My daily routine consists  of the same pattern.. After turning off alarm at 4:15 A.M. on my iPhone 6, I roll out of my comfortable bed groggily, stumble to the bathroom, hi on hte light and while waiting on the shower to heat up, I grab my Colgate toothbrush and toothpaste and began brushing my teeth. After I clothed myself, I start my car, and while it warms up, I brew myself a cup of coffee, grab a banana and soon I’m out the door. WIthin minutes of waking up, I am totally dependent on objects around me. Without my phone, how would I ever wake up on time? WIthout my shower and toothbrush, how can I ever expect to keep up my hygiene and appear presentable in society? WIthout clothes? UNfortunately society won’t permit me to live as a nudist.

Objects dictate our lives. Living in a materialistic world, one cannot help put only attempt to fight the urge to keep up with the latest fashion, technologies or cars. Everyday, society reminds us what objects are ‘necessary’ for a happy, productive, fulfilling life. Yet in our contemporary society, pushing aside the massive amount of propaganda directed towards consumers, what objects can be deemed truly necessary?

Growing up, my parents never placed significant evidence on materialistic objects. My family and I lived in a modest house, in a modest surbia. My father, a frugal man, would rather save than spend. My mother, an artist, enjoyed creating new out of old. Hene their lack of materialism rubbed on me. When I discovered this project would be based around objects, I felt lost. How can I write about objects when i feel no personal connection or attachment to such things. But once I began this course, with experiments such as the Reflective Free Writing and the Photo Study Project, I discovered I could write well when describing objects I developed a connection with. These connections I developed with objects formed through different reasons. Some objects such as the blacket my grandmother made for my when I was five remains significant to me and only me through the memories and experiences I associated with my blanket. Objects such as currency and my car provide necessary functions that would make everyday living difficult. WIth this newly discovered concept I learned most objects are deemed ‘necessary’ though individualistic prerogative. For some objects like phones or cars, the need or want for an object remains completely subjective. Yet objects like toilet paper, and warmth and shelter are necessary for man’s survival.Objects’ significance is determined through individualistic opinion and also the emphasis a society may place on such objects.

During this project, I primarily employed logos ( by explaining my reasoning), as my rhetorical device. Objects and its condemnation of necessary or not is subjective. Hence I chose to rely on logic and reasoning to convey this. Preference and opinions fall into pathos.I believe if I attempted to use emotion to convey my message concerning objects, it would appear I have an emotional attachment to objects myself ruining my personal ethos. Overall I enjoyed this project. I enjoyed the combination of research and then combining that research with creative writing. I enjoy historical context and by being able to write my opinion with absolute freedom and few restrictions concerning my writing remained a new concept which I enjoyed immensely. My major complaint was the amount of technical issues I had with this project. Entering my own information into the template was simple. But any additions I added to the original template proved troublesome. My primary problem was when I added new rows, the new categories would not adjust the date to accurately fit in the timeline. The car and tree slide belonged further up but manually moving them in the columns still would not change their position. My final technical issue was entering dates. I had many dates before the year one A.D. but the system never allow me to enter B.C. dates rendering my timeline’s dates not as accurate as possible. All in all, other than my frustrating technical issues, I’m proud of my final product.

Baby carriers have been around for a very long time. Parents dating back to the early 1900s, wore a wide range of long cloths, shawls and scarves to snuggle their babies. In my opinion this was very creative. These items were formed into baby wearing. The idea was to allow their hands to be free by attaching their babies to their body. This allowed mother to do chores around the house. Men also wore them, but for a very long time men worked out in the field doing hard labor. However, as time progressed and women went out to work baby wearing became even more popular.
Baby wearing wasn’t exactly something special it’s just what was done to cope, because mother work so hard, it just wasn’t enough time to stop and cater to baby. In fact many types of traditional carrier are used in developing countries. Baby wearing was considered totally normal, basically a necessity and way of life. Each country or area of the world has a traditional baby carrier according to their culture. For example, Mexican people use the Rebozo, with babies usually on their back. European mothers used a mixture of wrap, pouches and cloth carrier to name a few.
When studying this object it was interesting, this object was used for different reason. It started as a way of managing mother busy life. As equally important this object formed an attachment between mothers and babies. Also, allowing the baby to still have the sense on feeling comfort, basically feeling snuggled as if they were still in their mother’s womb.

