 15.

5 Warlaumont, 2.

6 Frank, 48.

7 Currid-Halkett, Elizabeth. The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art, and Music Drive New York City. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007, 114-115.

8 Ibid, 122.

9 Frank, 57.

10 Ibid, 26.

11 Hebdige, Dick. “From Culture to Hegemony; Subculture: The Unnatural Break” Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks.

Ed. Meenakshi G. Durham and Douglas M. Kellner. 2nd ed.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, 129.

12 Ibid, 122.

13 Currid-Halkett, 18, 25.

14 Ibid, 25.

15 Madoff, Steven Henry. Pop Art: a Critical History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997, 149.

16 Ibid, 149.

17 Livingstone, Marco. Pop Art: a Continuing History. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1990, 120.

Currid-Halkett, 26.

18 “DDB Worldwide | Contact.” DDB Worldwide. November 18, 2015.

19 Livingstone, 78.

20 Currid-Halkett, 26.

21 Livingstone, 115.

22 Ibid, 116.

23 Ibid, 73.

24 Warlaumont, 182.

25 Ibid, 61.

26 Warhol, Andy. Silver Clouds Installation.

1966. Trendboard. Blogspot. March 27, 2009.

27 Livingstone, 64.

28 Frank, 57.

29 Warlaumont, 63.

1

44

30

Madoff, 203.

Livingstone, 120.

32 Madoff, 196.

33 Warlaumont, 183.

34 Madoff, 205.

35 Ibid, 195.

36 Warlaumont, 86-87.

37 Frank, 62.

38 Warlaumont, 177.

39 Ibid, 179.

40 Livingstone, 88.

41 Warlaumont, 175.

42 Livingstone, 76-78.

43 Warlaumont, 63.

44 Ibid, 146-149.

45 Ibid, 149.

46 Ibid, 63.

47 Ibid, 65.

48 Ibid, 62.

49 Madoff, 107-108.

50 Ibid, 103.

31

Marie Shrader, the Selfish, and the Stolen 1

Hyde, Lewis. The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World. New York: Vintage, 2007, 57.

2 Ibid, 58.

3 Ibid, 72.

4 Ibid, 72.

5 Ibid, 80.

6 Ibid, 91.

7 Ibid, 88.

8 Delblanco, Andrew. The Real American Dream: A Meditation on Hope. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1999, 92.

9 Ibid, 103.

10 Ibid, 104.

11 Ibid, 104.

12 Hyde, 68.

13 Ibid, 80.

14 Ibid, 78.

15 Ibid, 78.

16 Delblanco, 107.

works cited Vincent Vega: Finding Sanctuary in the Restroom 1

Ruth, David E. “Dressed to Kill: Consumption, Style and the Gangster.”

Inventing the PublicEnemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918-1934. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1996, 66.

2 Ibid, 76.

3 Theweleit, Klaus. “Floods, Bodies, History.” Male Fantasies. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 1987, 394.

4 Dimendberg, Edward. “Centrifugal Space.”

Film Noir and the Spaces of Modernity.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2004, 182.

5 Ibid, 188.

6 Ruth, 82.

7 Willis, Sharon. “The Fathers Watch the Boys’ Room.” Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies 32, 1995, 44.

8 Ruth, 70.

9 Willis, 44.

10 Ibid, 44.

11 Ibid, 44.

45

LinkedIn: A capitalist promoter of structuration and commodification 1

Yarow, Jay. “LinkedIn Is Turning Itself Into A Very Valuable Media Company.” Business Insider. February 26, 2013.

2 Halzack, Sarah. “LinkedIn Connects Big Data, Human Resources.” Washington Post.

August 9, 2016.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Yarow.

6 “About Us.” LinkedIn Corporation, 2016.

Web. <https://www.linkedin.com/about-us>.

7 “A Brief History of LinkedIn.” LinkedIn Corporation, 2015. Web. <https://ourstory. linkedin.com/>.

8 Papacharissi, Zizi. “The Virtual Geographies of Social Networks: A Comparative Analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn, and ASmallWorld.”

New Media and Society 11.1-2 (2009).

9 Ibid.

10 Mosco, Vincent. The Political Economy of Communication. 2nd ed. London: SAGE, 2009.

11 Papacharissi.

12 Ibid.

13 Hargittai, E., and A. Hinnant. “Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet.” Communication Research 35.5 (2008).

14 Ibid.

15 Heyman, Rob, and Jo Pierson. “Blending Mass Self-Communication With Advertising in Facebook and LinkedIn: Challenges For Social Media and User Empowerment.” International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics 9.3 (2013).

Academic Search Complete.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Halzack.

19 Yarow.

20 Ibid.

21 Halzack.

22 Ibid.

23 “About Us.”

46

Interested in Learning More?

Movable Type seeks to provide vision, opportunity, connection, and reflection.

Vision for undergraduate students to work for more than just a grade or to regurgitate facts. The journal allows students to see value in their work and gives them a greater purpose for exploring topics of interest by understanding that they can share their work with others through a publication.

Opportunity for students by offering them a credible platform to publish their research, granting them status as a published author, and allowing their work to have an impact by giving them a wider audience. Students are also afforded the chance to get involved as a member of the journal and learn various skills including peer-reviewing, editing, design, marketing, finance, writing, leadership skills, teambuilding skills, etc.

from within the classroom. The essays that Movable Type publishes are primarily pieces written for a specific class, so the journal is helping to further develop thoughts initiated inside the classroom.

The journal is able to highlight the growth and development of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interests, while giving credit to faculty for planting the seeds. The launch events each semester also allow for engagement between professors and students. Studentstudent: Additionally, the journal works to bring students together by putting their essays in dialogue with one another. It also provides individuals with a number of ways to get involved and learn how to create a publication from the ground up as a team.

Reflection: Movable Type seeks to stand as a platform that can fuel conversations and allow students to inspire, encourage, and challenge one another with their work.

Connection with students and faculty.

Student-faculty: for students and faculty to unite outside the classroom and celebrate work that has been inspired

Get Involved: Undergraduate students can assist with the production of the journal by becoming peer-reviewers or joining the Executive Team in a position of editing, designing, outreach, marketing, and more.

Visit movabletypeuva.com for more information.

47

Notes

48