HW 31- Exploring Methods of M, M, C, A, & Aggrandizing the Self

Part A

So you like to wear make-up I see, why is that?

For starters I don’t wear a lot of make up but I do think that a little make-up can enhance your natural beauty and improve upon what nature has given you.

How long have you been wearing make up?

13, I probably just started with mascara and lip-gloss, probably lip gloss first. When I was a kid I always read fashion magazines so I probably learned a lot from reading how to trick from things like 17 magazine. I didn’t learn anything about make-up from my sisters but I learned a lot from my mom and I have very fond memories about watching my mom put on make-up when I was a kid.

You mentioned you read a lot of fashion magazines; did this affect what you wore?

Yes, because I always liked clothes and I used to make clothes for my dolls when I was a kid and I even bought a dress I saw in the magazine once because I thought it was cool. I was making clothes for my dolls when I was like 4 or 5, so it wasn’t a stretch when I got into fashion.

Would you say you wear a lot of fashionable clothes?

Yes, with my background in fashion and I always thought that clothes were a really important part of how you are judged, so why not be judged well? When you go l=on a job interview you should look at a persons shoes and their nails, you can learn a lot about somebody.

Why were you into fashion?

I liked the way they looked. I liked to try different looks and changing my look and one of the ways I could do that was through clothing. I guess I am somewhat chameleon like, it was a way for me to express myself through fashion and clothes. And then I did work for a world famous fashion designer, which didn’t hurt so I got into clothes even more with that. After I worked for Vivienne (Westwood), it helped me make sense of what I was putting out in the world and how to play around with my look. It helped me to define and try to hone-in on my style. Working with Vivienne Westwood shaped my fashion sense tremendously. I consider a genius and myself lucky to have been able to work so closely with her.

Part B

After talking to my mom about why she likes to wear high-end clothes, I applied a similar lens to myself, asking why I wear what I wear. For the record, what I wear tends to be graphic T-shirts with a pop-art type of image or a comic book-type image. When not wearing one of those, I am wearing a button-down t-shirt, long-sleeve. I wear all of these with jeans. I say that I wear these things because they represent things that I like. However, that is not always true. I have a t-shirt that has a bike on it, and while I enjoy riding bikes the shirt has nothing to do with that. So why do I wear it then? Well, in some regards because of my dad. He always gave me his old clothes as I grew into my middle school and high school years, and I wore many of them for quite some time, including the t-shirt of a bike. In instances like that, I wore these clothes because I thought they were cool. I thought this because I had gotten compliments in my dad’s clothes many times before. So by wearing them, I thought I would look cool.

However, with other clothing selections, the reasoning changes. The only clothes I feel that I do truly wear because they are comfortable is jeans. Jeans are sturdy, don’t get too visibly dirty, and I can throw them on day after day if I really want to. So those I wear because of comfort. However, in the last year I have started to wear button-down shirts, which I used to hate. I wear them now because I think I look good in many of them. This logic applies towards all of fashion though so it isn’t exactly revolutionary. The entire fashion industry is based on trying to look cool and to look your best. This makes fashion a very superficial business, but it can seep down to a deeper level. For example, going back to the button-down shirts, I often wear them because they make my girlfriend happier (I think), because I look nicer in them and it shows I am making an effort. This is a little thing that doesn’t impact me in many ways but it can have a chain reaction that I feel is worth it. I think that the whole process becomes subconscious but leads to things later on. Many things are like this, a lot of the ways of disguising ourselves or acting a certain way because we “like it”. We don’t actually like the act itself, but rather the consequences and what it leads to. This is arguable, but often true and is a matter of opinion.

HW 30- Psychological and Philosophical Theorizing of Cool

What are the sources of this sense of meaninglessness but also of a need for a sense of meaning?

Humans are composed of many things, such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and many other chemical compounds and substances. Despite this, most people feel empty, they feel like something is not quite right in their lives, that they don't have the life they should. Viktor Frankl called this the existential vacuum, and he got it right on the nose there, because it surely sucks.

