THE VANILLA PROJECT
WORD ASSOCIATION Vanilla, a word that is associated with safe, bland, boring, weak, plain, vapid, flat, dull, flavourless and unexciting. The list could go on. The Vanilla Project is so named as not because it is any of those things but because it is in fact the complete opposite. It draws one into a false sense of security; give an illusion of suburban safety. The spark of originality, controversy, argumentative, unconventional and eccen足tric, fuels the project. The name has an ironic connotation, to reflect an idea that appears, and is assumed to the spectator but in the face of reality, is anything other than that.
The Vanilla Project is forward thinking mission that is pushing a new social movement. The 21st century lifestyle is becoming a destructive force in the culture, mental and physical environments of today’s world. The vanilla Project aims to prick the consciousness’s of society to question the messages and values encouraged. The objective is simple, to take back the power from commercial corporations by pushing information to topple the existing accepted lifestyle choices. The project is dedicated to examining why were encouraged to constantly consume. The concept to step away from this emotional blackmail of comparing all parts of one’s life to others and to reclaim your own self- esteem, to educate all readers of the true meaning of living. Step away from the corrupt world of mass consummation and to step into a world of anti-consumerism. Rediscover the true meaning of life, design, art, culture and society. This book is divied into four sections, tackling different subjects. 0/1 Advertising 0/2 Self surveillance 0/3 Over consumption 0/4 The Future The exploration of each areas is communicated through visual narratives, ojective essays and short articles.
Escape. There is no denying that our culture is immersed in advertising, that the thought to question its position and influence is non-existent, it is the norm. But should it be? If our minds are intoxicated and poisoned by advertisements on a daily basis, how does this change the way we value relationships, interactions and ourselves? Constantly being feed ideal lifestyles and not just a product. How does this alter the way we, as a society view our lives? If we are being inundated by images of beauty, wealth, happiness and perfection, how is one to live up to the unattainable? The ideals of this so-called perfection are connected to a product or brand, this connection and association is due completely to advertising. Once a platform of solely informing, advertisings evolution has been drastic, it began selling so much more than a product. It sells insecurities. Compare yourself to your neighbors, friends and colleagues. What do they have that you don’t? This is a ridiculous notion that is instilled in today’s society. Buy, consume, then you are more. Is that all you are? You are more than that. Step away from the new season, the new you idea. Be who you are. Allow your self the escape. Don’t bow down to the buy now, worry later manifesto driving our lives. This breeds a selfish culture. It breeds greed and places much more emphasis on image rather than on virtues. Value yourself on not what you buy but on who you are. If you are to pin your self worth against advertising, image, politics etc. then you will be forever disappointed as there is no certainty that these will be there tomorrow. Escape.
ESCAPE
Free yourself, find what is important to you and not what you are told should be important. Marketing and advertising are at a constant status in life, which allows us to be susceptible to taking in the key messages subconsciously. Our mental environment becomes polluted as we consume these junk thoughts. Believing the claims of advertising leads us to lose the ability to think for ourselves. Losing this ability to think critically and create half form ideas produces a moronic society. The fundamentals of today’s culture, currently is based upon materialism and affluence. Surely we are capable of more? Be free from the ties of the consumer culture. Don’t lose the ability to think for yourself. Find pleasure in the stewardship of nature and not consumerism.
Escape. They say that in the age of information, ignorance is now a choice. We recognize through a conscience, what is right and wrong. Advertising discourages a conscience and encourages us to become oblivious. To allow ourselves to become gluttonous and greedy, as we buy more and more of what we don’t need. Consuming fast fashion, cheap clothes for every and any occasion, have catastrophic effects. It allows us to ignore what we know sweat shops, child labor, dyes contaminating oceans, pollution from manufacturing plants and then the evitable fate, for thousands of tons of clothes to be dumped every year. “Don’t like it anymore, worn it already, bored of it, not in style.” Does this sound familiar? Buying disposible clothes encourages ignorance, lack of conscience and moral. It allows us to pawn off any responsibility for the implications our purchases are having. The phaff that one person can’t make a difference is ridiculous. You cannot blame society, when we are society. We have a voice. “The power of the people is stronger than the people in power”
Escape. When our lives are full of things, “Stuff” in other words, disposable distractions, we shouldn’t let these define who we are. Be the counter culture for consumerism. Find passion in something real. Our lives of full of things we own and don’t cherish. Have a passion in life in moments and friends, that is what we remember, not what had or wore that day. Have a rich life of memories not an indebted one of materials. The oldest saying goes, money cannot buy you happiness. You are the creator and producer of your own happiness. Have Less. Do More. Be More. Escape
Step away from the corrupt world of mass consummation and to step into a world of anti-consumerism. Rediscover the true meaning of life,
Arms against advertising. Advertising is a toxic element in our lives. We can be poisoned without even realizing it. This is a serious issue. You need to ask yourself 1.. Dissect What is it really telling you? What is it actually selling? 2.. Think How does it make you feel? And why? 3. Reason Is it a necessity? Do you want it or need it? 4. When did you start allowing others to shape the priorities in your life?
With the fast moving development of technology it brings an allotted changes. The interaction between people has become far and far less personal. Between emails and Skype the human interaction appears to be irrelevant. Often a scene is depicted at a restaurant when two people sat there on their phones rather than paying attention to each other. New gadgets bring about a fickle and easily bored person. It encourages ignorance and rudeness. Spending more time looking down than around us, is the surest way to miss out on the wonders, that is everyday life. These choices that we make, should be discourageable. Self-image and technology are so intangible; it is hard to connect one without the order. How we look, what we wear, eat, visit, do etc. Posted, tweeted, pinned the list goes on. The amount of interaction received our self worth increases, people are taking an interest and admiring your online persona. And although your profile may be very well true, it still can only show a fraction of your life. There becomes a disillusion that your life is exciting and fantastic the one online. It is a dangerous rabbit hole full of ups and produces as many problems as it solves. Libby Jensen, discusses the question are we ever really alone or has self surveillance become a way of life.
Self-Surveil ance. Words By Libby Jensen.
There is no question new media encourages people to partake in self-surveillance of themselves and others’ activities. The real question lies as to whether this available power is having a more positive effect or a negative one. Through analysing webcams, mobile phones, social networking sites and the general web, the mass availability to personal information, through self-surveillance in new media is clear. Individuals have the possibility to create a self-surveillance that can inspire and help each other in many ways, however this is not always the outcome with such an authoritative source as some can be blinded by powerful opportunities. “I have two personalities. There is Jenifer who nobody is interested in. And there’s Jenni” J.Ringley, Jenifer Ringley was one of the first to recreate George Orwells concept from the infamous novel, ‘1984’, and make it a reality through her own self-surveillance. The American student used her webcam to show the world her life through a live stream on the web called ‘JenniCam.org’. By inviting the world into her private space, she was viewed by thousands carrying out everyday tasks, from socialising and studying to exercising and even engaging in sex. While she generated lots of hits and many followers, it became clear observation was able to turn to obsession as one admirer in particular sent threats and demands for Jenni to ‘pose’ sexually, for his own pleasure. Jenni became an object of observation and many followers saw a right, in the powerful position of observation, to expect her to obey their requests. In reaction to this, Ringley stopped her live streaming, however
it was not long before she once again opened up her private life to global eyes. When asked why she again presented herself to surveillance, her reply was that
)This showed being observed had led to her own obsession with being watched by strangers and feeling needed and in some form, significant. “The existence of the camera assuaged her sense of lonliness.” (META, 2010). Ringley’s self-surveillance appeared to have sacrificed her independence. Her show became less of a social experiment and more of a heterosexual male fantasy, reinforcing Laura Mulvey’s concept of the ‘male gaze’. This concept describes of how the gaze and the viewer is male, but the object being used for observation is female. Mulvey’s theory was influenced by Freud’s works and often was used to show the role of women in Hollywood and how they “are merely represented to provide visual pleasure to men, and the audience is constructed in a manor where they are all expected to be men.” (Virgin-research, 2007). This shows how self-surveillance can have negative effects when such open opportunity to observe is given to almost anyone, anywhere. Michele White however, believes Mulverys theory is not one that can be generalised as “Women’s webcams do not provide spectators with an empowered gaze or access into private domains, despite rhetorical promises. Women maintain control of their representations and develop a form of power through the ways they become visible.” (White, 2003: p8). Even Jenni herself, although a subject of the ‘male gaze’, giving her audience the control, she made money from her views. Presenting the question as to whether Jenni’s audience are really the ones with the power and control. Self-surveillance through new media technology, such as the webcam, can encourage positive effects on an individual, such as empowerment, confidence and even give people a chance to help others. Such examples of this form of self-surveillance can be seen on popular self-broadcasting website, ‘YouTube’, a website allowing anyone to post their videos on the site and share with a potential global audience. Wheelchair bound Pat Quinn was the creator of ‘Cripplecam’,
by which he used his webcam to create a self-surveillance portraying his life in a wheelchair. In doing this Quinn claimed he gained self-confidence and desire to make effort when he got up in the morning, with the knowing that he was going to be on camera. YouTube is not just open to anyone to view however, as some users choose to filter who views their posted material within their privacy settings, meaning as well as people wanting to generate a high amount of hits, they can also want to keep certain material out of the public realm. Patricia Lange argues YouTube users fall into two categories, being ‘publically private’, where by users can create videos and add cryptic tags so only friends can find them, and ‘privately public’, relating to users who remain anonymous but try and spread messages to as many people as possible. Lange analyses “how YouTube participants developed and maintained social networks by manipulating physical and interpretive access to their videos. The analysis reveals how circulating and sharing videos reflects different social relationships among youth. It also identifies varying degrees of ‘publicness’ in video sharing. Some participants exhibited ‘publically private’ behaviour, in which video maker identities were revealed, but content was relatively private because it was not widely accessed. In contrast, ‘privately public’ behaviour involved sharing widely accessible content with many viewers, while limiting access to detailed information about video producers’ identities.” (Lange, 2009). YouTube user ‘MadV’ is a good example of how a ‘publically private’ user can use their self-surveillance to encourage others in a positive way. He uploaded a video named ‘one world’ that received many responses in the form of their own video take on ‘one world’, to which then ‘MadV’ merged the responses together to create a whole new positive narrative upon the one world we all live in. The video was then to be the most responded to in YouTube history, giving inspiration to those who needed it. ‘MadV’ then deleted his account before he could receive any credit for his masterpiece that resulted in the encouragement of broad participa-
tion through anonymity, as a privately public user. The mystery user prevented his identity from being revealed and maintained a degree of private public participation; he did this by filtering comments, using privacy settings, that could jeopardise his identity. ‘MadV’ used his own self-surveillance to invite others to use theirs, with their webcams, in a positive way, then showed how powerful self-surveillance can be, especially when used for the right reasons. Mobile phones have made such advancements in the past few years, especially in regard to the availability of a location based self-surveillance that it is now possible with GPS and specialised applications to share personal information with others. This all stems from the popularity of ‘Dodgeball’, Google’s free mobile service, used back in 2005. It was used to distribute locations to other ‘Dodgeball’ users, allowing peers to meet up within the same cities, easily, by checking into venues and sharing it with friends. A concept we are very familiar with now, used in social networking sites, to ‘tag’ friends and locations. Although new media technology advancements can scare people, as a general human consensus tends to show, this particular concept of having the ability to connect people, proved more popular than not. It was minimal effort with maximum results, by having the ability so send one location out to chosen peers, making it easy to meet up and enter the ‘Third Place’ (Oldenburg, 1991: p16).Ray Oldenburg’s concept of “the third place is a generic designation for a great variety of public places that host the regular, voluntary, informal and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work” (Oldenburg, 1991: p16). Gatherings in the ‘third place’ are an essential part of success in urban society, as they take individuals away from their ‘first place’, being the home and their ‘second place’, being the work place. Unlike the others, Oldenburg describes of how the third place is one where people can find a neutral ground and socialise with a group they consciously choose to. Self-surveillance through mobile phones and social networks make it easier to enter our third place, another positive outcome of new media encouraging people to partake in self-surveillance of themselves and others’ activities. There is, of course, some form of negativity to allowing society to makepersonal
information so available and publicised, as privacy settings can only go so far before a pitfall is found. It is clear to see this within the media, by looking at cases such as the News of the World ‘hacking’ scandal in 2011 that saw celebrities phones hacked into, in order to find out personal information about the targets, that would appear public interest, which was then published in the popular tabloid paper. It is only natural we would ask how much more individuals privacy will be breached through surveillance within new media. New media however can also be used within counter surveillance by using self-surveillance itself. The mobile phone can allow individuals to become active subjects in creating and circulating images from both private and public spheres, meaning surveillance is not just an institution produced by the government or state to monitor us, but can also overthrow the panopticon idea and be actively generated though interpersonal relationships. Surveillance technologies such as CCTV are within the government and states power, however due to the advancement in phone technology, it is now a power available to all at the tip of their very fingers, proving useful, even in crime. When Ian Tomlinson collapsed walking home from work during the 2009 G-20 London summit protests, no CCTV was used to research reasons for his death, as the first post-mortem indicated Tomlinson had died from natural causes. However The Guardian obtained video footage of Tomlinson receiving and unprovoked hit to the head by a police officer during the riots, even though he was not a protestor. The self-surveillance in this case meant that justice was able to be found that could never have surfaced, without this particular mobile video. In conclusion self-surveillance can take many forms and within new media and it appears to be giving individuals within society more power at their very fingertips, to create both positive and negative impacts on themselves and each other. The positives have led to individuals gaining more confidence, self-worth, as well as creating media legacies and inspiring others. Although, privacy boundaries are becoming easier to break through, making individuals information more accessible, this creates the great ‘private versus public’ debate. New media can also be a way of making society aware of surveillance and question their own practices of self-surveillance and how it can be used to fight back, however the power of selfsurveillance can also be used to spread negative messages as well as positive. Ultimately it all depends on the individual, which is an inevitable risk as self-surveillance itself is available to anyone, anywhere. Almost like a superhero deciding whether to use their power to do good or evil. We can only hope society’s heroes outweigh its villains. Ends.
“she felt lonely without the camera”
Nobody seems to be able to stop for a moment and just breath, everything has a schedule, a time and purpose. No body no’s has to just be alone with themselves anymore. To sit in silence and not be concerned with anything, to clear your mind. There is constantly white noise, always.
Do you even know how to be alone?
You’re happy…right?
The consumer culture is ever demanding in the most destructive way. To fill the void and portray a way of happiness, the internal mental environment can never be recovered. And defiantly not through a quick buy. It is a superficial bandage that we have been groomed to believe can mend our problems. Only to be left with an empty hallow feeling. There is still something broken. The brief momentary wave of what is mistaken as happiness drives us to go back, creating the catch twenty-two of the destructive fast fashion buys.
Too much form breeds envy and cynicism.
It is not possible to go through life in the twenty first century without buying anything. It is growing a conscience, that’s what needs to be thought. It is the sheer waste that is generated every year, the implications on just the environment but also a humanitarian aspect. Ask yourself where does your “stuff” come from? Buying for need not for want. The emphasis before this fast fashion culture was created was, what you could do with what you have. True style doesn’t need a new capsule wardrobe every year, but reflects to the person. Who they are, what’s their voice, their style? It created true individualism. A lost art. If you buy and choose well, there would be no need to be constantly buying aimlessly. Our lives of full of “Stuff”, disposable distractions, things we buy but do not cherish, own yet do not value. Thrown away in weeks rather than passed down for generations. If you buy well then you will only have to buy once or twice in a lifetime. Wiser choices made with consideration and greater care. After all if the fewer things excite you, would you really miss the many that never could? Buy fewer but better things.
“The idea is not to live forever, it is to create something that wil �.
Give a man a fish; you feed him for a day. Buy him Birdseye Fish Fingers and you are giving him a product made with 100% cod fillet. Consumers take us away from the bigger picture and draw us into a much smaller image and often a brand. Shall we bypass the fact a Big Mac contains almost a 3rd of our daily calorie allowance just because it is made of 100% British beef? What a grave justice we would be carrying out, all in the name of British farming. Can we put the continuation of sweatshops in the 21st century to the back of our ‘free’ minds? All because we can walk and run with a tick on the side of our shoes. We seem to Just Do It, like we are told. Having another man’s name stamped along the top of your underwear is different to being given a number in prison? Farfetched maybe, but is the principle not the same? A label of letters or numbers with no identity or personal relevance to those who wear it, yet one is ‘cool’ and the other is ‘nothing’. Stick an Apple logo on your computer and the possibilities are endless, as are the apps. Since when did fruit become so powerful? iDont have the answers. Google it? Phones get slimmer, TV screens get bigger, cars get faster, consumers get richer, we get poorer. More accurately, our minds get smaller. Do we want change? Yes! We are not controlled like puppets. But not individually. I won’t take off my 1887 edition Tag Heuer 41mm Carrera Calibre watch until Mr Jones Scraps his Matte Black 599 GTO, 458 Italian Ferrari. A vicious circle surrounds us, yet nobody will leave. Safety in numbers? But who goes first and more importantly, who will follow? Andy Warhol said “The idea is not to live forever, is to create something that will”. I say, what doesn’t kill you, consumes you. #ForeverInfluenced #ForeverControlled #ForeverBlinded Consumption…coming to an anywhere near you. Words by Libby Jensen.
Chapter 4
WHO ARE YOU?
WE ARE THE FUTURE
WE HAVE A VOICE
WE WANT TO BE HEARD
WE ARE NO LONGER
CONSUMERS, BUT ACTIVISTS
WE ARE TAKING CONTROL
OF OUR FUTURES
WE WANT NEW MEANING
WE WANT FREEDOM
WE ARE THE CHANGE
The Raw revolution The future of not only this project but our future, it needs change. We need to strip back and bare ourselves to embrace our roles of activists, writer, pranksters, educators move this ideal forward. We need to become an activist society and pro active. Move the transition from spectator to participator. Schedule
We need to fight for the injustices set against us, the consequences for others actions will only implicate our future. The system of capitalism isn’t working, we need to create and form a new beginning, with stability and growth. To manufacture a new era to be proud, based on dignity and pride. Not greed and control. We are that future, that voice, that need. Embrace it.
The Raw Revolution