RCL 7- TED Talk Outline

Introduce the puzzle:

•How actors are treated now, celebrities

•How poorly they were treated in the past

•How did we get here?

Discuss theater in ancient societies:

•Rome (emperor decrees: Tiberius)

•Greece (philosopher quotes: Plato)

•China (travelling families)

•Japan (Kabuki: all-female)

Discuss ancient actors’ livelihoods:

•Frequency of actor slaves across cultures

•Prostitution

•Poverty, travelling (no home), inconsistent employment

•Decrees against their work

The beginnings of patron-actor relationship (Elizabethan):

•Public theaters attended by nobility

•Censors controlled plays put out during holidays

•Royalty could punish thespians for distasteful work

•Theaters were still ‘trashy’ but nobles liked them (Elizabeth)

How things changed (1700s) when rich bought theater entirely:

•Morally depraved becomes high fashion entertainment

•Censorship eliminates offensive sentiments

•Monopoly on the art

•Actors legitimized in hierarchy under nobles, paid regularly

Victorian Era, putting names to faces:

•Morality censorship (society punishes, not royals directly)

•Arts encouraged by royalty

•Women acting become much less taboo

•Middle class developing, opening theater back up to public

•Art examining societal problems

•More money for actors in middle-class pockets

•Photographs! Names have faces now

Early Cinema:

•Actors unnamed; producers fear having to pay more if names develop

•Actors ashamed: medium for uneducated working class, dull silent pantomime, just above carnival acts

Cinema explodes, with sound:

•Star system: new name, new brand, all about image

•Pick up promising actors and create personal brand, iconic persona that can sell products

•Image worth more than acting skills

•Arranging drama, dates, etc to gain publicity among starlets: modern celebrity rises as middle class want to meddle with non-royal people

•Everyone of every class sees acting in TV and movies and wants to know names of performers they like

•Film is accessible forever and everywhere: immortality for the artist

What does it mean?:

•Morality of pretending to be another person

•Enviable skill or shameful behavior?

•Actors’ backgrounds and survival changing over time

•What do people want out of art? Not just story. Recognition. Familiarity. Comfort. More art.

ShFX: Shakespeare’s Special Effects

You’ll remember that, in a previous post, I mentioned that the Globe Theatre had trapdoors in the floor of the elevated stage, allowing for creative entrances and exits. Actors could also use different-colored smoke to set the scene by burning various salts and alcohol in the space beneath the stage. Actors and set pieces could also be raised and lowered through a fixture in the ceiling, a feature still common to theaters today. This Halloween, let’s dive deeper into the other special effects used in the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare’s plays are full of magic, battles, and death, but how was all of it pulled off onstage?

Firstly, the blood. There is so much of it in Elizabethan drama. Where could it all possibly come from? As it turned out, the blood of pigs, sheep, or bulls was a popular choice for replacing human blood onstage. This blood would be placed in an animal bladder beneath a layer of clothing, only to burst when stabbed, hit, or otherwise pierced. Animal parts were also used when bones or other body parts were necessary.

What about live animals? Many of Shakespeare’s stage directions call for live animals to enter and exit the stage. (Most notable is A Winter’s Tale’s “Exeunt, pursued by a bear”.) It is unclear to this day whether real animals or costumes were used for the parts of bears, dogs, and the like. Animal-fight-based entertainments, including cockfighting, bear-baiting, and dog fights, were extremely popular at that time, and were held right next to the Globe in the packed London entertainment districts. It’s certainly possible that live animals were brought in for some scenes (rather than spending an exorbitant amount on more costumes).

The sound effects of Elizabethan drama were also surprisingly competent. A real cannon was often used to announce important entrances, mimicking the real fanfare for important people. (As you might remember, this particular effect led to the accidental burning of the first Globe Theatre during a production of Henry VIII.) Rolling a cannonball around or shaking a metal sheet created the sound of thunder, and fireworks imitated battle noise. There was music, too. Shakespeare commissioned musicians to write music and perform it. There’s plenty of music explicitly described in stage directions and dialogue, but it’s likely that incidental music played a role in many scenes as well.

