Contemporary branding, and design in general, is something which is forever developing and changing, but how authentic and original can our generation actually be and to what extent does our culture constantly relayer and recycle concepts? The focus of this essay is to consider the contrasting viewpoints of 2 major theorists regarding the postmodern and what has come with it - pastiche or parody? - and to see how this is being applied within our modern day industry.
Frederic Jameson, an American Marxist cultural critic, believes that postmodernism developed from the remix of culture emerging in the post-war years, especially starting to creep in within the sixties. It was this new ‘super-culture’ which encouraged the growth of Reality TV, media overload, 24/7 news, activism, hyper-entertainment, and everything else which became ‘the mainstream’ - the traditional target of maverick artists. Those of which, whom he saw to be longing for the destabilisation of order and convention, and to usher in the new. The postmodern embraces, reproduces, and even reinforces this culture, drawing inspiration from it; and allowing it to grow alongside. But Jameson claims that every defining, primary characteristic of postmodernism was once an auxiliary, subordinate trait of modernism.
On the other side to the argument, there is Linda Hutcheon, almost directly opposing Jameson. She takes a positive approach, helping to build a more complex understanding of the growing culture alongside post-modernism and also through the criticism of Jameson for only giving it a chance as a dependent feature of modernism. She refers to modernism as an elitist style for elitist people, snobbery for the snobs. But all of this changed with postmodernism's populist cry - it not only challenged this intellectual snobbery, but everything: our perceptions, pride, language, sexuality, institutions, and the limitations of all these things. According to her, the period acknowledges limits, then discards them, integrating other mediums into one another (like literature and film, poetry and music).
According to Hutcheon, one of the main features that distinguishes postmodernism from modernism is the fact that it "takes the form of self-conscious, self-contradictory, self-undermining statements" (Hutcheon, 1989, p.1); and one way of creating this double or contradictory stance on any statement is through the use of parody: an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect. As Hutcheon explains, “Parody - often called ironic quotation, pastiche, or appropriation - is usually considered central to postmodernism, both by its detractors and its defenders… Parody signals how present representations come from past ones and what ideological consequences derive from both continuity and difference" (1989, p.93). It is clear how this postmodern mindset to parody allows us to actively be inspired by what has come before us, allowing us to approach this in a reflexive nature but at the same time with a new twist on things.
Whilst Jameson disagrees with this, he characterises postmodern parody as "blank parody" without any political bite. According to him, parody has said to be replaced in the modern world by pastiche, but pastiche lacks this political and or satirical viewpoint that parody has. This is shown when it is said in his texts that "Pastiche is, like parody, the imitation of a peculiar or unique, idiosyncratic style, the wearing of a linguistic mask, speech in a dead language. But it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without any of parody's ulterior motives, amputated of the satiric impulse, devoid of laughter” (1991, p.17). So Jameson elicits how for postmodern artists and authors nowadays, it has gotten to the point where authenticity and completely unique concept ideas are hard to come by. It is no longer clear what they are supposed to be doing besides appealing to a new target audience by simply recycling the past - “the imitation of dead styles”, an “empty parody” without any deep, disguised, or ambiguous meaning within the context. Jameson calls this pastiche, a neutral practise which lacks the intention and humour of parody. This leading to what is referred to in architectural history as “historicism", which is according to Jameson a random combination of past styles - now apparent in all spheres of cultural production.
Quite blatantly Jameson views the postmodern pastiche (or parody - dependant on whose side you are on) as being unoriginal and is entirely convinced that it is a shallow upstart, strongly obliged to high-modernism for its origin. “For with the collapse of the high-modernist ideology of style - what is as unique and unmistakable as your own fingerprints… the producers of culture have nowhere to turn but to the past: the imitation of dead styles, speech through all the masks and voices stored up in the imaginary museum of now global culture.” (1991, p.17). This mirrors this second significant trait which comes with post-modern parody which Jameson identifies as ‘The Death of Subject’. It refers to this death of individualism, suggesting that the search for the individual voice and style of the Modernists is not achieved in the present day, that there is literally nothing left to try out, and that artists must simply resign to mimicry of past styles in the form of pastiche. What postmodernism amounts to, Jameson believes, is something existing only in the present; undergoing such radical change, decay, and rebirth; destroying any traditions of the past.
