I think one of the biggest reasons I continue to be bothered by the Minor Threat reaction is that a few friends and other webloggers have said, "Some people probably thought Minor Threat and Dischord endorsed it!" (To paraphrase)
It reminded me of an argument I had with my sister a few months ago about seeing "Ocean's 11". She told me she'd never see it because George Clooney was in it and George Clooney was a liberal and he says things against our President that sways people's minds. Not hers, just people. Other people she didn't even know. She was looking out for them, you see.
This attitude of "I know what's best for other people" is a pretty pervasive attitude these days. We all seem to know what's best for everyone else because everyone else is weak and I'm the only perceptive one who needs to save them from being confused about shit.
I think knowing who Dischord is and who Minor Threat were provides a bit of immunity to the piece. It seems like all the ranting that's going on is by people who would never be led to believe Dischord would give a green light to that image. That was the point, I thought. Make it as close as possible because it's a skate tour ending in D.C. and you want people (people who know of the image) to say "What The Fuck?"
Heck, I said "What The Fuck?" when I first saw it. Then I laughed because something from my younger days was being co-opted by Nike—which was pretty damn funny to me.
Maybe years from now people will pose like that album cover to sell things the way so many companies have used Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues'" man-in-the-street-flipping-cards-over image. And nobody will care because it's just this iconic device that people use to sell shit and get your attention.
Steve
I can't imagine anyone being confused about Dischord endorsing Nike; I can, however, imagine Dischord being irritated at Nike seeming like they wanted to confuse people. Let's face it: being irritated is something Ian MacKaye is really good at.
People who were making noise about lawsuits are silly, but what gets me is how fundamentally stupid this move was from Nike's point of view. It's guaranteed to piss off MacKaye; anyone who's ever seen Fugazi perform or read a single interview with him has to know it. And Ian MacKaye has more cred in the punk rock community -- if not skateboarders as a whole -- than Nike ever will, no matter how many Chuck Taylors they make. Could whoever approved the ad not foresee that MacKaye would end up making a very public stink about it, forcing them to apologize and add the stigma of "those guys who ripped off Minor Threat" to their identity?
I'm not looking out for the mythic Other here; I'm looking out for Nike. What was the perceived good outcome here from their point of view? And if there's no perceived good outcome, why bother doing it?
tuesday
july, 5 2005
Jeff
Ian MacKaye has more cred in the punk rock community -- if not skateboarders as a whole -- than Nike ever will
That statement is debatable. I think nike is much more popular in the skate scene than most would like to admit.
I'm willing to bet that not one skatebaorder will be selling their air force one's or special edition Dunks because of this.
wednesday
july, 6 2005
Jeff
...and the perceived good outcome was that it was a cool poster.
wednesday
july, 6 2005
Steve
I'm willing to bet that not one skatebaorder will be selling their air force one's or special edition Dunks because of this.
Yeah, in which case maybe it was worth it to them, Ian MacKaye will dedicate himself to making Nike look like asses, and we'll see how that plays out. I'm guessing he'll be satisfied with an apology -- I was privately guessing there was going to be a donation to Positive Force involved too -- and this whole thing will blow over, much to Nike's relief. Barring an actual lawsuit (which I don't think will happen, wouldn't support, and think Dischord would lose) that seems like exactly the right response to me, and any hit Nike takes in their sales from this seems more than justified to me.
I support Nike's right to make a parody poster, even for a pathetically weak version of "parody". I just also support MacKaye's right to make a horrible stink about it and get Nike to back down.
The difference between the "McPothead" shirt (or the cover of "London Calling", or what have you) and this is not that, ha ha, pot is cool and Nike isn't; in my mind, although not that of at least one person I've talked to about it, isn't even about commercial speech versus uncommercial speech. If McDonald's thought they could gain something by trying to embarrass, rather than sue, the t-shirt maker, I guess I'd support that too. That's why I think Andre is wrong to tar the mass of people who are calling this uncool as hypocrites; one can certainly view Nike's actions as an intersection of legal, objectionable, and stupid. If Andre wants to wrassle over the issue of finding some parodies objectionable and others not, I'd be happy to try to figure out where the thin line gets drawn.
thursday
july, 7 2005
cabuki
The perceived good outcome of all this is the extra publicity generated by it. People are still talking about this and that draws more attention to Nike and the event. There might be some skaters that say, "Fuck Nike," but they still might go to the skate tour. And that's all Nike wants.
thursday
july, 7 2005
Andre Torrez
Steve: When did I say I wanted to sit on a panel and green or red light parodies? I said I like them all. Auto-greenlight.
thursday
july, 7 2005
MacDara
From the latest Onion A/V Club, here's a quote from Negativland's Martin Hosler that mostly reflects my own view on this situation:
"It's okay for anyone to use anything, except in advertising, because we don't consider advertising to be free speech. It's paid speech. And as artful as advertising can be, it is not art."
thursday
july, 7 2005
Andre Torrez
Hah. As long as you're making "art" and selling that "art" and getting notoriety (advertising / marketing) about how the man is trying to keep you down.
thursday
july, 7 2005
Steve
Steve: When did I say I wanted to sit on a panel and green or red light parodies? I said I like them all. Auto-greenlight.
Sorry! I didn't mean for that to come off as accusatory there. I'm just saying that any hypocrisy involved -- in my case, at least -- is limited to finding some parodies personally objectionable and others not, and I'm happy to discuss why I find things this way. There are more nuanced responses than the "fair use rulez 4eva, but Dischord should totally sue Nike!" mentality that I think you were responding to with your tagging. I think we're as one about the inherent right of people (and bands, and giant non-people like Nike) to make the art, even crappy commercial art, that they want.
(Shorter Snarkout: Hypocrisy for me, but not for thee!)
thursday
july, 7 2005
Andre Torrez
hah. yeah, i didn't actually call anyone a hypocrite directly, i tagged it as such because it seemed like the people attacking kottke were the "fair use rulez 4va, except nike" crowd.
I don't think you guys are hypocrites, I think you guys are just really offended by what nike did, which is a totally acceptable response. people hate nike.
thursday
july, 7 2005