fashion / branding as transferable signifiers.

Fashion is a way of communicating. When you get your message wrong, it’s good that the people around you let you know. - Dries Van Noten.

Branding practices, in general, have a lot to learn from fashion.

Over the last several months, I've developed a more than passing interest in fashion. This has, for some people, come across as more of a vanity issue than anything else. I'll freely admit that vanity has something to do with it, as I care what I look like. But I also care what the way I look says. I care about the role clothing plays in my projected persona, and the interpretations of my identity that others make.

I recently referred to branding as a transferable signifier, something that consumers can take onto themselves as an element of a constructed, projected identity. The connection between clothing and branding is one that transcends logos. A specific cut, style or fit, is potentially as heavy with meaning as the brand of any global corporation.

A lot of my ideas about this stem from issues and questions I have related to racial identifiers and stereotypes. As a mixed-race (Jamaican / Irish) individual, I find myself asking questions about how certain clothing makes me look. I'll be the first to admit that this is a stupid thing to have to ask, but I'm in no way blind to the fact that if you put me in certain clothing, a percentage of the population will immediately make negative assumptions about me. There is a smaller-still percentage that will make negative assumptions about me regardless, but I'm still fascinated by the potential of having an immediate visual signifier that I can control - in contrast to my facial features and skin tone, an immediate visual signifier that I cannot (and have no desire to) alter.

If fashion is a method of communication, then I would argue branding with logos is the crudest form of yelling in comparison. Brands should aspire to be like clothes - something that adds to the consumer identity without usurping it. Something that takes first impressions into account, and manipulates them to the consumers advantage. Something that intends to speak louder than words.

persona management: wal-mart.

Wal-Mart, to put it bluntly, has an image problem. Sure, they offer great selection, and prices that are difficult to match. But they also exemplify the sheer force that a dominant business model can exert over all related industry. Wal-Mart knows that people think of it as an evil, faceless corporation.

And, because the standard solution to a corporate issue is whatever the big trend was 10 months ago, they have turned to blogging. They've even made the big step, and moved to a more transparent model, because 'The lesson seemed clear: Create an authentic blog or do not create a blog at all.'

Authenticity, in practice, means persona management. But no one wants to admit that, because the whole point is making the enterprise seem guileless.

While Wal-Mart has made the important distinction that some actual transparency has a positive effect on the overall image, what's embarrassing is that the IHT has bought in whole-heartedly. This isn't a daring stunt, or a reversal of corporate policy. This is the same thing as buying a bunch of rainforest and declaring it a reserve, while clear-cutting in B.C.

It looks like a job half done, from my perspective. A better, more curated experiment, would have the bloggers ('authentically', but generally nicely) comment on issues in the Wal-Mart store, and business model. Certain issues could be hilighted, and then the company could take into account employee/blogger input, and make actual changes to the way the business works.

Obviously, the greater model couldn't be changed. And some of the alterations would, of course, be nothing more than lip service. But it would fight allegations of empty talk, and would more or less guarantee a spread of awards and cover stories about Wal-Mart moving beyond market dominance, and now creating a shared culture between the business and the people who make it great, both inside and outside the store.

The glowing coverage, however, is an excellent example of why persona management, or artificial (curated) transparency is a good plan. Social media is unavoidable, if you want a meaningful media strategy. And artfully curated work is substantially more beloved than 'thinly veiled extensions of Wal-Mart's public-relations department'.

Both links are to the International Herald Tribute story mentioned above. This post directly dovetails the artificial persona and transparency: revisited.

the artifical persona and transparency: revisited

One of my major themes, at the start of this blog, was the importance of persona as a medium, both in day-to-day life, and on a broader scale. What is interesting is, completely independent of this, I have ended up working in Public Relations. I am in the persona business, and I feel I have to explain how I can reconcile that, with the earlier ideas of artificial persona that dominated my writing here.

Persona is both the first, and most vital medium we have to express ourselves, our ideologies, and our agendas. It’s also the first medium we learn to manipulate, although many do not see it this way. Persona Management is a skill we all develop to varying degrees. We keep emotions, or opinions, to ourselves. We carefully monitor our expression, actions, tone, and words to make sure we convey only certain information.

