Featured Post

Pinned Post, A Policy Note:

I have made a decision to keep this blog virus free from this point forward, at least until the smoke clears. This is not a judgement about ...

Thursday, May 20, 2021

Colberg's Neoliberal Realism

It is maybe worth noting that Colberg's conception of this thing seems to be evolving, he's no longer obsessed with just throwing shade at Annie Leibovitz. Which is good! It's good!

Apparently this is one of those ideas that's just going to niggle at me, though, so every now and then I suppose I will have another go at it, and see what there is to be said about it. I have said, I think, and maintain, that there is something here. Naturally, I insist that I can say it better. Let's see how I do, shall we?

An advertisement is a proposition. If you buy this tool, you will be a better craftsman. If you buy this car, you will have more fun driving, or it will be more convenient to transport your children about. Most of the ads we see are offering you something about your life, or your work, or your appearance.

Now consider the Patek Philippe watch ad. What does it offer you? The watch itself keeps time somewhat less well than a cheap digital watch. It is, though, in its own way attractive, in part because it is known (to those who matter) to be expensive. Wearing the watch makes you, maybe, more desirable.

In general, though, the proposition offered by the watch advert is that you yourself will be altered, or possibly revealed, to be a more perfect human. Wearing, possessing, the watch is about you in your essence.

The Tiffany & Co. jewelry reveals you in much the same way, although perhaps what reveals you to be a more perfect human is that you have elected to place the jewelry on the body of a desirable woman.

Now, all adverts partake of this, a little. If you buy a Coca-Cola, not only will you be refreshed, but you will also (it is implied) be a more perfect person. This second note, though, is attenuated for Coca-Cola and amplified to the moon for luxury brands. Arguably a luxury brand might be defined as a brand whose products primarily aim to reveal you as a more perfect person. They are, by definition, not notably practical for any purpose.

There are brands which straddle this: the BMW automobile offers a pleasurable driving experience, allegedly, but also acts as a luxury. The BMW reveals you as more perfect, and is also fun to drive.

The fashion magazine cover, where Colberg started (roughly), is much the same. This is a perfect person, albeit usually a woman and so it's not clear if she is intended to represent a possession of a perfect person, or a perfectly possessable woman, or a perfect person in her own right. Possibly all of the above. Nobody suggests that men should be possessions.

Consider these luxury brands and their advertisements. Imagine, if you will, the perfect person offered. Who is it you will be, wearing the Vacheron Constantin watch with flying tourbillon? Who will you be, when you wrap the $12,000 and yet somehow understated Van Cleef & and Arpels chain around your mistress's neck?

I don't know about you, but to me these people all seem to be the same guy. He's also the male lead in many a romance novel and movie. He's the public face of the successful politician, the captain of industry. He's also male, as an aside, but there's female counterpart attached to his hip, so there's that.

He is the perfect avatar of what we now call neoliberal capitalism. He's that guy.

Colberg's conceit is that we can consider these advertisements as a parallel to state sponsored art, specifically the art of socialist realism. He's almost right, and if you say heroic realism instead, you pretty much nail it.

The various flavors of state sponsored heroic realism all offer the proposition of the perfect citizen. Everyone in "Triumph of the Will," all those blotchy peasants and factory workers in Stalin-era Soviet paintings, Comrade Lei Feng in China, they're all model citizens. They're the goal to which we (ought to) aspire.

The state offers the goal of the perfect citizen, and offers various paths to that goal. Join the party. Join the army. Clean your teeth diligently. Pick up trash. Whatever, it doesn't matter. There is a perfect person you could be if only you performed the appropriate rituals.

The Patek Philippe advert offers essentially the same deal. Buy the watch, be the man. Be the perfect citizen.

The element of realism is critical here. Indeed, I think it follows the Berger/Lukács conception of realism, that it is more than merely an attention to details but rather a metonymic representation of a world, of a totality of existence.

The point here is not to merely show a detail, but to propose an entire life, a complete existence, as a perfect citizen, as a perfect person. The watch does not merely make you look good in a picture, it rewrites your life into one of perfection. You are someone new, you are born again as it were, as a perfect citizen.

Whether advert or state-sponsored painting, the message is the same:

    join us: perform the ritual, become as new, become perfect.

8 comments:

  1. When it comes to timepieces, I settle for nothing less than a Ming Thein watch. That's how perfect I am.

    Although I think I prefer "desirable" to "perfect".

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, I'm torn between "aspirational" and "masturbational."

      Delete
    2. I think if you do your research, it is simply MING. As Prince is not Prince Schminklestein, and Adele is not Adele Bullwinter-Toulouse, the watch is simply MING.

      Also, I am quite certain that older gentlemen shaped like potatoes are all the rage these days with the ladies.

      Delete
    3. Hey, you say potato, I say potato.

      Seriously, though, folks, I would substitute "desirable" for "perfect" in your otherwise interesting argument, when it comes to consumption-led aspiration. Who wants to be perfectly perfect when they could be perfectly hot?

      N.B. The words "minger" and "minging" have an unfortunate resonance here in the no-longer-so-United Kingdom.

      Mike

      Delete
  2. Jörg, exercised by remarkable (to him) cosmetic ads appearing on artnet, did indeed tweet screenshots of these ads. All of them! Alarmingly (to him), the ads are interleaved with editorial content about a stupid wanker who makes 'virtual photographs' [sic] of Van Gogh, through some debased digital sleight-of-hand. Of which the less said the better.

    Where to begin.

    How about: why artnet? Artnet is clickbait for art grifters and bottom-feeding 'collectors,' a dumpster fire on a good day. It looks bad, and smells worse. Artnet "do better"? Please.

    Then there's the 'why are there ads shock horror.' This in itself is a bit mind-blowing. Is childlike naivete a qualification for theoretical physicists?

    Also, if you understand how online advertising works, you might wonder why these particular ads are showing up in Jörg's browser?

    Good news, there's these things called 'adblockers.' "Highly recommended" about covers it.

    So ... "neoliberal realism": Would it be impertinent to point out advertising existed long before 'social realism' was invented, and 'social realism' is largely based on advertising, and meant to supplant advertising as the motivational force behind consumer-citizens' angst, and this thesis got it wrong-way around?

    "Neoliberal realism" is not neo-anything, it's old and tired, and it shows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there an identifiable conscious link from advertising to socialist realism?

      I mean, it's obviously related. Propaganda and Advertising are the same thing, after all, but was there actually some jerk in Stalin's administration who said "we need art that's more like an ad!"

      Delete
    2. In a separate note, his effort to critique wossname based on the ads that appeared next to the article foundered not once, but twice:

      - the same ads appear across artnet, so this method of criticism cannot actually distinguish between any two objects it might choose to examine. Which is ungood.

      - the ads change regularly which means, I don't even know what it means. They're all of a type, so maybe something can be salvaged.

      Trying to critique one object of many based on one instance of a constantly changing property which, at any given moment, all the objects share seems a bit dicey from here in the cheap seats.

      But WTF do I know, I'm not in the "idiotic word salad disguised as thinking" crew, so it's probably me that's the dumb one.

      Delete
  3. We have all the food and shelter we need. Status seeking is all there is left to fill our days.

    ReplyDelete