My timeline spans the groundbreaking inventions in the way we tell time. My focus is on clocks and how they reflect our thinking as a civilization. There may have been some additions, like the atomic clock, built in 1949, and is the worlds most accurate clock to which all other clocks follow, that I’ve omitted; but, I don’t think entries such as this would find a comfortable place on the list because of its obscurity. I want to focus more on the everyday timepieces. From the ancient sundials in Egypt to the cell phone watches that are becoming reality, the look of the device used to track time has changed, but the motivation largely remains the same. The farmer and the business worker must adhere to their own particular schedules, whether it is the rooster call that signifies the beginning of the work day, or the rooster call alarm on the I-Phone. There is work to be done and the clock helps us manage it.  Towards the end of the timeline there are entries that are not merely clocks. The cellphone and computer have infinite, practical uses that I think vastly overshadows the utility of the entries preceding them (I can guess comfortably many kids in ancient Egypt tried scaling the obelisk). Multi-functionality with clocks and watches is another component that I want to explore further, whether it is timing for the forty-yard dash or a decorative piece above a mantle, they have different uses with the same principle.

Branding itself impacts life on a day-to-day basis.  Taking time to read a little more about the history of brands, what the word actually means, and the trajectories of these two companies, and some of the studies on branding will give one a deepened appreciate for the complex nature of the relationship between the person and the object.

The following is a brief look at the prehistory, genesis, and evolution of branding, with a particular focus on two local Georgia brands: Coca Cola and Delta.

This timeline focuses on advertising and the history of the brand concept with an eye toward modern day.

Through the object study of Delta and Coca Cola’s brands and considering a portion of their history, the relationship between brands and culture seems direct and responsive.  Coca-Cola and Delta are both local and global brands­– these companies impact life on a global scale.  According to Delta.com, Delta serves over 165 million customers per year.  Coke claims that their products are consumed at the rate of 1.8 billion units per day.  That’s a lot of Coke!

Brands respond to and even possess the power to shape culture. Companies today are embracing the evolution of culture in the digital age, with the concerns of societal consciousness at the forefront of their current marketing strategies.  The in-roads between brands, philosophy, and psychology serve as mile markers on a wider study of the material culture of contemporary American life.

The symbolism in color is the core to adapting to this ideal of wearing a ribbon, looped and pinned above the heart as a way to show support for a particular cause. Beginning with the color yellow, which is seen in the 1800s painting, “When Did You Last See Your Father” by W.F. Yeames, the Puritan Army wears yellow sashes. Adding to this color symbolism, Napoleon Bonaparte is quoted, ” A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.” Was this the start of manipulating a color into an object of awareness? This timeline exposes that audiences believes it to be.

In addition to these earlier references, songs and movies have been produced about a female wearing a yellow ribbon as a symbol of support for a loved one at war. These songs and movies are seen by most to be the beginning cause for “support” through the symbolism of color and a piece of fabric.

To show support of the hostage crisis in Iran, Penelope Laingen, wife of a U.S. Soldier held captive, took the 1973’s song, “Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree” and literally tied a yellow ribbon around a tree in front of her house until her husband returned home.  She then donated that exact ribbon to the Library of Congress in 1991.

Since then, there are claims to the rise of the Pink Ribbon; however, the Red Ribbon in support for AIDS awareness was first seen on the 45th Annual Tony Awards. The ribbon is no longer tied around a tree but looped and pinned above the heart of the host, Jeremy Irons. Was this the beginning of a new fashion trend?

In 1992, as dubbed by New York Times, “The Year Of The Ribbon,” awareness ribbons exploded into justifying certain colors to particular causes. Today, each color means something…means support for a cause. But who is profiting or benefiting from this fashion trend?

In her essay, Technological Styles: Transforming a Natural Material into a Cultural Object, Rita P. Wright characterizes the relationship between conceptual and physical contexts in correlation to creation and possession of an object. She argues that objects transforms from an association with other objects to “a social world of individuals who possess the object.”

