> Perhaps this is wrong, but doesn't it hurt to have winking hipsterism,
> which
> has always been a form of distinguishing oneself from the normal (i.e.
> working class) people, smothering the real information people could use
> about corporate salesmanship and the politics of product choice? The way
> I
> see it, Adbusters suggests that the only way to resist these evils is to
> buy
> their nonbrand shoes and plan a billboard spray-athon. And they paint
> these
> hopeless, ordinary-person-repelling gestures as the cutting edge of
> radicalism. In other words, they themselves are more package than
> product.
>
> And they are also far less theoretically advanced than I suspect they
> think
> they are. What are we doing calling ourselves "consumers" in the first
> place? Is _advertising_ or _capitalism_ the problem? The first question
> has never occurred to them, even though they use people's supposed embrace
> of the "consumer" role as fuel for their thinly-disguised "alternative"
> snobbery. The second question suggests that "Adbusting" is rather like
> scratching the surface.
>
> How many potential converts have looked at this publication and dropped it
> with nausea? How much better could the decent energies Adbusters corrals
> and directs be spent? Some and much, IMHO.
I agree with a lot of this. But one thing I like about Adbusters is their understanding of the importance of design and aesthetics. It's a nice magazine to look at.
Seth