In conclusion, I would say the Elizabethan theater’s special effects were really engaging, multi-sensory, and competent for the time period. In fact, they were much more engaging than most we have today (and also much more dangerous). Would you pay to hear actual cannons and smell the blood of pigs?

The Season of Revels (or, the Elizabethan Purge)

Remember when the Purge franchise first came out, and suddenly all your friends were talking about all the crimes they would commit if everything was legal for 24 hours?

If you said yes, setting aside the fact that you might need to find new friends, you understand the concept of the Elizabethan Season of Revels. Unlike the Purge, the Season of Revels lasted several weeks in the winter, though the dates varied region by region. Violent crimes were, thankfully, still punishable, but many social rules regarding public behavior were relaxed, and general disorder descended on the streets. For a few weeks at the end of every year, cities and towns in Elizabethan England engaged in a period of misrule. Often organized and celebrated most enthusiastically by students and apprentices, the revels on the streets included riots, attacks on local establishments, and public speeches criticizing local government figures. The revelers destroyed several businesses, most notably the Cockpit Theatre in 1917. The public chose a “Christmas Lord” or “Lord of Misrule” to lead the activities of the season.

The upper classes of Elizabethan society also had yearly revels, although these were more of an extensive holiday celebration than a yearly public outburst. Queen Elizabeth developed these traditions into a set yearly festival, with a full program of approved music, theatre, and dancing. She began this season on November 17th to honor her coronation, and there was an entire office dedicated to planning the revels. The Master of Revels was nothing like the Lord of Misrule- he was an upper government official intent on managing a smooth, entertaining festival season while keeping the royal family safe and un-offended. As such, the office became a powerhouse of censorship, carefully choosing plays and other entertainments that wouldn’t upset the royal family. Theatrical groups had to pay fees to submit their plays (sound familiar?) to the office of the revels, and plays that were not accepted could not be performed during the season.

The censorship worked! One example of this was Richard II. All the versions of the play available during Elizabeth’s reign mysteriously fail to include the scene where Richard abdicates his throne. Whether cutting the scene was Shakespeare’s choice or that of an agent of the throne, as discussed previously on this blog, censorship limitations abound beneath the surface of Shakespeare’s dramas. However, crafty metaphors kept the bard our of trouble. His historical stories reflected issues people wanted to discuss under Elizabeth, and his tragedies poetically expressed the ugly side of humanity.

The clever writing kept the plays on the stage and in our hands, but it’s also the nature of performance art to evade censorship. No matter how many scenes are taken out beforehand, the actions, expressions, and speech of an actor add so much more to the experience. A serious speech praising a monarch can easily become a sarcastic obloquy in the hands of a skilled actor.

Do you prefer the ways the royalty or the common people celebrated this season? Do you think we should bring it back?

RCL 6- Favorite TED Talk

One of my favorite TED Talks is The Mystery Box by J. J. Abrams. A video of the talk can be found here:

This is a talk from J. J. Abrams, a filmmaker behind much of Star Wars, Star Trek, and Lost. He shows the audience an unopened cardboard box he bought as a child. The box cost $15 for a random assortment of what was supposedly $50 of magic trick equipment. Abrams explains that this box, which he has never opened, and probably never will, is representative of the essential ingredient of engaging writing: not what the audience sees, but what they don’t see. He goes on to explain how strategically withholding information has been essential to creating the strongest visceral emotions through a variety of film projects. It seems that, no amount of artful prose or fancy dolly shots will pack the same emotional punch as keeping the audience from seeing or hearing something. The talk shows a wide variety of examples as an essential visual aid.

He goes on to briefly touch on the mystery box within all of us. Each writer and creator draws from emotions within them, which cannot always be entirely expressed through sight or sound. Mystery is the most essential, most powerful, and, by its nature, the most subtle quality that makes art work. Allowing people to imagine the emotion or situation as they themselves would experience it brings the art closer to its audience.

