In Praise of Selling out...in the Chicago Reader

[Lammycat]

This thread's got legs.

[Wendy]

yeah, like a centipede. Same leg over and over and over. I'm really getting tired of it.

[Edie]

On a somewhat related note...anyone seen the recent Target ad set to a cover of the Beatles' "Hello/Goodbye"?

 

I had totally forgotten about that. Old age has its perks

 

Also, "brand loyalty" only means something when the "brand" or product delivers on it's promise (whatever that promise may mean to you). I am not loyal to VW; Iwill never buy another one based on a bad experience, so I couldn't care less who they have as a soundtrack.

[Dude]

The closest thing I can come to understanding this whole topic is from Jeff Tweedy himself. Download disc 2, track 17 to hear him talk a little on the topic of how we all make the songs what they are. I was there, and heard the way he spoke these words. As fans of the music and the band, I would think this might be helpful to you all. It doesn't address the VW thing, but the opinion of Jeff about his own songs.

 

I think he said the same thing at the living room show I saw him at in '06.

[oceanman]

Who farted?

[froggie]

Who farted?

 

about 10 minutes ago, i did

[Atticus]

I see you got your list out

Say your piece and get out

Yes I get the gist of it

But, it's alright

 

Sorry that you feel that way

The only thing there is to say

Every silver lining's got a

Touch of grey

[oceanman]

So GD and VW are alright in your book.Better be watching that back of yours buddy.

[owhatevernevermind]

Really intelligent discussion on this thread, I think. There is an important difference between realizing no interepretation of the text can be a perfect representation of the truth and the belief that all interpretations of the texts are equally valid, since is there no objective truth of the text. If we accept the second option, no qualitative judgements of truth are possible. However, some ordering, some valuation of data is necessary as a fact of life and communication. Under what conditions are these decided upon? Think of it in terms of Mill's "Marketplace of free ideas." Although he meant that those opinions with the greatest value relative to objective truth would win out, if we assume this truth does not exist, than those valuations with the greatest force will gain the greatest market share. In the old days, this meant the biggest club, nowadays it means the greatest financial clout. That means you can buy not only the most stalls at the market, but the whole market itself, ie, the fundamental valuations of reality itself. And if those valuations are abhorrent to you, there is nothing you can do besides try to get more money or hit someone with a club.What does this mean for the Wilco thing? They have sold their songs, and not only the songs but the truth value of those songs to a mass market interest, a corporation. The self-interest of that corporation is to create a perception of reality in which individuals must constantly buy products in order to gain a state of well-being. I think this perception of reality is highly dangerous to the world we live in. That's why I think we should agree that there is a "true" interpretation of music, although none of us can know exactly what it is. That's why I think Wilco shouldn't allow a corporation the power to decide the context in which their songs are judged. Sorry for being so long-winded, and I'm not trying to come off as original. Most of this is re-hashed Nietszche, I think.Also I heard that the Indie label Wilco ended up signing with was a subsidiary of the label that kicked them off? Is that true?

[Beltmann]

That's why I think we should agree that there is a "true" interpretation of music, although none of us can know exactly what it is. That's why I think Wilco shouldn't allow a corporation the power to decide the context in which their songs are judged.

First, although I agree with you that certain interpretations are more valid and better defended than others, there are a host of critical theories--historical criticism, formal criticism, mimetic criticism, intertextual criticism, audience-response criticism, poststructural criticism, cultural criticism, feminist criticism, etc.--and these various approaches often contradict one another, and some of them require the rejection of one "true" interpretation.

 

But, for the sake of argument, as long as the work in question appears to represent the artist's pure artistic intentions, why shouldn't a "true" interpretation finally be limited to the work itself: song as entire context? That's an act of distillation, forcing the critic to engage exclusively with the essence of the work ("objective truth," as you put it). In the case of SBS, cutting off external baggage strikes me as the "better" and "more true" interpretation because Wilco (it appears) has satisfied their purest artistic impulses, and the ads, at best, exist as fringe baggage with only a tangential relationship to how I listen to the album.

 

Think of it in terms of Mill's "Marketplace of free ideas." Although he meant that those opinions with the greatest value relative to objective truth would win out, if we assume this truth does not exist, than those valuations with the greatest force will gain the greatest market share.