In this sense, all persona is artificial.

My commentary on artificial persona, however, was the idea of pushing beyond this, and creating a public persona that was more carefully managed than an actual identity. Monitoring all output, all traceable action, and making all decisions that relate to public information based on maintaining that desired persona. The purpose of this was as a response to the state of privacy in our modern world. Everything is public, and nothing is private, assuming a suitable lack of anonymity.

This approach requires subjugating ‘actual’ identity for ‘projected’ persona, and therefore is entirely unacceptable to the average person. Some would argue that there are examples of fully artificial persona in the celebrity community, and I would have to agree this isn’t out of the realm of possibility. But by and large, all a famous person is doing is the standard practice of projecting a ‘best-of-self’ persona, and ignoring / downplaying negative aspects of one’s identity.

Transparency, in some ways, if the opposite of artificiality. It demands making all information available, in an attempt to earn goodwill – an ‘open’ identity means that negative aspects observed are more likely to be forgiven. The issue here, is that no sane person would want to be completely transparent. Instead we deal with the illusion of transparency, and the hope that it will keep people from digging much deeper.

My current theory is persona management. It’s a selective mix of transparency and artificiality, while operating on what my inner English Major demands I call a thesis. Core truth must be preserved, otherwise the effect will ‘feel’ off. The key to artificiality is that it be a perfect simulacra – this is next to impossible in real life. People notice the cracks. So, the logical choice is to be open about some of the cracks, those that are integral to believability, and to operate on a less transparent basis when those flaws overwhelm the thesis. The core idea behind artificial persona was the creation of a consistent message and whole, one that was reflected by all elements. The creation of that with the inclusion of beneficial truths AND beneficial but true flaws, creates a more believable image.

That believable, positive persona is what matters, and what most communication is an attempt to create. The right field theory on how to do that is, to me, priceless. That, in a nutshell, is why I’m rambling on about it.

Click for other posts on Artificiality, Persona, and Transparency.

transparency and post-transparency.

Talking with Angus recently has led me to think a fair amount on transparency and the importance of it to creating a connection with consumers. This led to, last night at a Starbucks, me scribbling rapidly about the possible clash of branding and transparency in terms of making meaning. To put it bluntly, the chances of anyone or anything being both radically open, and creating and staying on an iconic message, are negligible (assuming that the message isn't mostly one of transparency and 'human-ness'). What this led me to thinking about was an idea of post transparency thinking, and the mixing of a curated message with a more natural one.

It is a both a good thing, and a bad thing, that I read a disgusting amount of magazines. Good because I managed to read the article that exposed me to the core of these ideas, and bad because it took 45 minutes of searching to remember that it had been in GOOD, and not Wired, or Monocle, or Maisonneuve (all of which I recommend wholeheartedly).

"Green is the Colour of Money", an article on corporate greenwashing, makes mention of the Clif Bar company, and one interesting facet of it's operations. The entire delivery fleet runs on biodiesel, and the company has 'a very strong sustainability program'. It also doesn't advertise this at all, except to mention on the packaging that the bars are about 70% organic in ingredients. This is interesting, and I think it goes beyond the fact that the company doesn't advertise, as far as I can tell.

This could be seen as a simple choice that the company live or die on the merits of the product, which is something easy to respect. But it is also a powerful choice given the nature of information access, at the current moment in time. While the article later mentions that the wrappers are not recyclable, this doesn't come across as much of a criticism, although it would if the company was pushing a strong 'green' image. However, it's 2007, and Google exists. Articles like this one being written, consumers blogging and posting on message boards, information like this gets out there, and people search for it. If transparency is about making it simple for consumers to see what you are doing, and therefore assume that you aren't hiding anything, than this is post-transparency; operating on the assumption that the consumer can find out what you do, and instead of simply not addressing your failings, utilise the power of not addressing your successes.

The end result is that you are lauded all the more for enviable facets to your business, and forgiven for little flaws like Clif Bar's non-recyclable wrapper, because, well, it's not like you were bragging about it. Moreover, if people have to look for information (and you can assume they will, if they care) they are at least somewhat more likely to assume it is true than if they are getting it spoonfed to them by the corporation in question.

