The Three Rs: Radiohead, Ramones, Right Said Fred.

I came to discover and hear Radiohead the same way Jonathan Ross did. I was around the age of 14 when I bought the Clueless Soundtrack in Dublin. I’ve always claimed that they ‘saved’ me - but what post-teenager doesn’t claim that a musical genre or band ‘saved’ them. The movie clueless had reaffirmed my naive ambitions to live the ‘American Dream’ (something that was later quashed by Michael Moore’s realism), so the soundtrack appeared to be a logical audio choice.

The varying tracks were definitely different to the classically composed music of Gershwin that I would usually be found listening to. I didn’t have a vast musical knowledge of anything other than Classical and perhaps some of the popular bands of the time like Right Said Fred. This was a time when the Spice Girls had hit the UK with a zig-a-zig-a, Boyzone were established and the eye-candy of every other girl my age and Take That were still being mourned after. I was, as you can imagine, not the most popular person in school. So it was only natural that I was to slip in to the pre-defined shoes of a Radiohead fan.

Their musical composition, their lyrics and their sound, was truly amazing. It was like nothing I had heard. It was like a phenomenal discovery. Oddly enough, there was an OK Computer album to hand (belonging to my cousin), and without further ado I was hooked.

Naturally my thirst for rock music was not quenched. With the introduction of Napster at the age of 15 I was able to explore and experience a lot of music. I was at the brink of musical knowledge. As well as using the internet for musical gain,
I was using it to communicate and ‘chat’ to people across the globe, usually Americans, who would fill my head with bands that were new there, which meant they were never heard of in the UK. I had a general thirst to be unique, so to have music that no one else had in the UK was one of the best feelings I have ever had. As my musical tastes began to settle and develop I started to make new friends, ones who shared the same passion for music as I did, before long I was dressing in baggy clothing wearing band T-shirts and, for a good couple of years, I sported chains attached to my belt hoops, my bracelet collection began and all my consumer choices were based upon the foundations of my musical choices.

A few years, many eyeliner pencils, experiments with hair and a change of shoes led me to the punk era of my life. Changing from DC Skate shoes to Converse’s Chuck Taylor’s opened up realms I never knew before.

My wardrobe started to change again to accommodate the ‘chucks’ – mainly my jeans became skinner, the studded belt stayed and so did the eyeliner - my music tastes even incurred a paradigm shift, as I started to explore older punk genres like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. Regardless of what I was exactly listening to, I had always made a conscious effort to always appear that I was listening to music within the punk/rock genre. I would judge people solely on their appearance and decide within a split-second what kind of person they were, how dedicated to the music they were and what music they preferred
by something as menial as a shoe or the colour of their hair.



Every musical genre has values and beliefs stereotyped and attached to it: like listening to Radiohead means you must be miserable, or listening to hardcore dance music means you are violent, irresponsible and a drug user. Why can it no longer just be music, a form of entertainment? Back in my days of listening to Gershwin and Right Said Fred, there was no way of knowing that was what I liked unless I had been asked. There was no set attire, or rule of advertising my own musical taste to the rest of society. I had no desire to do it either. What has driven us to the point that we feel we must wear our personalities? There is a need to broadcast our lives and tell people who we are and what we think and what we like, it is almost like we are all competing for the most attention, and the most recognition of being part of something. Are we that lost amongst the objects that we must use them to be noticed?

The point is, that in the consumer world there is nothing untouched. Everything is an object. Music is an object. The like and dislike of music is an object that can now be bought and I’m not just referring to the hoards of merchandising that occurs, my reference is to the manner by which an individual displays their likes or dislikes, their passions and preferences. I elected to join a genre of music and with it came a natural consumer map for me, it was easier that way, to know that because I liked Radiohead I was supposed to buy clothes that suited the ambient emotions their music emitted; that because I liked Rage Against the Machine I was supposed to wear chains and have spiked, leather bracelets; that because I liked the Ramones, I was supposed to (and have), at least once in my life visit CBGB’s; that because once upon a time when I liked Right Said Fred
and George Gershwin I was able to pass under the radar of society, unnoticed, because there was no pressure to uphold the preset archetype of a particular musical genre. Although, to have such passion for a belief and or preference is quite a good quality, times were just simpler when it was just me, George and Fred: There was just life and just music.

Barbie Vs. Sindy

I’m not a Tom-boy, but I’m not a ‘girlie-girl’ either. This could be an effect of my general upbringing, or it could be the product of making a consumer choice. I like to think it is a bit of both.

Sometime in the 80s someone made a choice for me, and I have since carried on with their decision. I was given a Sindy doll. I don’t know whom by, and I don’t know which was my first. All I know is that when I reached consciousness sometime in the 90s, I had a large collection of Sindy dolls. There was a mountain climber, a cyclist, a roller skater and a horse rider, as well as an ice skater and a swimmer. Every single one of them dressed as their specialised talent required them too, and their moulded bodies bent adequately to ensure their success in their specialist field.

My cousin had some Barbies. They had frizzy huge hair, and holes in their hands (for rings) and ears (for ear-rings). They couldn’t even walk properly because their feet were moulded to the shape of a plastic Barbie high-heel shoe. My Sindy’s really disliked those Barbies. Those dolls were in my imagination and they lived through me. Their thoughts, ideas and opinions were my own. To this day I still prefer flat shoes to high heels, just like my Sindy dolls did.

It is with this connection that I make my accusation that Barbie is the symbol of the consumer world. She represents consumerism through her own high-maintenance lifestyle: She must have hundreds of pairs of shoes, her shoes must have matching bags and ear-rings, she must have her hair styled at least 5 times a day. She is the original Paris Hilton - a high-life demanding blonde, with the latest car and the best fashion.

