fact checking supreme

about a month ago i got a loan and paid off my credit cards. primarily because of a dumb decision a while ago to get one of those cheap-for-6-months-and-astronomical-after-that-cards so that i could go overseas. dumb.

anyway, i had much pleasure in paying off that card and closing the account. i hated being part of that particular bank and their claustrophobic fees and charges. in fact, when i went into the branch to close it and the oh-so-funky salesperson feigned dismay in asking me why i was closing it, my reply was "because it's shit". no oh-so-funky response after that.

anyway, since closing it, the true colours of the bank have shown through: numerous calls a week from their sales department trying to sell me stuff; a suggestion at the end of my final statement that, if i changed my mind within 60 days, all would be forgiven and i could have my old $5000 credit back and then, last week, this hilarious piece of direct mail: credit card cover - because you can't always see what's coming.

never a truer word spoken, obviously.

i bet they never saw the line in the database next to my name: account closed. perhaps i should send them a shard from my cut up card?

given the shit that the global economy is in thanks to the dynamic between ignorant consumers and a manipulative banking sector, i should think that banks really do need to be on their best behaviour. in fact, perhaps in line with the alcohol industry, we need to start seeing 'responsible financing' disclaimers appearing on all marketing materials from consumer lenders. maybe i need to get over it.

anyway, at a very basic level, surely it helps if the various arms of an organisation are at least running off the same information so that they don't end up looking like a bag of dicks.

street art manifesto

mr gower, my urban-art-lovin'-partner-in-crime, sent me this article by wooster's marc schiller. i replied to him with a huge rant about it and then realised that i should probably post my rant here, not in his ear.

So, go on, read the article, 'cos i'm going to rant about it and it won't make sense otherwise.

Firstly, this kind of dynamic has happened with art since the renaissance – it's called a 'movement' - you have the superstars who get all the commissions and then the sub-standards who get a lot of the backwash by people who either can't afford the real deal, or who are hoping that they'll become big name and they can cash in on it. Greed has been a feature of art for that long... Hmmm.

The other thing that pisses me off about this kind of discussion is the adherence to 'unique is good/copy is bad'... I thought we'd been through post-modernism. I thought we already established that there is nothing original – ads are ripping off artists all the time and making a packet from it, what's wrong with artists doing the same? Not that I condone mindless money-whoring, but if there is nothing original and there are a group of people doing the same thing, together – stop pitching each other against one another. If you're all not as good as one another, change that – collaborations, collectives, politicise, etc.

And although Schiller seems to be cynical of Steve Lazarides' (of Lazarides' Gallery) business practices (perhaps rightly so, i don't really know), he does thankfully acknowledge that he a) sells a lot and b) pitches the market at the market ie: holds events in warehouses, run-down spaces, uses blogs and online media, as opposed to the trad ad contexts for contemporary (and pricey) art: art forum, frieze, galleries in piccadilly and chelsea.

As someone who has had an interest in street-based work for a long time, the shark-like market of this 'scene' disturbs me. But it's the same thing that disturbs me about other visual art forms (like the nouveau-naive) and the music industry and other commodified creative industries. The problem, i believe, isn't street art, or even just gallerist like Lazarides, it's the whole fucking thing. Greed is part of human nature and digs its dirty little fingers in the most vulnerable of places.

UPDATE: if you've come here from businessweek looking for a blog that talks about "Street painting art business discusses how street painting is being applied by companies to present their messages with a traditional 16th century art form in a 21st century environment. Perfect for public relations, marketing, and advertising campaigns, many companies have used street painting in product launches..." ... you've got the wrong sinatra. go home parasite.

"One of the fastest-growing gaming markets are senior citizens. In 1999, only 9% of people over 50 played video games, in contrast to 24% in 2007."

image pinched from the kaiser edition, via Activision's COD4

I read this in a post today and it got me asking some questions:

Firstly, since when are over 50s 'senior citizens'?

Secondly, are these stats really surprising? Video games have now been a major element of pop culture since the early 80s. Hell, I used to go down to the fish'n'chip shop to buy my dad's cigarettes (with a note of course), and with the change i was allowed to buy myself a Chock Wedge and a game on the sit-down Space Invaders, but it would always be taken up by the older boys. Those older boys would be at least 45 by now, so it's hardly a stretch to think that there'd be a whole bunch of over 50-55 year olds who would play video games. Hell, Steve Buscemi, Nick Cave, Nick Hornby, Dan Castellenata (aka Homer Simpson), Daniel Day Lewis, Dawn French and Stephen Fry are all 50-51 and I could certainly imagine at least 2 of those hip'n'groovy cultural coolsters playing video games. Steve Jobs is supposedly a 'senior citizen' - surely he's a gamer from way back!

Plus, considering that this age bracket is also from the height of the baby boom, there are probably 24% more 'senior citizens' doing everything at the moment, just because there are 24% more of them!


I find it amazing that statistics like these continue to be used for market and cultural 'sensations'. Like there's a marketing glut in this new-found demographic. In fact, I find it quite weird that we continue to be shocked by the influence of pop culture at all. Surely that's the essence of it - that everyone is into it?