By understanding that the information, if it exists, will be available, the only question becomes how to generate the interest necessary to turn a post-transparency approach into goodwill, good press, and hopefully good sales. The obvious choice here is to create a superior product, or at the very least one that speaks for itself. Most of us have already reached the point of understanding the brand is more important than any individual offering. Telling people they should love and respect the brand is the first step towards backlash. Letting them find out why themselves, after they have decided to love the product, seems like a fast route to overwhelmingly positive word of mouth, beyond the fact that it offers you a little forgiveness for any initiatives or approaches that aren't 100% of what the consumer might expect.

The other option that seems of the same school, is the ever-present-in-the-back-of-my-mind artificialism, which I should really get around to explaining clearly. I will, whenever I figure out a clear way to explain it. For a quick, cryptic attempt: artificialism is the point when a demand for transparency meets an adherence to branding. Constructing an entire system of information in the goal of creating a singular perception, divorced at least somewhat from reality. However, I'm currently of the mind this would only work on a personal level, as something that requires near-perfection in execution is rarely something that would scale.

gorillaz.

[Disclosure: I love the Gorillaz, fictional though they may be. I have all four releases (which should point out the level of obsession, because who digs for dub remix albums that no one else knows exist), two of the dvds, and the book. ]

So, it's all ending. Hopefully it will end with us getting an animated Gorillaz movie, and the score to it, as indicated here, but ending all the same.

I found the theory behind Albarn and Hewlett's experiment more intriguing than the music at first, but only at first. The idea that pop had become so fictional and so false that cartoons were the perfect basis for the music. The idea was held to so strongly in almost all press related to the band, and it was stunning to read the two competing narratives behind the music, the 'actual' one according the the band itself, and the reality.

The amazing thing was how well it worked, at least in my eyes. Not musically, but as a means of distraction from all the other crap that comes with pop music these days. Albarn was already massively famous for his years in Blur, but it felt to a somewhat objective observer that the taking of a step back from the 'role' of artist as pitchman for the music made it all a glorious play, instead of the usual picking apart and tabloid style coverage. Albarn and Hewlett created fake people, fake lives, and did so artfully and intentionally. Murdoc, Noodle, Russell and 2-D are messed up fictional individuals, a mixture of parody and homage for the music worlds stock personalities.

In many ways, I link this to the promotional campaign for Year Zero, the new Nine Inch Nails album. In both cases, one of the elements of the music business that leads to consumers feeling either cynical or irritated, was replaced with something carefully orchestrated to be useful content that people would want to enjoy. Instead of allowing the Entertainment Tonight / US Weekly style media outlets to define the 'creators' of the music, Albarn and Hewlett carefully orchestrated that element of the music experience. Instead of focusing on billboards to generate interest, Nine Inch Nails (and whoever was in charge of the massive game / conspiracy / promotion) created an experience that had the side effect of making people want the music.

I'm going to miss the Gorillaz, because I didn't really care about the actual, I cared about the fictional (and I'm a massive fan of all of Albarn's work, and Hewlett's comics, illustrations, and animation). The brilliance of it was that it wasn't, in my estimation, about managing interest in the real world creators, or minimalising the association of their real world lives with the music, it was another element of the experience created, with beneficial side effects. The care and detail that went into the creation of the Gorillaz characters is why they work so well, and also the proof, to me, that they were created for a loftier purpose than to do some PR heavy lifting.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch the video for El Manana again and again and again.

artificial everywhere (2)

AVC: You're a very candid interview. You often speak openly in a way that a lot of Hollywood actors won't. Have you had people trying to rein you in?

SL: [...] Sometimes perception is almost more important than the skill level of an actor. [...] So this [Gestures at himself.] is a representative. This is far too important a conversation, it's far too important, for me to be real with you. It's just too important to my career. Too important to the things that I love. So this right here is just this representative I've created, and I can talk all day in this character, this is just another form of acting. It's closer to what I am, but what I am is too much for any kind of selling of a project. There's too much money riding on this interview going well for me to be completely candid. So it's just a creation.

AVC: But even the fact that you're able to talk about that makes you candid.