Viktor Frankl proposes this idea, that of the existential vacuum, quite plainly. It is the psychological condition in which a person doubts that life has any meaning. This is brought upon by a period of time in which life stalls, where there a new lack of initiative and interest. Frankl argues that this state was brought upon by the process of industrialization, that with instinct and social tradition being countered by society man has no direction and does not know what he wants to do. In more detail, Viktor Frankl discusses that individualism is rejected by most people in favor of conforming to a social standard or group. As a result, the individual relies mainly upon what others do and the actions that they dictate, causing their own lives meaning to be neglected. However, on a larger scale, this curtain can be pulled back so that this theory encompasses the entire "evolution of man", as Frankl discusses that this can be traced back to when man began to lose his animal instincts to become truly human. This abandonment of the past connects with the loss of tradition from a cultural standpoint that many feel, especially in America.

I feel like much of what Viktor Frankl proposes here makes sense, from man's loss of his animalistic self to the loss of tradition that many experience. As a result, I put much of the blame for meaninglessness of humanity on the shoulders of the parents. Not all parents though, but rather the newer breeds of parents, the parents that increasingly seem to hover over their children and watch their every move. The helicopter parent.

I intern at an elementary school, the same elementary school I went to as a child. In the six and a half years since I graduated, the school has changed quite a bit, getting rid or benches in the yard, certain games in the gym, and changing the curriculum so that the older grades (4th and 5th grade) have to do some homework online. If a child gets hurt, they sit off on the side and take out a book or do homework. The school is no longer allowed to hold bake sales with homemade food because the calories are not listed. Now, granted these things are not bad on their own, however together they cause an overwhelming change in the attitude and mentality of the student body, and by 5th grade it is clear that much of these changes will be permanent. And why are these changes there? Does anybody really think that a child cares about any of these things, that by adding or taking them away that they will have a better life and enjoy it more. No, these changes are made by parents who want to control every detail of their children's lives even when they are far away at home or work.

I would argue that these minor changes in fact cause the very same feelings of emptiness that people experience later in life. Frankl argues that as mankind has gradually lost it's animalistic instinct, which children maintain much more than their adult counterparts, that feelings of emptiness have developed more and more. This could be because they are spoon-fed everything. As a child, I remember how proud of myself I was when I learned how to avoid getting hit by the dodgeball, a simple activity that cannot be truly taught but instead learned by the participant. This game is no longer allowed in schools because they say it causes psychological damage to children. By taking away the opportunity for the child to learn on their own and to get past the trappings of the game, you take away a sense of meaning that could fill them up. You never feel as good when somebody takes something away from you instead of letting you conquer it and gain a sense of accomplishment.

Little moments of accomplishment are key to a meaningful life. These moments later lead to big moments of accomplishment. An artist does not feel as empty as he would without his renowned art, rather they make him feel worthy. By having a child succeed and accomplish things here and there, they remain happy and healthy. A parent does not have to stop them from failing to give them this sense, and they do not have to shield them from reality. A child who goes out and plays outside learns common sense, gains a sense of the world, and becomes a stronger person later in life. This is key to gaining meaning, because if you are proud and assured of yourself, then meaning comes without the need for things such as "cool".

To make a long point shorter, Viktor Frankl argued that by repressing animal instinct that people are forming pockets of emptiness. I am in agreement, and I trace this to childhood and helicopter parents who do not let their child progress in a more natural, primitive state. By trying to treat children as adults and protect them from failure, they are making them weak and full of holes that they try to fill with anything they can later in life. In order for meaninglessness to cease, we must let the children be children and fall, break, and ultimately fail, so that they may come out stronger and accomplished.

HW 29- Merchants of Cool

Should advertising to young people be banned?

As I write this, I struggle to find a side to choose on the hot-topic of whether advertising to young people should be banned. On one hand, I say that it is wrong, that young people should be able to progress at their own rate and decide what they want to spend their money on. However, on the other hand I feel that advertising is unavoidable and even if consciously stopped, it will happen on another level. On yet another hand, I feel that young people are such a vital part of the economy that things would not be stable without them being targeted. By the end of this though, I will choose my side and lay down my allegiances.

Before I start on the main arguments, let's look at what advertising is by definition. "The act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc." (Dictionary.com). In my own words, it is the act of drawing attention to something through announcements. Keep this in mind.