In Mill's battle of opinions, those of us unworried by the ads believe that our estimation--that the ads have only a meager influence on how most people interact with SBS--has the greatest merit and will "gain the greatest market share." Speaking of Victorian philosophers, I have always been much more intrigued by William Morris, who argued that the most important art is that which is most useful to the most people. For Morris, the masterworks hanging in museums were finally negligible, since they were useful only to a tiny fraction of the population (the elite). He made the case that even wallpaper had more artistic significance than, say, a Raphael. Within that framework, making business decisions that will help distribute your art to more people, and especially licensing your song to advertise a mass-produced vehicle, might be regarded as acts of artistic virtue.

 

They have sold their songs, and not only the songs but the truth value of those songs to a mass market interest, a corporation.

I agree that they have sold their songs, but disagree that means they have also, by default, also sold the truth value of those songs.

[Atticus]

the ads, at best, exist as fringe baggage with only a tangential relationship to how I listen to the album.

 

that about wraps it up for me

[Good Old Neon]

I have always been much more intrigued by William Morris, who argued that the most important art is that which is most useful to the most people. For Morris, the masterworks hanging in museums were finally negligible, since they were useful only to a tiny fraction of the population (the elite). He made the case that even wallpaper had more artistic significance than, say, a Raphael. Within that framework, making business decisions that will help distribute your art to more people, and especially licensing your song to advertise a mass-produced vehicle, might be regarded as acts of artistic virtue.

I agree that they have sold their songs, but disagree that means they have also, by default, also sold the truth value of those songs.

 

I don

[Good Old Neon]

Another way of viewing the way in which the use of the songs in the ads colors our perception of the songs themselves might sound or look something like this:

 

an excerpt from White Noise by Don DeLillo

 

Several days later Murray asked me about a tourist attraction known as the most photographed barn in America. We drove 22 miles into the country around Farmington. There were meadows and apple orchards. White fences trailed through the rolling fields. Soon the signs started appearing. THE MOST PHOTOGRAPHED BARN IN AMERICA. We counted five signs before we reached the site. There were 40 cars and a tour bus in the makeshift lot. We walked along a cowpath to the slightly elevated spot set aside for viewing and photographing. All the people had cameras; some had tripods, telephoto lenses, filter kits. A man in a booth sold postcards and slides -- pictures of the barn taken from the elevated spot. We stood near a grove of trees and watched the photographers. Murray maintained a prolonged silence, occasionally scrawling some notes in a little book.

 

"No one sees the barn," he said finally.

 

A long silence followed.

 

"Once you've seen the signs about the barn, it becomes impossible to see the barn."

 

He fell silent once more. People with cameras left the elevated site, replaced by others.

 

We're not here to capture an image, we're here to maintain one. Every photograph reinforces the aura. Can you feel it, Jack? An accumulation of nameless energies."

 

There was an extended silence. The man in the booth sold postcards and slides.

 

"Being here is a kind of spiritual surrender. We see only what the others see. The thousands who were here in the past, those who will come in the future. We've agreed to be part of a collective perception. It literally colors our vision. A religious experience in a way, like all tourism."

 

Another silence ensued.

 

"They are taking pictures of taking pictures," he said.

 

He did not speak for a while. We listened to the incessant clicking of shutter release buttons, the rustling crank of levers that advanced the film.

 

"What was the barn like before it was photographed?" he said. "What did it look like, how was it different from the other barns, how was it similar to other barns?"

[Good Old Neon]

On a totally unrelated note - is anyone else having issues with the post interface - missing buttons, etc?

[owhatevernevermind]

First, although I agree with you that certain interpretations are more valid and better defended than others, there are a host of critical theories--historical criticism, formal criticism, mimetic criticism, intertextual criticism, audience-response criticism, poststructural criticism, cultural criticism, feminist criticism, etc.--and these various approaches often contradict one another, and some of them require the rejection of one "true" interpretation.

 

But, for the sake of argument, as long as the work in question appears to represent the artist's pure artistic intentions, why shouldn't a "true" interpretation finally be limited to the work itself: song as entire context? That's an act of distillation, forcing the critic to engage exclusively with the essence of the work ("objective truth," as you put it). In the case of SBS, cutting off external baggage strikes me as the "better" and "more true" interpretation because Wilco (it appears) has satisfied their purest artistic impulses, and the ads, at best, exist as fringe baggage with only a tangential relationship to how I listen to the album.

In Mill's battle of opinions, those of us unworried by the ads believe that our estimation--that the ads have only a meager influence on how most people interact with SBS--has the greatest merit and will "gain the greatest market share." Speaking of Victorian philosophers, I have always been much more intrigued by William Morris, who argued that the most important art is that which is most useful to the most people. For Morris, the masterworks hanging in museums were finally negligible, since they were useful only to a tiny fraction of the population (the elite). He made the case that even wallpaper had more artistic significance than, say, a Raphael. Within that framework, making business decisions that will help distribute your art to more people, and especially licensing your song to advertise a mass-produced vehicle, might be regarded as acts of artistic virtue.