SL: Right. Well, I don't know, I know where I'm at right now, it's been pretty successful so far, and this is just what I've been doing. I think it would be strange for me to start shutting down. I don't think I'd enjoy it as much.

from the Onion AV Club interview with Shia LaBeouf.

The thing I find most interesting is that the image of him as genuine is persistent enough that when he DIRECTLY STATES that he is not being a real person in this interview, but a construct, the interviewer still feels the need to ask the second question. This reinforces the idea that the perception of LaBeouf as a candid interview is a reasonable one, although the actor himself basically just said 'I am not going to be myself, because this is too important. This is a role.'

I would also ask that you consider the state of the world we live in where admitting that your persona is artificial is responded to with respect. We've come to expect the people we define as notable to manipulate their identity. When are we going to start expecting this on a basic interpersonal level?

Sooner than you think, would be my guess.

artificial everywhere.

If you like good ideas, or comics, or know who Warren Ellis is, take a look at the teaser page of script for his new series Doktor Sleepless that went up today.

Artificiality is showing up everywhere, because I suppose it has become obvious to anyone who's looking that being real is no longer a viable option given the state of modern media.

I am very excited about this book, mostly because Ellis is writing it, but also because I want to read his take on the benefits of being a constructed persona rather than a 'real' person.

[I really need to get back to the Artificials Manifesto.]

a conversation with singha. (artificials)

[Mostly because I have received my big 4th year seminar take home exam, and am only now understanding how fully I slacked off, there will not be a good exploration of the themes in this conversation. Note that it is very hastily edited, and the poor results are a reflection of that. But somewhere in there is the kernel of the artificials idea, which apparently most people aren't getting from my rambling crap posted thus far. I may delete this later, and replace it with a better exploration that isn't a pasted MSN convo. I may not. Now, to read tremendously boring autobiographies that I just went into debt to buy.]

----------

Shaan: I have come to a weird realization about myself...
Shaan: I am a fan of Pop Sub cultures...
Shaan: not necessarily what they think of... but for the reason that they are an identifiable sub culture
Shaan: .. wait... let me rephrase
Shaan: Not to be them. but because of what they are and how they identify themselves... its all too fascinating...
[crowley.] it is pretty interesting.
[crowley.] I’ve been looking into that for my artificial persona idea
Shaan: I don’t know if I would fit into the artificials
[crowley.] subculture is a great example of people picking up elements of a personality for personal gain, not necessarily because it genuinely describes them.
Shaan: this idea I came to though is making me try and do the impossible and define what I am...
Shaan: that is definitely true
Shaan: though the range in gain is varied
Shaan: it would even seem that in attempts to further the culture it is more importantly there to make them more of the culture
Shaan: sometimes as seen with music
Shaan: make their own self a culture as it would be
[crowley.] what I think is interesting is ideas of cooptation
[crowley.] because, if a subculture was defined by ideals, by any real identity, that couldn't be co-opted. however, outward cues of the culture (clothes, music, slang) are often co-opted, and this leads to the death or devaluation of the culture.
[crowley.] basically, that phenomenon indicates to me that no subculture has real substance, that it is more important at the surface level than anywhere else.
Shaan: this is true
Shaan: as seen with punk
[crowley.] it's not ideals, it's an attempt to differentiate between the mass. Which, to me, makes it douchey.
Shaan: and basically everything
[crowley.] the artificials is a response to that.
Shaan: you need to make it a film
Shaan: I'm certain of this
Shaan: I want to make it a film with you
[crowley.] the only ideal is self-interest, although it could be applied to wider interest. But everything else is a weapon.
[crowley.] I think it might be a book.
Shaan: then do it
[crowley.] I kinda have to graduate first.

[Special thanks to Singha for not getting irked whenever he finds out I posted this.]

artificials manifesto: two.

Existence generates information. Information, if used properly, generates control. Control is a form of power.

