Out of curiosity to see what the clueless MSM were saying about peak oil and climate change I not only grabbed the PO issue of Am Prospect (which I dismissed contemptuously in an earlier thread for its touching, childlike faith in corn ethanol and Barack Obama) but also the seizure-inducing "Green Issue" of Vanity Fair -- a most aptly named mag if you actually remember the novel. VF is -- how to describe -- Hollywood Confidential meets Elle, or something like that. Am Prospect looks soberly realistic by comparison. And yet... for actual pages of relevant minatory content, VF might just win.
So, in the VF Green issue, the inside front page foldout (premiere spot) is a performance/luxury 'cute ute' ad. Ads continue for page after page of 4-colour offset (using toxic heavy-metal inks no doubt, on virgin dioxin-bleached claycoat): SUVs, perfumes, cosmetics, luxury handbags, more exotic cosmetics priced about the same as gold by troy weight, travel ads, gold jewellery, more travel ads, etc. Most of the affluent world's maximally destructive habits lavishly represented and promoted, before you ever get to any actual content. My ironometer is pegged already.
Now the articles, most of which boil down to "Pretty People Prefer Priuses," "Some Greens Dress Nicely and are Good Looking," and variations on these themes. Plenty of snarky, snide, vicious little jabs at Birkenstocks, lentils, tie dye, tree hugging, and any critique of capitalism -- just so yesterday, m'dear. Trying to make it clear that Pretty Wealthy People Green-ness is a whole new, fashionable, stylish and above all upper-crusty thing, not some dreary shtick about, you know, serious ideas discussed by nonphotogenic vegetarian anoraks who drive old cars or godforbid ride a bike. Token third world activist -- just one -- Wangari Maathai. Everyone else seems white and 80 percent male. Feature pages: nifty expensive gifts to buy that are green or pseudo-green -- how to Keep Consuming Pointlessly with a Clear Conscience.
However, I give the editor his due -- in among all this incitement to grand mal he ran two excellent, lengthy, substantive feature articles: one on MTR (mountain top removal) coal mining in Appalachia, one on projected rises in sea levels. Both are excellent -- fact filled and chewy -- and I will try to scan some of the graphics to share. The mag as a whole though had about the same effect on me as the corpse of a diseased rat. I kinda don't even like touching it :-) Every pathology of the overripe zenith of American hyperconsumerism and narcissism, proudly flaunted in one shiny, garishly overcoloured, borderline-porno, pretty-shiny-toxic package. What an experience. What does it do to the brain to ingest one of these every month? Gotta drink some electrolytes, I'm in culture shock...
Question is, does the editor do a good strategic deed by slipping some serious content in among the big colourful bag of M&Ms and Qaaludes? getting an urgent message to people who would otherwise resolutely refuse to hear it? Or does he guarantee that the impact of these grim, hard-hitting articles will be lost, muffled in the layers and layers of corporate glitz and feelgood meringue in which he's wrapped them? The most serious (best contiguous page count and least conflict between text and graphics) layout was reserved for Junger's latest rubberneck art, an investigative essay on the Boston Strangler. Hmmm. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
I'd say it's progress getting any kind of mention of the real world into something like VF. So I'd be more inclined to be generous. Given that editorial will be consciously and deliberately advertiser-friendly, mentioning Real Issues and introducing a hint of ugly is almost brave.
There's a media disconnect between ad speak, which deals with the unreal by definition but tries to look as plausible as possible, and journalism/documentary which is (more or less) presented as reality but diluted by the standardised semi-formal presentation.
What would be shocking would be to package the real impact of all of the energetic consumption using the language of advertising. Imagine an entire magazine of juxtapositions of air-brushed beauty on one side of the page followed by one (or more) images showing what's involved in making those cars, diamonds and handbags.
Adbusters do this already, but they're not neutral enough - they slip too easily into activist rage and ranting, which I think only reaches the converted. Something more dispassionately revealing - show, don't tell - could be more effective with the VF crowd.
So I'd be more inclined to be generous.
I agree. While reading DeAnander's comment up to this point, I was totally thinking precisely what her first question asks. Her alternate consideration definitely made me pause but, in the end, seeping awareness of these issues "upwards" into the Vanity Fair -- even its through pretty people and expensive green doodads -- it's a net good thing.
For the record, I love Vanity Fair. Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
Since this:
Plenty of snarky, snide, vicious little jabs at Birkenstocks, lentils, tie dye, tree hugging, and any critique of capitalism -- just so yesterday, m'dear. Trying to make it clear that Pretty Wealthy People Green-ness is a whole new, fashionable, stylish and above all upper-crusty thing, not some dreary shtick about, you know, serious ideas discussed by nonphotogenic vegetarian anoraks who drive old cars or godforbid ride a bike.
completely cracked me up. Especially the very well placed "you know". Holy cow. You deserve a four and a free cookie point in itself for that.
I've read some on MTR mining - and am more than appalled. Nobody wants to hear this but I would predict that with continuous increased metals demand and prices this development will move even further out of hand. MTR is beyond bad; it's about redesigning the earth's surface entirely. Toss the incremental slow processes of surface modelling, glacial ice sheets, natural river drainage, slope stability, soil erosion, fauna diversity, etc etc, out of the window - man can do it too, and better. Let's not even begin on ocean floor mining, or I might blow your cap.
On an upbeat track, did you (or anyone) read the National Geographic of this month (May 2006, the one with the Judas Gospel)? There's a intersting feature on what Prince Charles is doing with his Duchy in Cornwall. It's sustainable life and culture protection - the English way. Not everything I read I could agree on, but it did read like one step in a direction you've been promoting from day one I've been reading you.