This notion of a changed reality mindset in which this new culture has began to thrive links to a supporting concept by the highly profiled theorist Jean Baudrillard. Baudrillard (1983) concludes how postmodernism has encouraged us to reach a state of “hyperreality” in the world, which is defined as "the generation by models of a real without origin or reality” (Storey, 2012, p.193); This is a characteristic mode of postmodernity, within the hyperreal “the distinction between simulation and the ‘real’ implodes” it is a representation, a sign, without an original referent. Baudrillard suggesting how the world we live in has now been replaced by a copy world, where we seek simulated stimuli and nothing more, made up of the constant re-layering of material and empty ideologies.
These concepts do show how there are two places that Hutcheon and Jameson do, at least tentatively, concur in. It is the notion of mass culture and parody. Both believe in how with the growth of postmodernism, it is clear how it does depend on, and parallels the mass culture everyone practices and participates in, within the modern world. Although Jameson argues with all the consequences which he sees to derive from this, Hutcheon focuses on the positives and more expressive characteristics which have actually come from the postmodern mindset. She suggests how the postmodern admittedly does reflect on the past, to inspire and to create new, “The past as referent is not bracketed or effaced, as Jameson would like to believe: it is incorporated and modified, given new and different life and meaning. This is the lesson taught by postmodernist art today. In other words, even the most self-conscious and parodic of contemporary works do not try to escape, but indeed foreground, the historical, social and ideological contexts in which they have existed and continue to exist.” (1989, p.182) This provides strong reinforcement for her concept of not forgetting or completely removing the value of origin from what has came before the postmodern, and Hutcheon highlights how works are in no way trying to escape this, but reflect the context that they have developed from and within. So postmodern parody is apparently willing to embrace its so called un-originality, but it is not viewed in the same light, it has morals and justifications where necessary according to her side of the argument.
In response to Hutcheon’s proposal of postmodern parody being able to positively look back and be inspired by the styles of the past, Jameson mocks this with his summary of examples of how it has actually been replaced by postmodern pastiche in the modern world. His first point makes reference to how postmodern architecture "randomly and without principle but with gusto cannibalises all the architectural styles of the past and combines them in overstimulating ensembles" (1991, p.19). Although it is an open practise Jameson argues how there is nothing justified in what artists are now doing, due to their inability to create new aesthetic forms, they can only copy old ones without creating any new meanings, which will become over-complicated and over-stimulating, not having any real authentic value or significance.
But whilst Jameson argues that in the postmodern “parody finds itself without a vocation," it is replaced by pastiche; it appears that by then actually looking to both the aesthetic and historical past in postmodernist architecture you will find it is anything but what Jameson describes as pastiche. Actually “there was absolutely nothing random or "without principle" in the parodic recall and re-examination of the past by architects like Charles Moore or Ricardo Bofill. To include irony and play is never necessarily to exclude seriousness and purpose in postmodernist art.” (1989, p.186). Here Hutcheon disproves the validity of Jameson’s point and puts it down to subjectivity, and different visions and tastes of postmodern architecture in this particular instance. However the last point made in the quote urges to us how in this developed culture we now live in, playful-ness and tongue-and-cheek do play a key role in marketing techniques - more specific, approachable and in-formal tones of voice can be used to reach certain sub-groups within the mass audiences.