This applies to everyone, but to make it simpler to explain, examine it applied to fame. Famous people, generally, are watched closely. Whether this is due to a perverse need to observe the failings they attempt to hide, or just a side effect of the adulation of the masses, is somewhat irrelevant. The point is basically, that if Britney Spears goes to rehab, it's very difficult for someone in the west to avoid learning about it, depending on how media-saturated their lifestyle is. If you or I were to enter a rehab facility, the people around us would know. The separation is one of scale, but in either fashion, it's a matter of anything you do generating information that people can use. With enough eyes on you, everyone can know everything you do. This is a fact of celebrity, and some protections have been developed over the decades to deal with it. From the major studios creating the image of their biggest stars dating to avoid suspicions of homosexual relationships, to a state where every major public figure has an individual or team working on image and public relations. But these protections are having trouble now. We've reached a place where putting the genie back in the bottle is becoming impossible. Democratised media outlets (i'm looking at you, blogosphere) and a rising demand for 'authentic' interaction with a celebrity persona leads to situations where those with the most eyes on them are forced to act on impulse, and held to impulsive actions. An example would be the reaction of K-OS to a poor review in NOW magazine by accusing the author of racism. Whether or not it was deleted from his myspace account, nothing disappears in a world of screenshots, cached pages, and easily distributed media. An individual has to live or die by their actions, because nothing can be taken back.

This isn't just true of the famous. I only went to them as an example because it's obvious in that case. If you participate in the modern world, someone is paying attention to what you read, what you spend, how much you wake, what you listen to and like, and what you say. It's not the same people, and I have a lot of trouble with the idea that it's for some kind of conspiracy to take away your freedoms. The point is that the information is out there, and people can find at least some of it with minimal effort. Have you deleted the blog posts you made in grade 9? Every account for every message board? I haven't. If people know even a little about me, the names I like to use online, etc, they could probably develop a pretty good profile for how I behave in conversation. (Actually, more than that, but projected persona will be discussed later) It's exceedingly difficult to opt out of participating in the modern world, even if it's just google targeting ads to the content of your emails. Think about how an individual could use this. Imagine the person who had coffee with you last night searching your name, or finding your blog or message board account, and just reading the volume of information. Would that make you uncomfortable, someone walking into the next conversation with that level of background? Likely. At the same time, have they really done anything wrong? The information was put there with the intent of being public, at least to the people who know you. Imagine how Britney feels.

This is why control, or at least awareness of the social persona you put forward, is so important. It would be worth reading PSFK's Red Coat, Black Coat approach to these ideas.

Your options, in terms of things actually worth doing, are to either act always within a controlled social character, and artificial persona, or to live a life of transparency. Both are more than a little daunting, but any other option is a half-measure to one of the two, and essentially similar to inaction. One of these options is about taking control, and the other is about taking ownership.

Ownership of oneself and ones actions, essentially being transparent, is exceptional in our society. However, it is also apparently becoming more common with those who live in this society. Taking ownership of ones trail of actions is to essentially deny the concept of shame. If you try to hide things, then anyone knowing them is in a position of power. Transparency creates a situation in which anyone who knows about your actions is immediately authorised to do so. It ties to the natural choice to 'be yourself', which may or may not be an honest desire of many. This choice, to accept that you are, in essence, being watched, and instead of changing behaviour, continue to live as you would otherwise, can possibly reduce the impact of the opinions of others on your self conception. At the same time, it's taking a passive role in the perceived identity that will guide the behaviours of others around you. As much as I like this ideal, it's based on the ideas that people can avoid factoring in the opinions of others into their lives. If that was true, behaviour would be a lot less standardised.

Artificiality offers the alternative of control, in terms of what information is made available for others to construct a perception of your persona / identity, and in guiding what interpretations are made directly and indirectly. This comes with the assumed cost of subjugating 'self'. Taking control, and working for access (via social connections and assumptions) is something that everyone does. I contend that it will only get more difficult when your potential employer starts the interview by questioning you about the myspace post where you talk about 'drinking all weekend and showing up to the big meeting on the verge of puking'. People become aware of technology and it's implications before it begins to change culture. The question is, will your hope of transparency as expressing a legitimate you, despite what anyone may think, do anything except hinder you further in life pursuits?

[Part three, which should be coming within the next week, we be discussing the sacrifice of the self, and the connection between identity and the subjugation of a presumed 'unaltered' self. Also, Baudrillard is dead. Moment of silence.]
artificials manifesto: one

artificials manifesto: one.

you are a channel, and reality is consensual delusion.