A conceptual context refers to the creator’s mind [and] the physical refers to the association of the object out of its original, conceptual context as it moves from producer to consumer, out of the workshop and into its context…. The focus is not on the thing, the artifact, but on its makers and users as a window in to social relations. It is as ‘things-in-motion’ within the context of the social place of the artisans and users that the analysis derives its meaning. Thus the artifact is less a text to be read than a story to be told or unfolded about the social impact of the actions of people and their manipulations of objects through space and time.

During my research about the relationship between awareness ribbons, colors, and culture, I have learned the relevance of color in branding. According to Gregory Ciotti in his essay, The Psychology of Color in Marketing and Branding, color is important tool for persuasion yet controversial. Colors arouse various emotions depending on “elements such as personal preference, experiences, upbringing, cultural differences, context, etc.” as well as “broadly align with specific traits.”

In Nick Carson’s blog post, “21 Outstanding Uses of Colour Branding,” he states that companies focus more on color usage than design and color ownership is vital to projecting an appropriate emotion. Thus, deriving off this color persuasion, marketers have targeted consumers through the color symbolism in awareness ribbons. We use these awareness ribbons, as a way to show support yet it has also become a fashion accessory from which marketers exploit our emotions as a profit.

Considering color is a symbol, Jacques Maquet suggests in his essay, “Objects as Instruments, Objects as Signs,” that we do not choose these objects as a sign/symbol at random. Rather we choose a “symbol [to correspond] the strong sense of…identity with what it symbolizes.” It was posed in our class discussion about Walter Benjamin’s “The Collector,” if could we be considered a collector in regards to our thoughts…

So, in knowing the attention manufacturers put into choosing colors when making a brand or object, I ponder whether color itself could be considered an object? What do you think? Also, Why did we choose to use a simple piece of fabric to fold, loop, and then pin above our heart as a way to show support for a particular cause? Are the colors that are used to portray a specific cause subjugated from branding?

http://www.ted.com/playlists/61/objects_of_desire

Throughout this semester, we’ve elaborated on how object analysis provides a window into the culture that produced it. Lava Lamps, teapots, libraries, all objects who’s metaphysical properties indicate social or cultural values, but as our studies have gone on, I’ve slowly begun to wonder: how far back do these connections go? Are there objects so broadly influential that they extend past societal or cultural ties, and are instead just humanistic? In his TED discussion, Denis Dutton states that objects of beauty fit this mold, as their evolution can be traced back throughout the course of cross-cultural human history.

On the surface, a “beautiful” thing is not easily defined. It’s typically stated that, because of it’s subjective nature, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”… or better yet, that objects we see as beautiful are due in some part to our cultural conditioning. “Paintings, movies, music, are all beautiful because cultures shape uniformity for preference of aesthetic taste”, yet beyond this there are certain objects that people worldwide have a magnetic attraction to.

I feel that this source would provide a unique concept for a class discussion as it not only aligns with previous readings, but expands on them in such a way that it provokes a great deal of thought about the creation and development of our relationship with objects. Dutton’s tie in of beautify creating desire is rather parallel with our previous discussion of how “cute” things: just as a ceramic cat evokes the same physical response as seeing a baby’s face, Dutton suggests that our concept of beauty is an evolutionary response “to encourage us toward making the most adaptive decisions for survival and reproduction”. The result is that these objects have a universal appeal, even to people who have never encountered them before.

For example, Dutton notes that around the world, we are obsessed with photos and replication of a very particular landscape: “open spaces of low grasses interspersed with copses of trees…. water directly in view…indications of animal or bird life… a path or a road, perhaps a riverbank or a shoreline, that extends into the distance.” Amazingly, this perfectly describes the savanna environments were our ancestors evolved and flourished. I won’t spoil the entire discussion, but he makes some truly astounding connections between art and evolution that I highly recommend everyone to watch.

We’ve seen that “cuteness” influences parental instincts, disgust is a defense mechanism, and beauty/desire is for survival and reproduction. So naturally, this begs the question: What other aesthetics produce psycho/physiological responses, and how has evolution shaped them as well?