The second example Jameson provides of postmodern pastiche is the way in which ‘nostalgia film’ (what the French call la mode rétro) only represents the past for us in this hyper-stylised way - the 50s in George Lucas's American Graffiti, the Italian 1930s in Roman Polanski's Chinatown - in such works we approach "the 'past' through stylistic connotation, conveying 'pastness' by the glossy qualities of the image, and '1930s-ness' or '1950s-ness' by the attributes of fashion" (1991, p.19). So we are only depicting a concept of what the past was like through the qualities of modern cinema and Hollywood direction. The past is being represented as a glimmering mirage and according to Jameson this re-creates the "history of aesthetic styles" thus is attempting to "displace 'real' history" (1991, p.20). This is a very out-dated viewpoint in the modern world and we must conceive of this category of film in the broadest way, it consists merely of films about the past and about specific generational moments of that past. So why call them pastiche? Can it not just be accepted as work within the traditional genre of the historical film, just as a stylised insight/representation?
As un-accepting of postmodern parody as Jameson is, especially in-comparison to a culture such as modernism, Hutcheon rightly comes back to state "Postmodernism is both academic and popular, élitist and accessible" (1988, p.44). It is thanks to such contradictions that postmodernism can mount a successful critique. Whereas Jameson condemns all Hollywood film as contributing to the problems of late capitalism, Hutcheon offers this other way of valuing such work: "Postmodern film does not deny that it is implicated in capitalist modes of production, because it knows it cannot. Instead it exploits its 'insider' position in order to begin a subversion from within, to talk to consumers in a capitalist society in a way that will get us where we live, so to speak" (1989, p.114). She covers the honest and obvious truth which Jameson naively holds onto, of the fact clearly it will only ever provide a representation, not the real thing. With the target audience consisting of mass consumers in a capitalist society it is all about the the approach and tone of voice used to portray the scene rightly to them. To elicit this feeling of authenticity the best way film can, to aid this cinematic experience and make it mean something to everyone, often something different - that is what becomes a successful piece of postmodern film. It is not necessary neglecting the real truths of the past, but imitating them to allow this projection of new image in our society which revolves around it.
A very current example which has become very successful in our society is Netflix’s amazing new sci-fi, nostalgia-fest, Stranger Things - the show is set in the 1980s in the fictional town of Hawkins, Indiana, and is a homage to 1980s pop culture. But nothing gets you in the mood for Stranger Things’ throwback to a midwestern town like the title sequence. The slow reveal of its distinctive typography and the creepy Giorgio Moroder–esque synth stylings conjure the era of Blade Runner, Escape from New York, and Ladyhawke.
Whilst for the glowing red titles, 'Imaginary Forces’ say they took inspiration from Richard Greenberg, who made some legendary movie titles: Superman, The Dead Zone, etc. The typeface used is the same that appears on many of Stephen King’s novels. Indicating how the whole design and intended feeling to entice the target audience has been built on and inspired by past pieces of work - as it develops a completely new concept and feeling to the past inspired work. Nowadays this is viewed by Hutcheon as a postmodern parody; it celebrates the inspirations which, in turn, developed this new successful concept. In an age of visually complex titles like Game of Thrones’ ultra-detailed, world-building clockwork, Stranger Things is stripped down and retro. The type burns into place and primes the viewer for a trip to a paranormal ’80s world. Like the show, the title is an unfolding mystery.
So in the design industries today can a piece of graphical design or branding be categorised as a mere pastiche, which mimics and recycles concepts in an empty, un-justified way; or can it be accepted as part of the ever-growing postmodern culture which does seat parodic re-use of ideas at the forefront of its ideals? It is clear how there are endless examples of how design styles can be brought back in as refreshed trends, one in-particular being the surge of the more stripped back, simplistic and vectorised approach within branding and identity. The NatWest and Co-op rebrand fit this perfectly, both delving into the company’s design archives, specifically with a return to 1960s logos, stirring up discussion across the industry about nostalgia in branding.
“Is it a savvy use of a company’s assets, and a subtle hint to its roots; or a lazy, innovation-stifling device used to tap into society’s feelings of “the good old days”. Or, even, was design simply “better back then”? We asked six leading design studios, including those that worked on the rebrands in question, for their candid opinions on the subject” (Brewer, 2016).