Starting with the latter, I mean that common belief determines what is true, at least within a society. While I recognise that truth is a less incendiary term to use, I choose reality, because truth is accepted as relative. Reality is supposed to be without bias, and I suppose, with enough people acting in determining it, it still can be. Reality is dictated by what most people believe. When everyone thought the world is flat, they were wrong, from a scientific perspective. But, in that society, the reality was of a flat world with edges you could fall off. Consensual Delusion.

As a consequence of this, you, as a person, are defined by the perceptions of others. This is the power of bias and stereotype; they decrease your involvement in the construction of your own identity, instead causing others to create all or some of it for you, without your input. The construction of your identity is arguably the most important thing about you, in the social world. Definitions set limitations. And you cannot escape being defined, in part, by others. All you can do is be a participant in the perception of your identity by others.

In this way, you are a channel. Who you are, in the social sense, is defined for others by the web of signifiers you carry with you and broadcast to everyone. The things you do, the things you say, how you say them, the references you use, how you dress, body language, who you associate with, facial expressions, the books and music you listen to and like, how much you tip, all of this meshes together in the interpretations of those around you. And, like it or not, those around you define who you are in at the least, a level comparable to that which you do. Your behaviour defines you, and everyone knows this. This is why behaviour changes with context, from small ways (pretending to like a band because you are trying to win someone over), to larger ways (defining your musical taste by the social group you wish to be a part of). I'd argue that everyone does this, to some extent. You essentially have to. You can't participate actively in society without finding, and at times creating, common ground with others.

That identity is contextual, that the person you strive to be perceived as is situational, doesn't mean that identity doesn't exist, or that people aren't real. Perceived identity is powerful enough that it shapes actual identity. Attaching this to the earlier point that reality is consensual delusion, pretending to be someone is functionally the same as being them, assuming a simulation of high quality. (This point ties to Baudrillard's Precession of Simulacra, if you're interested.) If identity is not a constant, if it is socially defined, then it has to be malleable. And this happens both consciously, and unconsciously. But it happens.

Persona, or perceived / projected identity, is a medium, and it can be used far more actively than most people bother to consider. Moreover, it doesn't have to be used in isolation, and it has benefits that almost no other medium does. However, in life, and in individual use of persona, we generally act on the assumption that persona are genuine, or are manipulated either visibly, or only partially. What makes this so? And beyond that, why are we so steadfast in the assumption that the truth of a person is in the projected signs and identity?

We live in a world where people hire entire teams to manage the public image of individuals, and of corporations. We are likely not far from living in a world where this is done internally, on an individual level.

[This was part one. I'll be expanding on this, and discussing other elements of my ideas in relation to persona as an active medium, in later 'artificials manifesto' posts. This is going to be edited and updated in response to critique, and as my own ideas shift. I am (I hope) open to being told where my rationale falls short, or falls apart.]

artificials - cryptic preview.

Dave, Remington and Isadore all head to the counter of the coffee shop, order, and move to sit down. They don't say anything, and you cannot see their faces, possibly shot from the lower jaw to the point covered by the counter. The order one at a time, and make a few gestures, etc., but nothing with any deep inherent meaning.

It's mid afternoon on a weekday and the coffee shop is pretty much deserted. This is after the lunch crowd would have left, so the only people there are either meaningless or elderly or both. The three characters are each sitting around a table facing one another. The atmosphere is one of comfortable mistrust.

REMINGTON: So. Any good stories?

ISADORE, DAVE look at him as though he is an idiot.

REMINGTON: Because I met this girl, and when I said I liked-

ISADORE, angry

ISADORE:Just because you aren't working, doesn't mean this is 'be yourself' time. You gave up 'be yourself' time.
DAVE:Is it anal posturing time, then?

REMINGTON smiles slightly. ISADORE is pissed. DAVE is enjoying the conflict.

ISADORE:Fine. Let me know when we can start.
REMINGTON:Whenever my coffee is here.
DAVE (SARCASTIC):Should we read the minutes from last meeting, Dor?
ISADORE:Shut up, Dave.
DAVE:Anything new?
REMINGTON:I'm trying to move into another social circle. So, the usual.
DAVE:What kind of circle are we talking about?
REMINGTON:Artsy. Students. The kind that go to gallery shows and know everyone there, ramble to each other about the 'obvious influences' of the work.
ISADORE:So you need to pretend you know who Pollock was to sleep with them. This requires prep now?
REMINGTON:Of course not, if I was picking them up at a bar. But if I actually want to enter the entire group, and attendant dating pool...
DAVE:We do what we do. Remington squanders it. Do we really need to have this conversation every time?