"Teens are like Africa" (48 seconds into the first part). Hearing that said, so matter-of-factually is something that is quite unsettling. If you are of African heritage, or even not, you know what has happened when rich men in suits refer to Africa, seeing vast resources and opportunities but leaving the people ravaged. If teenagers are then like Africa, what does this say about what happens once they reach 20, and are no longer the target audience? They cannot think for their own and become fractured shells of beings, unable to function as they once were. Later another spokesman for an advertising agency says that "If you don't understand and recognize, what they're thinking and what they're feeling, you're going to lose, you're absolutely going to lose" (53 seconds into the first part). I'm sorry, are teenagers a game now? Are we suddenly the competition that you have to conquer over? Impersonal statements like this also leave you wondering whether all of these higher-ups actually care or even realize what they are doing to teenagers. In case you are seeking an answer, they don't care.

However, advertising is impossible to stop. Look at Britney Spears. Her music is not an ad., telling you to buy some product, it is instead a product itself with side effects of altered ideals. With her video Baby One More Time she is projecting a story that she can't bear to be alone, advertising the ideal of a couple. However, different interpretations of the lyrics can make it seem alright for girls to stay in abusive relationships because they really like the person. Songs like this also project the ideal of beauty. This therefore encourages the\at people invest in products that will make them prettier. And there is your ad right there, coming from a non-advertising source, one that cannot be altered as it is a deep-rooted part of the culture an changing it would be perceived as unconstitutional. Proof that, even without billboards and commercials, advertising cannot be stopped through mediums such as music, but on a larger level, word of mouth.

In many ways though, it would be irresponsible to stop advertising for young people if it were possible. Teenagers are responsible for anywhere between 100 and 150 billion dollars of our economy every year (3 minutes and 23 seconds into the first part). Now, say you remove the advertising, what do they spend their money on? That is what the marketing agencies of America want you to wonder. Granted, what would eventually happen would be a decrease in profit and in general sales, because kids would either not spend the money or they wouldn't receive it. As a result, the economy would dip, with major agencies having to restructure their companies. Also, even in this situation, the advertising would be focused towards the youngest audience they could approach, and this would trickle down through word of mouth. The only way to rid this effect would be to get rid of all advertising and word of mouth, which would destroy the economy.

All in all, I feel like the best way to approach advertising is to get rid of it. Let the product advertise itself. Companies spend upwards of $20,000 just to see what teenagers think is cool, when in reality they could just spend some money on interviewing kids to see what they think is cool. Over-exposure is never seen as cool, so this would make the products cooler as well. If companies focus on making a better product with all of this leftover money, they would end up with a larger profit and all in all a more stable and long-lasting appeal.

HW 28- Informal Research- Internet, Magazines, and TV shows

How to be cool-AskMen.com

The guide to "cool" can be found on nearly every website. While often generic, AskMen.com had something not surprising but still unique to a degree. The first part of being cool, have a nice girlfriend. The article then expanded and including things like "being called more than you call" and "having a purpose when you call, not just to talk". Later, the article said "be scarce", alluding to not always being available. If you are always available for somebody you will be seen as "needy".

On a more emotional level, the article suggests that in order to be seen as "cool" one must not broadcast their weaknesses and should associate with "cool" people. If you bring losers to the group, you are seen as a loser, so bring cool people and be seen as cool. Lastly, don't ever "lose your cool", a.k.a. don't get angry or frustrated, because nobody wants to see you get all riled up, man.

Be Cool

This guide on how to be cool does not specify towards men, like the AskMen.com guide, but rather it approaches both genders on an equal playing field. The guide begins with not caring about what other people think of you. However, step two is "Be aware of how others will perceive you". The guide approaches this contradiction by acknowledging the difference between letting opinions affect your self esteem and being aware of how you come off to others.

The guide then has other generic statements like "Don't be afraid to be different" and "find real friends".

My favorite part of this guide to cool was the seventh guideline, "Learn how to laugh at yourself". This is a personal favorite of mine and it is something that you rarely see in person and you almost never see acknowledged. The guide says that doing so humanizes you, which is true, but it also shows you know you aren't perfect, which I feel is even more important.

How do you turn from geek to cool?

The was not so much of a guide as an answer to somebody's question online. The question being "How do you turn from geek to cool?" The answer that was posted was surprisingly heartfelt and real for an online generic answer. The answerer stated that you don't need to change who you are to be cool, claiming that you can be a geek and still be cool.