I agree that they have sold their songs, but disagree that means they have also, by default, also sold the truth value of those songs.

 

First, I should say you know way more than I do about critical theories, so hopefully, I won't sound too stupid in my reply. I would say you're coming from a critical perspective, where as I'm coming from a metaphysical perspective. First, if we judge the nature of song solely as a musical phenomenon, we already prune away the reality which is not pleasing to us, in order to judge the phenomenon as would best suit our images. By selling the ads to Volkswagen, Wilco has increased the the reality (I know that's the wrong terminology, but can't think of the right one right off hand, ) of the songs to include the phenomenon of the Volkswagen commercials. In order to formulate a wholistic interpretation of the song, we must include that phenomena, or we are only judging a part of that song. It's interesting that you bring up the Morris example, although I'm not familiar with him at all, it sounds like the standard utilitarian line of thinking, which is fine, as long as no one questions what the fundamental basis of what Utility is. The utilitarians were a bit naive with their market bit, because of course all of them were quite good methodists or whatever and never really questioned the protestant work ethic. The problem is that if their is no "thing-in-itself," no unquestionable moral standard for utility, and the market is the sole legitimate decider of value, than the market itself decides the meaning of utility, as well as the utility of any given phenomena. And the market without a quiet aquiesence to the old anglo-american slave ethic is basically the law of the jungle. By the way, there was an example of a system which tried to formulate values based on utility to the people, it was called the Soviet Union. My point in concern to the gravity of the Wilco thing, is that corporate interests have gained such a huge slice of the mental marketplace, that they now are in a position to create the our perceptual reality. I hope that makes some sense?

[Beltmann]

Does more face time with a work of art make it more valid, important

[owhatevernevermind]

I don

[Good Old Neon]

You misinterpret. Morris wasn't talking about number of viewers; he was talking about usefulness. I personally think Stan Brakhage is one of the greatest filmmakers this country ever produced, but Morris would say that since his abstract expressionism confounds most people--rendering it basically meaningless and therefore useless to the masses--his work is less significant than, say, Martin Scorsese's. According to Morris, since they do not provide meaning for many, Brakhage's experiments are not, by definition, masterpieces.

 

 

But isn

[owhatevernevermind]

You misinterpret. Morris wasn't talking about number of viewers; he was talking about usefulness. I personally think Stan Brakhage is one of the greatest filmmakers this country ever produced, but Morris would say that since his abstract expressionism confounds most people--rendering it basically meaningless and therefore useless to the masses--his work is less significant than, say, Martin Scorsese's. According to Morris, since they do not provide meaning for many, Brakhage's experiments are not, by definition, masterpieces.

 

And I wasn't suggesting that I share Morris' views... I was merely making the point that art isn't math, and there are multiple philosophies regarding the purpose of art and how we assign value to individual works. Speaking for myself, I am a huge proponent of rising to meet the challenges of difficult art.

 

I am too, although in all honesty, I do tend to get a bit lazy with it. However, I get the feeling we are almost on agreement on something fundamental concerning the Wilco commercials. Because what Wilco is doing is helping to define the usefulness of Volkswagens to the masses. . . Wilco is adding a veneer of credibility to what is basically a very absurd message. I'm sure you've read my interpretation of the "key" commercial or at least seen itl, imagine a stripped-down, minimalist presentation of this production, what if you simply stated without any fancy colors or theme songs, "this car makes you feel so good you will want to stab the valet parking attendant if he tries to touch it. Then your girlfriend will think you are a man . . ." Even your average American will see through that. So you have dress it up with some fancy clothes, a Wilco song, in order to deceive people of your true intentions, of your real message. This is in fact art designed to confound the masses in order to make them act in your benefit. . . and the very reason that this message resonates is the repetition of so many similiar messages. The very reason people are willing to believe that a car will make them more of a man is that they have been told so many times it will make them a man, the very repetition has created conditions in which it is necessary to have a car; TO THE OBVIOUS DETRIMENT OF THE MASSES!

The buttons aren't showing up on my screen either, just tap the one on the left. My guess is they will shut down the thread pretty soon!