The coffee arrives, via either a server, or one of the characters goes to grab it quickly.

ISADORE:For as long as he keeps being an idiot.
REMINGTON:Yeah, your reasons are ever so pure.
DAVE:No one's reasons are pure. Anyways. Dor does the research, You figure out who they are and who they know, and I'll figure out what they'll think is attractive. Do you have names?
REMINGTON:Always. I think I'll go with quiet critic, tortured by his own inability.
ISADORE:Tell me what gallery is next for them.
REMINGTON plays around with a PDA
REMINGTON:The power of the internet, where everyone puts their life on file and complains about the death of privacy.
DAVE:You really aren't anything beyond an evolved libido, are you?
ISADORE:This is what I was saying.
REMINGTON is amused. This is a regular conversation.
ISADORE:There's a release party I need to be cool by the end of.
REMINGTON:The band from last time?
ISADORE:I need to get in with the band, because they can introduce me to this author, who can introduce me to her manager.
DAVE:This is from last week, right?

DAVE throws an envelope across the table. ISADORE opens it, and there's a bunch of vaguely hip magazines. Flip through them, there are notes, highlighted and circled looks, elements of a style.

DAVE:Follow the instructions. Buy what I said to, wear it how I said to. They'll invite you to sit with them.
REMINGTON:Oh.

REMINGTON gives ISADORE a couple of business cards.

REMINGTON:I'm introducing you to these people tomorrow at about 2:15 am, 'randomly' at Location 4, the west bar on the top floor. One of them is going to the release party, you can arrange to hit it off. I'll email you the work-up from when I met them.
ISADORE:It's so cute when you try to be professional.
REMINGTON:Really? You just seem like a bitch when you do it.

DAVE laughs.

DAVE:Why this manager, Dor?
ISADORE:One of her other clients needs a new PA. I need a larger paycheck, and invites to better events.
DAVE:So, access.
ISADORE:As ever.
REMINGTON:I thought I was the whore?

DAVE is giving them both the 'why do I have to deal with this' look

DAVE:Once a fucking week, mid-afternoon, I feel the urge to never talk to you again and start another cell. You two have to be the least business-like revolutionaries I've -
REMINGTON:Stop. Just stop. This isn't a militia, it's business.
DAVE:And business can't be revolutionary? What does subversive mean, Rem?
ISADORE:There's a difference between fucking shit up from the inside, and deciding to play the game with the cheats on.
DAVE:Is there? Both are basically working a system in a non-approved way. Dating isn't supposed to work the way it does for Remington here -
REMINGTON:Despite my name being perfect for a plethora of opening lines.
DAVE:And 'networking' isn't supposed to work the way it does for our young Isadore -
REMINGTON:I could say my mom had a huge crush on Remington Steele...
DAVE:But we make it work that way. We get what we want, when we should not. But for some reason, we can't call it revolutionary, because that's a dirty word -
REMINGTON:I could say it was only realised later that my dad had picked the name off his shaver...
DAVE:Like terrorist. Terrorism was almost socially acceptable, in certain cases. I mean, Mandela was a terrorist.
REMINGTON:I could even just pull the 'oh, I'm so shy about my stupid name, I need someone to pull me out of my shell.'
DAVE:Che Guevara. The king of the T-shirt silhouette. Terrorist.
ISADORE:This isn't exactly news, Dave.
REMINGTON:I could even just-
ISADORE:Shut the fuck up.
DAVE:All I'm saying is, we get together and fiddle with shit behind the curtain, all the damn time. And all he does is try to get laid. And all you do is climb the corporate ladder a little faster.
ISADORE:What do you do, Dave?
DAVE:Right now? I'm still using that producer you helped me convince I was a Wall of Sound expert to get to that idiot pop star with the bad haircut.
ISADORE:But why?
DAVE:So I can slowly ruin her career, and put a few select messages into the public eye.
ISADORE:But why, Dave.
DAVE:Fun. Possible profit. Mostly fun.
REMINGTON:Here's the tickets to that Moog retrospective thing, by the way. Producer dude will continue to think you are the best of friends. Pop star's 'still on good terms' ex should be there.
DAVE:See. The system works.
ISADORE:Fine. And here's the Moog workup, and background on shit likely to come up in conversation, according to Rem's profiles.

