appearing smart isn't hard, all you have to do is obfuscate, use lots of multisyllabic words and the odd bit of jargon
no dude you don't understand
all of the books, movies, games, and albums you experience are just tools to put in your toolbox to impress people and get your own thing made. It's that simple!
I must not run away, I must not run away, I must not run away...
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
I remember reading a Seeking Alpha article saying that Disney has the brands consumers want
And now I'm thinking about how nobody points to Pixar or Marvel or Star Wars and says "That's a Disney brand. That's a good brand. That's the brand I want."
I know this isn't related to your larger point, but "content consumption" or "media consumption" are adequate expressions, I think, because they're kind of a workaround to using the individual verbs that each medium requires.
You know what bit of corporate jargon does grate on me, though? References to characters as "brands" or "branded characters". I've seen the latter applied to the Harvey and Marvel characters...
It's worse when people talking about writing and publishing do it. "Your name is your brand." Blech...
"Content" and "Media" in the general sense is a Media Marketing Class thing.
which is not to say that everyone who uses those terms that way is a marketer, but that's where it comes from. My professor in Intro To Media never called anything a book, movie, game, etc., it was all "content", and you didn't read, watch, or play anything, you "consumed" it.
I only really ever see "content creator" in the context of Youtube videos though, where I can't really blame them for wanting something a little more professional sounding than "Youtuber".
I know this isn't related to your larger point, but "content consumption" or "media consumption" are adequate expressions, I think, because they're kind of a workaround to using the individual verbs that each medium requires.
That's valid when we're talking about all kinds of media at once, totally.
But he never said book, movie, game, album, song, film, or anything like that. Ever. Even when referring to singular objects. He made a specific point not to.
I fucking haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated that class if that was not obvious, bunch of "how to sell yourself" nonsense when what I signed up for was to learn how to use mixing boards and such.
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
I don't know if I'm being clear with all of this, but it does kind of sting to see brands and branding getting dumped on...I've always loved branding...
"Content" and "Media" in the general sense is a Media Marketing Class thing.
which is not to say that everyone who uses those terms that way is a marketer, but that's where it comes from. My professor in Intro To Media never called anything a book, movie, game, etc., it was all "content", and you didn't read, watch, or play anything, you "consumed" it.
I only really ever see "content creator" in the context of Youtube videos though, where I can't really blame them for wanting something a little more professional sounding than "Youtuber".
"Content" and "Media" in the general sense is a Media Marketing Class thing.
which is not to say that everyone who uses those terms that way is a marketer, but that's where it comes from. My professor in Intro To Media never called anything a book, movie, game, etc., it was all "content", and you didn't read, watch, or play anything, you "consumed" it.
I only really ever see "content creator" in the context of Youtube videos though, where I can't really blame them for wanting something a little more professional sounding than "Youtuber".
You know what bit of corporate jargon does grate on me, though? References to characters as "brands" or "branded characters". I've seen the latter applied to the Harvey and Marvel characters...
I don't know if I'm being clear with all of this, but it does kind of sting to see brands and branding getting dumped on...I've always loved branding...
Branding is for companies. And that is fine.
You know what's not a brand? At all? Citizen Kane.
When you're talking about Citizen Kane as "content" to be "consumed" and not a movie to be watched, you are doing something wrong.
Branding is fine for some stuff--even some media stuff--but it refers to groups of things. Paramount is a brand, Citizen Kane is not.
When you treat the individual work of art as a brand, you are devaluing it and making it about soulless cultural capitalism of the worst kind imaginable.
To be clear, the Citizen Kane thing is not a hypothetical, we really did watch it in class, and he really did refer to it by those terms.
I know this isn't related to your larger point, but "content consumption" or "media consumption" are adequate expressions, I think, because they're kind of a workaround to using the individual verbs that each medium requires.
That's valid when we're talking about all kinds of media at once, totally.
But he never said book, movie, game, album, song, film, or anything like that. Ever. Even when referring to singular objects. He made a specific point not to.
I don't know if I'm being clear with all of this, but it does kind of sting to see brands and branding getting dumped on...I've always loved branding...
I have nothing against good brand design when selling things like cereal or cars or even books when it comes to having a unified identity. It's just when you start treating people and their ideas like objects and products that it gets grotty and creepy.
"Content" and "Media" in the general sense is a Media Marketing Class thing.
which is not to say that everyone who uses those terms that way is a marketer, but that's where it comes from. My professor in Intro To Media never called anything a book, movie, game, etc., it was all "content", and you didn't read, watch, or play anything, you "consumed" it.
I only really ever see "content creator" in the context of Youtube videos though, where I can't really blame them for wanting something a little more professional sounding than "Youtuber".
Content is irrelevant, the medium is the message.
I wil fukcn stab you odie
1. The Figure, the Ground, and the Tetrad
In saying "the medium is the message," and in this way denying
that the content is the message, McLuhan makes use of a
distinction drawn from Gestalt psychology between figure and
ground. As he puts it in the posthumously published Laws of
Media, co-authored with his son Eric:
All situations comprise an area of attention (figure) and a
very much larger area of inattention (ground) . . . . Figures rise
out of, and recede back into, ground . . . For example, at a
lecture, attention will shift from the speaker's words to his
gestures, to the hum of the lights or to street sounds, to the
feel of the chair or to a .memory or association or smell. Each
new figure in turn displaces the others into ground.
The McLuhans immediately add that
the study of ground "on its own terms" is virtually impossible;
by definition it is at any moment environmental and
subliminal. The only possible strategy for such study entails
constructing an anti-environment: such is the normal activity
of the artist, the only person in our culture whose whole
business has been the retraining and updating of sensibility.
I don't know if I'm being clear with all of this, but it does kind of sting to see brands and branding getting dumped on...I've always loved branding...
Branding is for companies. And that is fine.
You know what's not a brand? At all? Citizen Kane.
When you're talking about Citizen Kane as "content" to be "consumed" and not a movie to be watched, you are doing something wrong.
Branding is fine for some stuff--even some media stuff--but it refers to groups of things. Paramount is a brand, Citizen Kane is not.
When you treat the individual work of art as a brand, you are devaluing it and making it about soulless cultural capitalism of the worst kind imaginable.
To be clear, the Citizen Kane thing is not a hypothetical, we really did watch it in class, and he really did refer to it by those terms.
I don't know if I'm being clear with all of this, but it does kind of sting to see brands and branding getting dumped on...I've always loved branding...
Branding is for companies. And that is fine.
You know what's not a brand? At all? Citizen Kane.
When you're talking about Citizen Kane as "content" to be "consumed" and not a movie to be watched, you are doing something wrong.
Branding is fine for some stuff--even some media stuff--but it refers to groups of things. Paramount is a brand, Citizen Kane is not.
When you treat the individual work of art as a brand, you are devaluing it and making it about soulless cultural capitalism of the worst kind imaginable.
To be clear, the Citizen Kane thing is not a hypothetical, we really did watch it in class, and he really did refer to it by those terms.
I totally get that
I just wasn't sure if people here were separating brands (e.g. Marvel) from "brands" (e.g. Spider-Man)...maybe I was misreading...
appearing smart isn't hard, all you have to do is obfuscate, use lots of multisyllabic words and the odd bit of jargon
I can always see through that nonsense.
that is because you are smart!
appearing smart to smart people requires actually being smart.
Different people are smart about different things though.
You could talk to me about different kinds of wine and just make shit up and I would be none the wiser.
That's specific knowledge, not intellect. But yes, people are smart in different ways. But if you are smart in that way, it will not be hard to tell for someone else who is also smart in that way.
I don't know if I'm being clear with all of this, but it does kind of sting to see brands and branding getting dumped on...I've always loved branding...
Branding is for companies. And that is fine.
You know what's not a brand? At all? Citizen Kane.
When you're talking about Citizen Kane as "content" to be "consumed" and not a movie to be watched, you are doing something wrong.
Branding is fine for some stuff--even some media stuff--but it refers to groups of things. Paramount is a brand, Citizen Kane is not.
When you treat the individual work of art as a brand, you are devaluing it and making it about soulless cultural capitalism of the worst kind imaginable.
To be clear, the Citizen Kane thing is not a hypothetical, we really did watch it in class, and he really did refer to it by those terms.
I totally get that
I just wasn't sure if people here were separating brands (e.g. Marvel) from "brands" (e.g. Spider-Man)...maybe I was misreading...
no, Spider-Man is a character, and Spider-Man is a longrunning series of comics, movies, and other things.
The investigation of forms proceeds thus: a nature being given, we must first of all have a muster or presentation before the understanding of all known instances which agree in the same nature, though in substances the most unlike. And such collection must be made in the manner of a history, without premature speculation, or any great amount of subtlety. For example, let the investigation be into the form of heat.
Instances Agreeing in the Nature of Heat
1. The rays of the sun, especially in summer and at noon.
2. The rays of the sun reflected and condensed, as between mountains, or on walls, and most of all in burning glasses and mirrors.
3. Fiery meteors.
4. Burning thunderbolts.
5. Eruptions of flame from the cavities of mountains.
6. All flame.
7. Ignited solids.
8. Natural warm baths.
9. Liquids boiling or heated.
10. Hot vapors and fumes, and the air itself, which conceives the most powerful and glowing heat if confined, as in reverbatory furnaces.
11. Certain seasons that are fine and cloudless by the constitution of the air itself, without regard to the time of year.
12. Air confined and underground in some caverns, especially in winter.
13. All villous substances, as wool, skins of animals, and down of birds, have heat.
14. All bodies, whether solid or liquid, whether dense or rare (as the air itself is), held for a time near the fire.
15. Sparks struck from flint and steel by strong percussion.
16. All bodies rubbed violently, as stone, wood, cloth, etc., insomuch that poles and axles of wheels sometimes catch fire; and the way they kindled fire in the West Indies was by attrition.
17. Green and moist vegetables confined and bruised together, as roses packed in baskets; insomuch that hay, if damp, when stacked, often catches fire.
18. Quicklime sprinkled with water.
19. Iron, when first dissolved by strong waters in glass, and that without being put near the fire. And in like manner tin, etc., but not with equal intensity.
20. Animals, especially and at all times internally; though in insects the heat is not perceptible to the touch by reason of the smallness of their size.
21. Horse dung and like excrements of animals, when fresh.
22. Strong oil of sulphur and of vitriol has the effect of heat in burning linen.
23. Oil of marjoram and similar oils have the effect of heat in burning the bones of the teeth.
24. Strong and well rectified spirit of wine has the effect of heat, insomuch that the white of an egg being put into it hardens and whitens almost as if it were boiled, and bread thrown in becomes dry and crusted like toast.
25. Aromatic and hot herbs, as dracunculus, nasturtium vetus, etc., although not warm to the hand (either whole or in powder), yet to the tongue and palate, being a little masticated, they feel hot and burning.
26. Strong vinegar, and all acids, on all parts of the body where there is no epidermis, as the eye, tongue, or on any part when wounded and laid bare of the skin, produce a pain but little differing from that which is created by heat.
27. Even keen and intense cold produces a kind of sensation of burning: "Nec Boreæ penetrabile frigus adurit." 1
none of this really has much to do with the phrase "online content" I think, mostly just Youtubers wanting a more professional name for themselves, since "Youtuber" kinda sounds like some sort of vegetable from central Germany.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Citizen Kane could be seen as a brand, because people put it on things to make it look good. "Next Citizen Kane. Like Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane of Video Games."
That's what brands do; you put them on things so they look good, or to identify them.
I've mentioned this before, but I think the whole "characters as brands" thing has more to do with Hello Kitty and Garfield and the fact that their creators didn't have to do a whole lot to make tons of money. People in Hollywood see that and say "Hey, we can throw this character with a complex backstory and years of history on a shirt, give them a 'hip' catchphrase, and watch the cash roll in! It'll be great!"
Citizen Kane could be seen as a brand, because people put it on things to make it look good. "Next Citizen Kane. Like Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane of Video Games."
That's what brands do; you put them on things so they look good, or to identify them.
Of course, this is part of the problem.
A metaphor.
A metaphor is what you're thinking of.
One that utilizes a proper noun, but a metaphor nonetheless.
Edison was an exceptionally productive, systematic inventor and his methods, while unromantic, are far more relevant to the way modern technology is actually developed than Tesla's "lone genius" approach.
I've mentioned this before, but I think the whole "characters as brands" thing has more to do with Hello Kitty and Garfield and the fact that their creators didn't have to do a whole lot to make tons of money. People in Hollywood see that and say "Hey, we can throw this character with a complex backstory and years of history on a shirt, give them a 'hip' catchphrase, and watch the cash roll in! It'll be great!"
I'm pretty sure this was the whole idea behind Classic Media
Of course that didn't work, and now DreamWorks Animation seems to be getting smashed with it
If not for those old Rankin/Bass specials, there'd be pretty much nothing there for DreamWorks
I've mentioned this before, but I think the whole "characters as brands" thing has more to do with Hello Kitty and Garfield and the fact that their creators didn't have to do a whole lot to make tons of money. People in Hollywood see that and say "Hey, we can throw this character with a complex backstory and years of history on a shirt, give them a 'hip' catchphrase, and watch the cash roll in! It'll be great!"
Edison was an exceptionally productive, systematic inventor and his methods, while unromantic, are far more relevant to the way modern technology is actually developed than Tesla's "lone genius" approach.
I've mentioned this before, but I think the whole "characters as brands" thing has more to do with Hello Kitty and Garfield and the fact that their creators didn't have to do a whole lot to make tons of money. People in Hollywood see that and say "Hey, we can throw this character with a complex backstory and years of history on a shirt, give them a 'hip' catchphrase, and watch the cash roll in! It'll be great!"
Comments
Nobody thinks like that except media marketing professionals, who everyone in every field of media hates.
incidentally, my professor owned his own indie film publishing company, Haydenfilms, and plugged his own company's products to us constantly.
But he never said book, movie, game, album, song, film, or anything like that. Ever. Even when referring to singular objects. He made a specific point not to.
I fucking haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated that class if that was not obvious, bunch of "how to sell yourself" nonsense when what I signed up for was to learn how to use mixing boards and such.
By mocking themselves.
You know what's not a brand? At all? Citizen Kane.
When you're talking about Citizen Kane as "content" to be "consumed" and not a movie to be watched, you are doing something wrong.
Branding is fine for some stuff--even some media stuff--but it refers to groups of things. Paramount is a brand, Citizen Kane is not.
When you treat the individual work of art as a brand, you are devaluing it and making it about soulless cultural capitalism of the worst kind imaginable.
To be clear, the Citizen Kane thing is not a hypothetical, we really did watch it in class, and he really did refer to it by those terms.
You could talk to me about different kinds of wine and just make shit up and I would be none the wiser.
Marvel is the brand.
The investigation of forms proceeds thus: a nature being given, we must first of all have a muster or presentation before the understanding of all known instances which agree in the same nature, though in substances the most unlike. And such collection must be made in the manner of a history, without premature speculation, or any great amount of subtlety. For example, let the investigation be into the form of heat.
Instances Agreeing in the Nature of Heat
1. The rays of the sun, especially in summer and at noon.
2. The rays of the sun reflected and condensed, as between mountains, or on walls, and most of all in burning glasses and mirrors.
3. Fiery meteors.
4. Burning thunderbolts.
5. Eruptions of flame from the cavities of mountains.
6. All flame.
7. Ignited solids.
8. Natural warm baths.
9. Liquids boiling or heated.
10. Hot vapors and fumes, and the air itself, which conceives the most powerful and glowing heat if confined, as in reverbatory furnaces.
11. Certain seasons that are fine and cloudless by the constitution of the air itself, without regard to the time of year.
12. Air confined and underground in some caverns, especially in winter.
13. All villous substances, as wool, skins of animals, and down of birds, have heat.
14. All bodies, whether solid or liquid, whether dense or rare (as the air itself is), held for a time near the fire.
15. Sparks struck from flint and steel by strong percussion.
16. All bodies rubbed violently, as stone, wood, cloth, etc., insomuch that poles and axles of wheels sometimes catch fire; and the way they kindled fire in the West Indies was by attrition.
17. Green and moist vegetables confined and bruised together, as roses packed in baskets; insomuch that hay, if damp, when stacked, often catches fire.
18. Quicklime sprinkled with water.
19. Iron, when first dissolved by strong waters in glass, and that without being put near the fire. And in like manner tin, etc., but not with equal intensity.
20. Animals, especially and at all times internally; though in insects the heat is not perceptible to the touch by reason of the smallness of their size.
21. Horse dung and like excrements of animals, when fresh.
22. Strong oil of sulphur and of vitriol has the effect of heat in burning linen.
23. Oil of marjoram and similar oils have the effect of heat in burning the bones of the teeth.
24. Strong and well rectified spirit of wine has the effect of heat, insomuch that the white of an egg being put into it hardens and whitens almost as if it were boiled, and bread thrown in becomes dry and crusted like toast.
25. Aromatic and hot herbs, as dracunculus, nasturtium vetus, etc., although not warm to the hand (either whole or in powder), yet to the tongue and palate, being a little masticated, they feel hot and burning.
26. Strong vinegar, and all acids, on all parts of the body where there is no epidermis, as the eye, tongue, or on any part when wounded and laid bare of the skin, produce a pain but little differing from that which is created by heat.
27. Even keen and intense cold produces a kind of sensation of burning: "Nec Boreæ penetrabile frigus adurit." 1
28. Other instances.
none of this really has much to do with the phrase "online content" I think, mostly just Youtubers wanting a more professional name for themselves, since "Youtuber" kinda sounds like some sort of vegetable from central Germany.
^Cease
"Just gonna eat some of these fresh Bavarian Youtubers, eh?"
A metaphor is what you're thinking of.
One that utilizes a proper noun, but a metaphor nonetheless.
what do you think they are, fucking alchemists?