[tongue-tied]

But isn

[owhatevernevermind]

But isn

[tongue-tied]

"this car makes you feel so good you will want to stab the valet parking attendant if he tries to touch it. Then your girlfriend will think you are a man . . ." Even your average American will see through that. So you have dress it up with some fancy clothes, a Wilco song, in order to deceive people of your true intentions, of your real message. This is in fact art designed to confound the masses in order to make them act in your benefit. . . and the very reason that this message resonates is the repetition of so many similiar messages. The very reason people are willing to believe that a car will make them more of a man is that they have been told so many times it will make them a man, the very repetition has created conditions in which it is necessary to have a car; TO THE OBVIOUS DETRIMENT OF THE MASSES!

 

i think very few people here (if any) agree with your interpretation of the commercial. if they switched the man and the woman in the commercial, it wouldn't have made any difference. i don't think VW is preying on men's insecurities, they're using humor to show that people love their VWs. Neither your interpretation or mine makes me desire a VW. I don't think you're giving the masses enough credit. How about the million Axe ads that have the message "spray this on you and women will have sex with you". some people are probably dumb enough to believe it, some people just like the product, and everybody else ignores it. They've repeated the hell out of those things and it has never made the condition where its necessary to use Axe to have sex. Advertising can be moronic and dishonest, but I think the masses handle it.

[owhatevernevermind]

i think very few people here (if any) agree with your interpretation of the commercial. if they switched the man and the woman in the commercial, it wouldn't have made any difference. i don't think VW is preying on men's insecurities, they're using humor to show that people love their VWs. Neither your interpretation or mine makes me desire a VW. I don't think you're giving the masses enough credit. How about the million Axe ads that have the message "spray this on you and women will have sex with you". some people are probably dumb enough to believe it, some people just like the product, and everybody else ignores it. They've repeated the hell out of those things and it has never made the condition where its necessary to use Axe to have sex. Advertising can be moronic and dishonest, but I think the masses handle it.

I think the one aimed at women was the Sky Blue Sky one going to the wedding in a convertible or something like that. You are not giving marketers enough credit; they have armies of psychologists, anthropologists, and focus groups studying demographics trying to figure out who we are and what we are selling. Obviously this is speculation, but I would bet the commercials were not chosen for their humor per se, but how that humor relates to the psychology of the target audience. And I'm not sure the masses can handle it, they got led by the nose easy enough into the Iraq war, whcih is actually a real big serious thing, from the looks of it, and it deserved alot more critical attention than what it actually got. Last job I had here was as a taxi driver so I got to talk to a huge spectrum of people. I have to say I was disappointed with their intellectual prowesses. I think smart people tend to see people as smart because they tend to associate with smart people, or try to see the good in what they say. I've had the misfortune to mostly deal with the ugly side, and so maybe that's my perspective.

Well, hey guy, I worked the late shift last night, so I should catch some sleep, it's been a pleasure,

[tongue-tied]

I think the one aimed at women was the Sky Blue Sky one going to the wedding in a convertible or something like that. You are not giving marketers enough credit; they have armies of psychologists, anthropologists, and focus groups studying demographics trying to figure out who we are and what we are selling. Obviously this is speculation, but I would bet the commercials were not chosen for their humor per se, but how that humor relates to the psychology of the target audience. And I'm not sure the masses can handle it, they got led by the nose easy enough into the Iraq war, whcih is actually a real big serious thing, from the looks of it, and it deserved alot more critical attention than what it actually got. Last job I had here was as a taxi driver so I got to talk to a huge spectrum of people. I have to say I was disappointed with their intellectual prowesses. I think smart people tend to see people as smart because they tend to associate with smart people, or try to see the good in what they say. I've had the misfortune to mostly deal with the ugly side, and so maybe that's my perspective.

Well, hey guy, I worked the late shift last night, so I should catch some sleep, it's been a pleasure,

 

so the people responsible for the VW ads are responsible for the war in Iraq? i'm well aware that psychology is a large factor in advertising, however i see advertisers as people with a job to do, not some fearsome army i have to engage in epic battle. i didn't say "the masses" are right, or even intelligent. i'm saying advertising doesn't brainwash people and it isn't going to bring about the apocalypse. it can be deceptive, all you have to think about is the tobacco industry to prove that point. but as (hopefully) intelligent people, we should work to avoid real societal harm (and unjust wars) and not a cutesy VW/Wilco ad campaign.

[Wilco Worshipper]

they're using humor to show that people love their VWs

 

Agreed!!!

 

necessary to use Axe to have sex

 

 

It might not be necessary, but it certainly helps