Everything gets passed to DAVE

ISADORE:What you don't get, is that you're the one here that makes no sense, Dave.
REMINGTON:I dunno. Everyone hates pop stars.
DAVE:He has a point.
ISADORE:Fuck. I mean, Remington and I have motives, as stupid as his are. We're doing this for a direct reason, a direct goal. You aren't really getting anything other than self-satisfaction out of it.
DAVE:I accomplish things, Dor.
ISADORE:But what do your accomplishments accomplish?
DAVE:Everything they need to.
ISADORE:Dave. Dave. If there's no point to fucking with people expertly, it's just as bad as doing it in a playground.
DAVE:This is why I hate working with you. You never got it, no matter how many times I explained it.
ISADORE:These are the facts. We each gave something up to do this, basically having a real personality, being known by another person, ever.
REMINGTON:I'd argue giving that up is like giving up belief in the Easter bunny.
ISADORE:We gave something up, because this, the whole perfectly planned appearance, conversation, ideas, ideals, whatever, it means power. It means we can do things. We do things for a reason, usually. I have a reason. Rem has a reason.
DAVE:I'm very proud of you.
ISADORE:Look. He just wants to meet new and interesting people, and fuck them. I just want access, more better cheaper with prettier people around. You? You're just a fucking sociopath.
DAVE:I prefer the term 'subversive observer'.

Silence for a few seconds.

REMINGTON:Well, if no one else is talking, I have the standard chart for the last week. Targets, who we know who they know, the usual.
ISADORE:Contact information?
REMINGTON:Where it always is.
DAVE:Okay. You have goals, so do I. You want access, he wants women. I want to be able to do whatever the hell I want, at any time.

Dead level stare, no emotion.

DAVE:I can't think of a single thing worth giving up a sense of identity for, other than carte blanche. I have that, so do you. I just choose to fucking use it, rather than just sit here.
ISADORE:We're just people, Dave. We think it through a little more, but we're just people.
DAVE:Exactly. I don't have to feel bad, because anyone else could do it, too.
REMINGTON:I think I read this one before. 'The Prince', something like that?
DAVE & ISADORE:Shut up.

A few more seconds of silence.

ISADORE:Dave. This... This is just a way to get ahead. It's just a thing to do to get what we want.
DAVE:It's not. It's a lifestyle. If a personality makes a person, then we are post-people. We're the genuine fakes. So we can get laid, get a better job, ruin some crappy music career. It's what we get to do.
REMINGTON:You said it yourself, Dor. We all gave up 'be yourself' time. Price of admission.
ISADORE sighs.
DAVE:Anything else today?

All three sip coffee at the same time.

REMINGTON (TO ISADORE):Is the band any good?
ISADORE:Not really. There's nothing to them. It's all posturing.
DAVE:I'm bored. I think I'll seduce a waitress.

DAVE gets up, leaves.
ISADORE and REMINGTON sit in silence, drinking their coffee for a while.

REMINGTON:Ride?
ISADORE:No, not really.

They walk out, not acknowledging DAVE as they pass him and the waitress. She's laughing and touching his arm. They exit into the street.

It'll make more sense later, hopefully. Trust me.

a kind of update.

A notable amount of my spare time, at the moment, is being spent on something loosely called the artificials manifesto.

More on this will follow, but in a lot of ways, it relates to last posts points on crowdsourcing as the solution to the attention arms race. I'm also hoping that the artificials concept will translate into at least one upcoming project for school. If not, I like it enough that it will continue to eat time that otherwise would be used to prepare for midterms, or job-hunt.

I'm back to working in / on my favourite medium, and the oldest one. Also the least utilised. It's both excessively cerebral and overwhelmingly engrossing.

Anyway, more updates soon enough.