Abrams obviously embraces these principles of writing throughout every project he does. Even in this speech, I found examples of the mystery box mindset. One place where it works phenomenally is in humor: keeping something undisclosed allows the audience to fill in with appropriately mundane or ridiculous things. There’s a quick joke Abrams throws in when telling a story from the set of Mission Implossible III, “And I learned this very early on in ny career- don’t hurt Tom’s nose. There are three things you don’t want to do, number two is don’t hurt Tom’s nose.” What are the other two things? it never comes up again. It’s a throwaway line, but it demonstrates the principles Abrams genuinely believes in as a writer.

I find the advice in this TED Talk invaluable both in my creative projects and in the way I live my day-to-day life. I try to be conscious of the way I withhold information to keep myself and my work interesting. What I really love beyond that, however, is Abrams’ obvious dedication to, and genuine belief in, this idea. He uses stunning examples, a great amount of humor, and a really powerful, unusual aid- the box itself, whose contents might not ever be known to anyone. The ideas are powerful, and Abrams expresses them through not just his content, but his demeanor, his humor, and his life.

RCL 5- Ideas for TED Talk and Paradigm Shift Paper

How did acting go from a profession considered to be on par with prostitution throughout the 1600s to the pinnacle of glamorous celebrity today? True, super-famous actors are the minority of actors, but they are the majority of famous people recalled by most people. When, exactly,  did acting become a respectable profession with its merits tied to individuals in a way that led them to stardom?

There are many eras and potential factors to be considered in examining this cultural shift. I might examine the effects film had on this progression, as well as the changing attitudes of the Victorian era. I could go back further, citing Shakespeare and the Puritans, examining the ways people looked at acting in a time when theater was first being catapulted from a bawdy street corner entertainment to a show fit for a queen.

I’ll also be able to examine the pay of actors and the ways they were recruited and auditioned in different eras, and how this compared to how much they were respected and admired in society. How much were famous actors paid, and how did that change with the creation if film stars? While plays only pay as long as the actor works, films keep paying. How has that shift impacted the way actors are paid and viewed as established cultural entities? Even before film, stage acting crept out of shame into a certain limelight. Did seeing actors’ names and images in papers and theaters make them respectable? Or did being respectable make them well-known? The media and advertisement of theater, as well as the different sorts of work actors took on and the sorts of people that became actors, definitely impacted this shift. The most mysterious step in the process, I believe, is going from near-nameless actors to those that were household names. I’ll examine the way audiences went from expecting an anonymous portrayal of a character to an iconic individual mark of the craft.

Fine acting is obviously a great artistic skill, but, even when other artists were also looked down upon, theatre was often treated worst of all the arts. The cultural paradigm shift from despising the actor to embracing the actor’s stardom isn’t just a reflection of technological and social changes. It also reflects the way we think about the self, and about the ability to be other people. I would be able to analyze the moral values of different decades relating to the self, and how these correlated to treatment of actors. This seems like an exciting topic spanning some interesting historical periods and I cannot wait to explore it further.

Globally Acclaimed: Inside the Globe Theatre

I mentioned in a previous blog post that the Puritans destroyed the original Globe Theatre in 1644. (Well, by original, I mean the second one in Shakespeare’s lifetime; the first one was burned down by accident when a cannon stunt went wrong in a production of Henry VIII.) But what exactly did the theater look like on the inside? Were the seats good? And how much did the whole experience cost?

The Globe Theatre was actually built as an open air theater, with just enough roof around the edges to cover the seats, sort of like the slanted roofs around some large baseball fields. This, of course, was a necessity before electric light, when actors relied on natural light. Because of this, plays were performed during the day, not during the evenings as is common today. These sorts of amphitheaters were common entertainment spaces due to the need for light, and they often emulated the styles of ancient Roman architecture. A tarp spread on poles was used on the stage during rain to protect expensive costumes. The stage held trapdoors into the appropriately 5-foot crawlspace actors used for various entrances and exits. There was seating on three sides of the stage, meaning plays were performed almost on the round. This must have provided extra challenges in blocking to ensure plays were engaging from all angles. Shakespeare paid for a significant portion of the theater out of pocket, and then he and some actors bought shares in the theater company, earning more money as the theater grew.