The reason she is represents the consumer world so well is because making one purchase does not fulfil Barbie’s needs – several purchases of different accessories are required. Just like Sindy her identity is determined by what she wears, if she is a ballerina she will dress like it. The child playing with the doll understands this example of object interaction, which means it must become part of how that child perceives reality. Barbie’s reckless spending and mass object ownership is a lesson to children everywhere that objects are temporal and can be disposed of easily.

Alvin Toffler accounts a story from Barbie’s earlier years that demonstrates the temporal world.

‘Mattel announced a new improved Barbie doll. The new version has a slimmer figure, ‘real’ eyelashes, and a twist-and-turn waist that makes her more humanoid than ever. Moreover, Mattel announced that, for the first time, any young lady wishing to purchase a new Barbie would receive a trade-in allowance for her old one.

What Mattel did not announce was that by trading in her old doll for a technologically improved model, the little girl of today, citizen of tomorrow’s super-industrial world, would learn a fundamental lesson about the new society: that man’s relationship with things are increasingly temporary.’
(Toffler, 1970, P54)

Barbie has manipulated the consumer world so well that she has managed to destroyed Sindy and any other dolls that tried to compete with her. She has created sub-brands of her own in order to create family and new friends for herself. She is six inches of plastic that is completely in control of her entire plastic world of fantasy and all she wants is more, more, more.

If this is not a symbol of our consumer society then what else could be?

Authenticity: Our Authentic Soles.

I remember my first pair of Authentic Dr Martens (the shoe with the bouncing sole). When I ripped them out of their box to start breaking them in, I noticed an advertising flyer in the bottom of the box that read ‘if you walk a mile in another man’s shoes you will understand his pain. If you walk a mile in another man’s Dr Martens, you will never give them back.’

Over the years I have worn several different brands of shoes, and with every new pair I have had to break them in, and mould them into the shape of my personal footprint, making them unique and intrinsic to only myself. I have walked in several different places and the places I have walked are completely unique, and no one will ever be able to mimic my experiences - although they can wear the same shoes. These experiences are what make us all authentic, real and completely unique; they have become inseparable to our own personal identities, because it is our opinions, beliefs, values, emotions, feelings, and experiences that make us who we are. Our identities are the only thing left that is truly authentic.



Our inner soul (I use the term soul to mean our emotional and psychological attributes, rather than an attempt to spark debate about the existence of the human soul) is no longer what matters to the consumer culture. We already have two branded soles on our feet, why would we need another that takes time to understand? By electing to wear a pair of Dr. Martens I was attaching that brand to my physical identity. Since then I have associated with scores of objects that have been scrutinised and judged by other individuals. Our physical appearances are always on trial, and our external identities are based upon our relationship with objects, brands, and the symbols that they emanate. In this contemporary world everything
is consumed quickly: objects, information, images, attitudes, the general ethos of society; we all expect things to happen now. There is no longer time to walk a mile in another person’s shoes and truly discover their soul brand, because the only soul that matters in the consumer world is the brand name on our sole.








* This article was published in the June 2007 edition (issue 72) of Adbusters - The Journal of the Mental Environment.

The Big Bad Wolf: A Once Upon A Time Introduction.

The defamation of the character of the Wolf has occurred in every single fairy-tale that he has featured in. The Wolf is the fairy-tale symbol of everything that is dangerous and everything we should avoid. Fairy-tales and story telling are a large part of our childhood and create a foundation for the teaching of morals and ideas.

There is one story in particular in which the wolf dresses as a sheep in order to trick the shepherd, his motives are clear: he is hungry and he wants to eat the sheep – he will do whatever is necessary in order to sustain himself.

This one story and principle can be compared to contemporary consumer trends. Consumerism is essential in this society because we no longer self-produce the things necessary for our survival. So we consume to live. But there is a large consumer market filled with hundreds of products – some of them essential, some of them no so much – every product has a manufacturer and a brand and they all want to survive in the marketplace. To help the individual decide what products to consume advertising, packaging and branding were created to communicate the products contents, manufacturer and to convey its quality.

Over the years as more and more brands started to appear, it became essential for products to compete for their share of the market place. This led to surreptitious methods of communication that uses psychology to exploit the needs of the individual in order to achieve a higher status and standing in the market place.

This involved lowering prices, changing packaging, introducing new sub-brands or products under the same brand and advertising campaigns that promised happiness and fulfilment through purchasing objects – in other words, the brands and the products, did everything they could to stay afloat in a competitive market. Just like the wolf they dressed themselves in ‘clothing’ that allowed the consumer to feel comfortable enough to trust and believe in the brand. But where is the danger in that?

The danger is that these brands and products are not fulfilling their promises; they are not making us happy, they are not helping us to find romance, or to succeed in our job, or to have the perfect family, because, these things cannot be achieved by buying.

Consumerism has become a ‘vicious cycle.’ It involves ‘the chronic overwork to be able to spend more; the social disintegration resulting from overwork; the environmental damage caused by consumer waste; conflict over resources to supply consumer demand. In other words, a myriad of problems loosely bound by the innocent desire for an iPod or a luxury car collection’ (Uechi, 2007, p.51).

It is necessary to consume, but over-consumption is damaging our mental and natural environment and clouding our perspective and priorities in life. I don’t want to preach, and I don’t want to tell anyone how to live their life, I just want to bring these issues to the forefront. With the rise in fear of global warming, a focus has been made on the amount we consume and the exploited countries and people that are affected by our over-consumption habits.

So, I am crying wolf, in the hope that someone will listen and realise that just because the wolf is in a disguise, of either sheep’s clothing or Granny’s clothing, doesn’t mean he is not there.

The beginning.

For the past 12 months I have been intensely researching the topic of graphic design and how it affects the contemporary consumer culture.

The posts here-after are essays that culminate my on-going research.