People consume things daily–knowledge, information, daily grocery store purchases–and we are all consumers. Our lives are partially driven by our need for consumption. But, can this preoccupation with things in a consumer culture be too much? We all love food. I love food. You love food. My dog loves food. The ant crawling on my window sill is probably looking for food. Food is good; we need to consume it to survive, but could modern American culture be way too obsessed with food? A preoccupation with anything is never good.  In Nigel Barber’s article, “Top Reasons Americans Are Food Obsessed”, Barber writes:

“When nations get to be wealthy enough that most individuals are well fed, interest in food typically declines as people expand their horizons through reading, the arts, entertainment and so forth. They cultivate their minds and pay less attention to their stomachs. All of that has changed in recent years. As a nation, we have become more and more obsessed with food.”

Do you agree with Barber? Do you think that Americans are obsessed with food? If so, where do you think this tendency to place our emotions on our eating habits comes into play? Is this why obesity and other health problems are an issue? Society focuses so strongly on food that people are becoming famous for their eating habits, or their food creations. For instance, The Guy who Survived on Pizza for 25 Years , now has his own documentary and is famous for having a complete obsession with pizza–his fridge is stocked full with the item–he only eats cheese pizza and claims to never eat pizza. Surprisingly, this so-called “Pizza King” is still healthy, according to his doctor, but is his obsession with one food? The main existence of food is to provide sustenance. What else does it provide and is this a beneficial thing or is it detrimental?

Vetta Collection

So, now, the “age of loneliness” is a thing.

What does this have to do with material culture and, for my concern, the study of brands?  How did we get here?

The technology of the marketing industry is accelerating quickly.

Jennifer Roberts ties into culture theorist McLuhan’s ideas about technocracy in her essay on the lava lamp.  The 1960’s, before the age of ubiquitous technology and advertising, are the setting in which McLuhan “began describing the dehierarchized, free flowing world of information that sophisticated communications technologies were enabling” (Roberts 175).  This sounds a lot like the evolved state of information and technology at present day.

The notion of a free flowing world of information has come to be a given in the culture of the “twenty-tens.”

If social media and the inundation of information into people’s lives has a hand in creating this age of loneliness, it would be good to take a look at why people are so attracted to sharing and using social media:

According to Harvard researchers, “Self-disclosure was strongly associated with increased activation in brain regions that form the mesolimbic dopamine system,” so, it makes us feel good!  That’s a no-brainer (pun intended).  But it also makes us feel bad.  The same research shows that young people who use social media exhibit high-risk behaviors at an accelerated rate.

A compulsive relationship to technology and media seems to evoke the words of Marx recorded in Walter Benjamin’s The Arcades Project:

“All the physical and intellectual senses…have been replaced by the simple alienation of all the senses, the sense of having.”

 This concept of alienation is especially interesting considering Belk’s ideas of the extended self.   Belk’s ideas about virtual brand communities draw an interesting corollary:

Belk states that normally, aggregating one’s sense of self with branded goods usually requires ownership; in the digital world, this aggregation can happen in virtual environment in which the user or consumer can engage brands without having to invest capital, creating a virtual sense of affiliated identity.

When I go out and buy a MacBook at the Apple store, I am buying into the cultural mythology of what Apple offers.  If I log in to a website like Pinterest, I can curate all of these interests, and, in a sense, possess them in the digital sense by saving images to my page and creating boards of the things that I like and endorse.  Pinterest could surely be responsible for helping brands establish new markets and sell more goods.  What happens when virtual appreciation becomes a true craving, the consumer now convinced he/she needs to buy the object to assimilate it into his/her identity, once the sense of wanting overcomes the sense of appreciation?

Here, I reach the crossroads: Belk and Marx present related, but contrasting points of view- does having enhance or alienate the self?  I tend to think it’s a paradox– both things are happening in real time– the multifaceted existential concepts of self (Sartre via Kinneavy) could, at once, be at odds with one another within the individual, creating a sense of an enlarged and alienated self.

Dr. Newby-Clark Self-Other Perceptions

What does all of this have to do with brands?