As specified by the Creative Director, Dan Witchell at Futurebrand “Referencing the past was not a specific aim of the NatWest project. Looking into its archive was an opportunity to re-discover some long-forgotten brand assets, already owned and ripe for reinvention” (Brewer, 2016), and this is similar to what Stephen Gilmore, a partner at North, said about the Co-op rebrand too “It wasn’t our original intention to refer to Co-op’s past, the brief was to create a completely new identity. However, through our development process we came to appreciate that the original 1968 logo was tough to beat. It’s a timeless classic like the British Rail symbol or the Woolmark and has that rare quality of being both a logotype and a symbol at the same time” (Brewer, 2016). This reflects how both design studios claim that their reference to the past was not planned, it was just through an appreciation of the past which inspired their new concepts to grow. For example, a wider strategy of going “back to being Co-op”, can be hugely powerful as a signifier of the changes across the organisation. As suggested by Neil Cummings, a creative director at Wolff Olins, he really does feel strongly that the nostalgic route is a bold one. It is asking the client to say that “we’ve lost our way, we’re going back to our roots”. It’s them admitting “what we had before was stronger and who we were back then was better”. It’s a big bold graphic commitment, it needs justification to be accepted or it will be seen as an empty pastiche. It’s a brave move to admit things were better before. Over time brands can often become lost or evolve in the wrong direction. Stripping back to the origin can provide a new perspective, but it has to ensure it is relevant to the audience and portrays the right message.
Upon asking the six design studios on there opinions of nostalgia in contemporary branding it was a mixed reply - many of them suggested how usually it would be a one-off solution and they don’t think it is necessarily more prevalent now than any other time. Tim Williams, creative director at DesignStudio, summarises it well with the point that “design has always been a process of reflection on the past and looking to improve things for the future” (Brewer, 2016), so the fact it can be seen as nostalgic is because it may provide that feeling of familiarity and comfort for the audience, luring them into consuming, which is what this postmodern culture is all about. This reflects the bigger picture of how today’s design process has evolved reflection, re-use and even parody into its core principles to inspire new things. But there will always be this argument of how we are becoming more and more of a lazy generation, this is supported when Michael Johnson, creative director at Johnson Banks, suggests how “looking backwards to go forwards makes sense – it’s certainly easier to dig into a brand’s heritage for ‘inspiration’ because the legal hurdles of getting new symbols approved are now so onerous.” (Brewer, 2016) So designers have learnt that the easiest way to get an idea approved was to effectively ‘tweak’ what was already there. It is viewing it with this mindset which fuels this un-original concept of reflection simply being an empty pastiche.
But it is this return to simplicity, ’stripping back’ some of the clutter that some brands gather around themselves, which can push the view of it being a considered reflection. This design style probably came from the restrictions in technology, with pre-digital processes potentially forcing a greater economy of form, to try and do more with less. Our advancements in design-led technology mean we now have the ability to create anything conceivable, but this doesn’t mean we should - “we are consumed by over saturation of information and image; our personal choices are being defined by algorithms as often as they are by our brains. It’s overwhelming, so it’s not nostalgia we crave, it’s simplicity” (D. Witchell of Futurebrand in Brewer, 2016).
It is actively obvious from the examples discussed how within contemporary branding and design, we are greatly influenced by the works which have come before us and we are known, as designers, to be very reflective through the recycling of these ideas to help us create new ones. The discussions with current design studios demonstrate how this is rarely a pastiche - in Jameson’s empty, unjustified sense of the word; but we can actually conclude that design is very seriously considered and our culture does fit within Hutcheon’s viewpoints of how we’ve developed alongside this postmodern sense of parody. This is not to say that parody does not have tendencies of comedic mimicry, but also how it can still be a very serious, justified response invoking endless semantic meaning to us an audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment