As entertaining as this was, it had almost wholly moved out of my head until yesterday, when I found myself at the tate modern for the first time in about a year. I’m not sure why such time had elapsed, but I know I was drawn back in part by the exhibition: EXPOSED. and what a show it is. Reading what other people have made of the exhibition, I’m quite sure on reflection that I missed some rooms. But nonetheless, I think this was an even more compelling look at 20th century photography. Being implicated as a voyeur in the exhibition leaves you in a peculiarly active place, not just viewing the photographs, but doubling the illicit spectacle. The exhibit was wonderfully curated in a way that allowed this tension to rise to a disconcerting hiatus where you’re actually a visual element of the art. A must-see.

one of the portraits that made him famous

What these two photography exhibitions reminded me is that we cannot be passive in enjoying art. By its nature, visiting galleries is implicating. It’s a nod towards something. The very best exhibitions will find a way to continue to arouse these reactions: be they discomfort, pleasure, amusement…we can’t be passive viewers. I really feel that art has to find a way to engage itself to new audiences.

the one that interests me the most is facebook. i know it’s phenomenally widespread, globally. only today, when my grandmother rang to tell me she couldn’t find my profile, did i believe in zuckerburg’s utopian prophecy that facebook could be used by every single inhabitant of this earth. an amazing claim, but given time, why not? one instant recently where facebook’s social power has been deployed, demonstrating its power to incite action: thanks to a facebook group joined by over 100 000 people, a student in mexico in desperate need of a blood donor, enough awareness was generated that he was able to get the transplant that he needed.

whereas other internet giants may instigate a subliminal, somewhat irksome invasion into our lives in terms of the information on us they harvest, and make billions of dollars through advertising revenues and sheer breadth of use, facebook seems to be the one that transcends our virtual worlds into our day to day socialising, or in the case of the student in mexico, the one that can help us survive. it’s exciting to think about the potency we can all have through uniting for a cause, made easy on facebook.

one interesting trait that i have noticed heavy facebook-users develop though is slightly less wonderful. this constant demand to “share” what i’m thinking, and tell the whole world about it, seems to have made me, and others, slightly self-obsessed. never before have i been able to generate such interest and discussion over the progress of my new year’s resolutions, or how my weekend plans are progressing. it’s really not that interesting, yet facebook seems to be able to lure me into this illusive reality. i have seen so many myopic status updates where someone is craving comment on the most dull truth. i really wonder what the future of facebook will hold, and whether we will ever overcome our sharing obsession…

Similarly, think about Marks and Spencer. Of course, Mylene has become a regular occurance (isn’t her fame rooted in these appearances?). This year they have pulled the stops, including Jennifer Saunders, Joanna Lumley, Stephen Fry, that bloke from Life on Mars, and, of course, darling Twiggy.

Throughout the year, supermarkets like to show us how they understand the constraints on the modern family, how pressed we are for cash, but don’t worry, your supermarket has your best interests at heart. But at Christmas, throw out this careful approach with the giblets. It seems that we are so much more susceptible to idly follow celebrities to the stores…and abandon our otherwise stringent and sensible lifestyles. Christmas: time for silly and giddy idolisation, “I’ll have one if Joanna has it!”

Here is M+S, a little treat.

It’s the historic advertising job. The “suit”. The do-er, the go-getter, the person who has the enviable ear of the client. This is the traditional and famous view of the suit.

This morning, I read a great article by Stephen Foster. He talks about the demise of the influence of the account man. It’s an undeniable argument that he has. I listen to people talk about the “golden days” of the industry. Back in the age of the power lunch, the power suit and the big campaigns that were a company’s lifeline. These were the days when everyone was in bed with a big creative agency. I think the best example of this is Margaret Thatcher and Saatchi and Saatchi back in the 80s. These were the days when public opinion rested so heavily on conventional media.

Who is the much-loved media guru who really knows what’s best for my brand these days? It’s just too close to call. In some situations, a brand’s advertising may well be a vital and integral component of its public persona. But, in our world of endless, transparent dialogue between services, companies, and consumers, advertising’s significance becomes blurred and less assured.

I think that the agencies that do really well now are those that have an adaptive offering. An agency that can work closely with their client to devise a strategy that is bespoke: everything is getting conflated now. All media agencies: advertising, PR, digital, are struggling for the client’s ear. I think the agencies who will flourish are those that offer the most insightful thinking. Increasingly evasive consumers are hard to track down, no matter how great the brand is. The agency that can find them, and truly know how to host a conversation with them, may come off the best.

Here is the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/admen-lose-influence

However, I’ve been thinking about the options I’m presented with when invited to a party. I can either choose to attend, not attend, or “maybe attend”. I can’t say I’m untouched by this social lethargy as sometimes I do RSVP the same way. But, I’ll never do so again. I’ve realised how idle and non-commital it is! It encourages a nonchalence, an unappealing ditheriness that causes havoc for the organiser. It seems that the average party has a number attendees that can oscillate wildly in number, depending on the whispy decisions of the “maybes”, ready to flaunt a number of excuses when prompted.

I laughed at the thought of sending an RSVP card in the old fashioned sense with the response “I *might* attend your wedding, to which you kindly invited me.” As IF that would happen! Although we are all so digitally-adjusted, it seems that every know and then, we don’t mind our digital manners.

I was relaxing watching television the other evening, when a new BMW advert came on. It featured nice, if generic video of the BMW range being driven on all these lovely open Bavarian roads that us Londoners have heard about in fairytales. BMW really do make a lot of cars was the first thing I noticed. I have been quite annoyed recently by all these brand and range-led car company strategies. As far as I’m concerned, people are going to buy ONE car, not a whole range, and I really think the money would be better spent championing individual models, which would translate much more directly into sales. If I’m buying my lunch, then great, tell me everything you have in your range. I’d love to be in the position to buy a new BMW quite so frequently, but my surname not being Rockerfeller, this is unlikely.

And as for the endline, I nearly choked on the NZ Sav I was drinking when I was informed that Joy is…

efficient and dynamic.

Excuse me!? Joy, that wonderful ecstatic feeling of happiness, something that you might feel when finishing a particularly arduous task at work, or something slightly more risqué… But, never in my short life have I ever thought to myself that joy is efficient, let alone dynamic. It’s quite potentially the most vacuous and pointless statement I have ever heard. In some countries I believe this strategy has been communicated as “Joy is BMW” which would make somewhat more sense. But, please, don’t tell me that joy is efficient and dynamic. Maybe your cars are efficient, and they certainly have a dynamic design, but Joy?

“Joy is efficient and dynamic”. Lol.

All leathered up and ready to...churn milk?

I probably make it sound like I hate this song but I really don’t. I hate that it isn’t really a song, it’s a tentacle of Simon Cowell’s money making Octopus. I’m sure I’ll have it stuck in my head for a few hours over the next month or so, and I am sure it’ll do well in the charts. It’s so cheery in its melody that I think it’s quite hard to actively dislike.

By far the most entertaining moment in the entire video is the moment at about 3 minutes 20, when the girl of the moment, accompanied by a horde of male dancers, performs a dance move akin to an antiquated milkmaid churning milk. Great stuff, that.

Tavi with Katie Grand

For a thirteen year old, her blog is incredibly polished, gauche, and stylish. Tavi Gevinson is the toast of the fashion world right now, rubbing shoulders with all the big names at NY fashion week. She has a real passion for fashion (excuse me), and really knows what she likes, and what works.

For me, it’s more her expressive manner and opinions that make her intriguing (not forgetting that she is a 13 yr old who parties with Katie Grand and acts as a muse for Rodarte). There’s something reminiscent of the young girl with a dressing up box and an over active imagination, but it seems that in fashion, that works.

It’s a Cinderella story for our generation. Whereas back in the Hollywood years we salivated over stories where waitresses and bellboys could become superstars overnight, now it’s the bloggers who ascend to glory. I suppose Perez Hilton was the original, but nonetheless, these people reassure us that the internet really is democratising, that we live in an age where everyone has a voice. Let’s see how long her fame lasts though: that’s the problem with democratised media, there are thousands of quirkier Tavis just waiting to be discovered, and, we just love it when they are!

Here she is: http://www.tavi-thenewgirlintown.blogspot.com/

Cover art from a Foll House EP

Just yesterday was I reminded of this phenomenon, as I learn of Clemens en August, a red-hot (or ice-cool) fashion label that you can’t buy in any shop. Not Brown’s, Liberty, but nowhere. A label to en vogue that it is toured around the worlds fashion hotspots, giving Tokyo, London, New York, and other European cities a fleeting chance to buy into this cooler-than-thou phenomenon. I heard that even James McAvoy wore one of their Tuxedos to the Oscar’s this year.

The important thing that draws these two experimental and devilishly now enterprises together is their dependency on covetousness. Keeping them exclusive and unattainable is the fundamental key to their success. Yet, it isn’t this element which interests me the most. I am particularly fascinated by the way that these two inventive brands are actually redefining two classic retail models. By producing small numbers of EPs (rather than so 200-8 CDs), Fool House cut out so much of the time and money-consuming aspects of developing a record label, especially when it’s not really their aim to compete with outdated and failing record labels. Clemens en August are doing something similar by shunning retail space in favour of retailing their clothes in exclusive spaces such as Art Galleries. I’m in no doubt that there is an element of pretentiousness lurking in here somewhere, but I thoroughly commend their attempts to redefine and streamline the ways in which some of the cornerstones of popular culture are delivered to us. Bravo, and keep it coming!