However, in this answer their impression of what is cool came through, mainly being popular and being social. While somebody can be into anime and video games and things typically labeled as geeky, they can still be seen as cool if they are social and wear make-up and do their hair. While this raises questions, I will leave it for now.

How to be cool- AlanWho.com

Lastly we have Alan Who's perspective on how to be cool. This guide starts with telling you in the first guideline that you are already cool, despite what everybody told you. He then lists how to be cool. The article should stop, because what guidelines could I possibly need if I am already cool? Regardless, the following guidelines cover everything from posture to social interactions, with Alan Who stating that you should stand tall and upright and that you should never lose your temper and should use you own lingo instead of yo and ight and later. I thought that this latter suggestion was good and I had not seen it anywhere else, but it makes logical sense that if you are cool you start trends and don't participate.

My favorite part of this guide was that the last guideline said you are constantly learning. Those not learning are busy dying, as the article says. I thought that this was a very cool perspective to see and I had never thought about where learning fit into a larger opinion of cool outside of my own. I thought that this was refreshing and shows that intelligence is in fact valued in some circles.

Bibliography

• WikiHow. December 7, 2009

• "How do you turn from Geek to Cool?". Wiki.Answers. December 7, 2009 <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_turn_from_geek_to_cool>

• Who, Alan. "How to Be Cool". AlanWho.com. December 7, 2009

• Bayer, Jeff. "Be Cool". AskMen.com. December 7, 2009

HW 27- Informal Research- Interviews and Surveys

Family member-

Me: Do you think that tabloids are cool?

Family member: Yes.

Me: Why?

Family member: Because I think that that shit is funny.

Me: But would you say it is "cool"?

I think it's actually kind of pathetic, but I think that it's funny. I'm kind of a jerk (Laughs).

Me: Just to clarify, what is your definition of cool?

Family member: I hate this (Laughs again). Something that really kicks ass I guess. Somebody that isn't a wimp, somebody that just does whatever they want and they stick with their cause. I don't give a shit what anybody thinks and I think that makes somebody cool. They don't care if anybody follows them or not, they just do it anyways, I think that's cool.

Me: Going back, why do people live through celebrities?

Family member: People like to live through other people so they use to it to live a good life.

Me: Are children cool?

Family member: What does that mean? Some children are cool I guess. My children are cool (Laughs), but most kids are cool. But at the same time a lot of kids suck though. I think that it is too general to judge, some are good, some are bad, some are lame.

Me: Who is a cool celebrity? Or who is your favorite?

Family member: THE coolest celebrity... I have no idea (Laughs). Paris Hilton, Miley Cyrus (Laughs). Lady Gaga or Amy Winehouse. Because she is a train wreck and I love it. Kate Moss, David Bowie. I think they are pretty cool. Mick Jagger is really cool.

Me: Why are they cool?

Family member: Because none of them give a shit, they are all individuals and have their own style and aren't afraid to revel in it.

Me: Who did you think was cool when you were little?

Family member: Punky Bruster. Pippy Longstocking, Michael Jackson. They were really funky and they made me stop and pay attention, they stood out. I thought that was cool.

Street Interview 1-

Me: Are children cool?

Man with stroller: I think children are very cool, clearly (Laughs).

Me: Do you think that the mainstream media perceives children as cool?

Man with stroller: I don't really care. I think they're fun and that's all that matters to me.

Street Interview 2-

Me: Are tabloids cool?

British man: No, not at all.

Me: What do you think about the people that follow them so closely?

British man: I think poorly of them. They have a low I.Q.

Me: What about children, do you think they are cool?

British man: Yea, I suppose so, yes.

Me: Who is your favorite celebrity, or the celebrity you think is coolest?

British man: I don't have one. They are just human beings, people. Doesn't make them any cooler than anybody else.

Street Interview 3-

Me: I see that you are an animal lover, do you think that the media sees animal as cool?

Man with dog: Yes, they always seem to shine them in a pretty positive light.

Me: Do you think that kids are cool?

Man with dog: Well... no. I mean, not for me personally, I don't like kids that much.

Me: What do you think your family and friends would say?

Man with dog: They would think they are, they all pretty much like kids.