The Globe could seat about 1,500 spectators in its 3 stories of seating. This doesn’t include the people crowded outside or those in the pit- the 1600s version of a General Admission concert ticket. Groundlings, as they were called, could pay a penny to stand and watch the play from right by the stage. It’s unclear whether they loved the arrangement as much as many modern concertgoers do. Allegedly, they misbehaved and threw food at the stage, but there is no evidence to support this. The word ‘groundlings’ was used in Hamlet to refer to an audience, and had meant a type of gaping fish. That’s probably what they looked like! But how much was a penny worth? It’s near-impossible to know an exact conversion rate to money before the 1800s, but, based on what it could buy (a loaf of bread or a decent serving of beer), it was probably worth about $2-$5 USD.

According to Thomas Platter’s 1599 diary, theater seats generally cost 2 pennies, with the best, mody cushioned seats at 3 pennies. Still not bad by today’s standards! But theaters held a whole host of hazards and activities modern theaters would never allow.

That’s a topic for another time…

 

You Can’t Make this Up! Costumes and Cosmetics at the Globe Theater

In the age of fast fashion, stage costumes are relatively easy to procure. What is and isn’t acceptable costuming for a modern Shakespeare production is extremely flexible, with each production trying to find a unique new setting or angle for plays that are hundreds of years old. When my Shakespeare company (the Youth Shakespeare Society of Pittsburgh!) produced a Midsummer Night’s Dream last summer, costumes cost us next to nothing. People brought what they had and built from inexpensive basics. There was no accurate period clothing.

In the time when Shakespeare originally staged his play, however, there was an obvious dress code for actors (and non-actors) in a society that signaled class by clothing. Genuine, convincing clothing to represent each class was expected- none of that “modern interpretation” stuff that puts people in any old thing as long as the families are color-coordinated. Clothing back then was made by hand of quality materials, so even the clothes of the lower classes (wool, linen, and sheepskin) weren’t cheap to acquire. The clothing of nobility added an additional layer of cost, with its elaborate design, expensive materials, and precise tailoring. Besides, where were non-nobles supposed to buy such garments? It’s possible that one surprising supplier of noble costumes may have been servants. Nobles often left faithful servants some piece of expensive clothing (or perhaps an accessory or a wig) in their wills, but the servants were unable to wear these out in public due to the strict dress code stratifying the social classes. (Elizabeth I even banned anyone except the royal family from wearing purple!) With no other use for these garments, it’s possible that servants sold them off to theater companies.

What about makeup? The ingredients were ghastly, but makeup was essential, especially with an all-male cast playing women as well as men. Beauty standards of the day indicated unnaturally-white skin, bright red lips, and light hair as the ideal. Recipes for pale face powder range from harmlessly gross to downright deadly, with one citing hogs’ bones and poppy oil, and a far more popular mixture, known as ceruse, utilizing white lead and vinegar. Using lead for both white and red makeup proved far more common than using benign natural ingredients. Indeed, lead and mercury were the primary ingredients in most white and red makeup products for centuries to come. These ingredient eventually caused hair loss, skin discoloration, tooth decay, and death- the very thing the nobles were trying to avoid!

In any case, makeup and costumes were essential to presenting an acceptable, proper play in Shakespeare’s day, and they weren’t always safe or easy to find. Plays with fantasy or historical settings presented an additional challenge. My question is: would you rather use bones and oil or white lead to achieve that desirable has-never-seen-the-sun look?

 

RCL 5- Updated Speech Outline and Essay Draft

Speech Outline:

  1.  Introduction of Yayoi Kusama’s Infinity Room art installations.
  2. Attention: think back to when you were in elementary school. You probably had to take part in some sort of concert, play, or pageant at some point. How many parents were there, watching? And how many were rushing around taking pictures or videos? I remember always begging my parents to record the plays I was in, and they always refused, saying they couldn’t enjoy it from behind the camera.
  3. Topic: Close your eyes and stare out into the darkness behind your eyelids. Take a journey through the infinite space of abstract colors and shapes. Dissolve into it. How would you capture this experience? How would you convey it to others? And why would you want to convey it at all? Kusama’s Infinity Room art installations were originally made to convey a sense of the infinite, and the meaninglessness of the self. They’re now modern art’s top selfie booth.
  4. HOOK: What do we all do when we see something beautiful? We take a picture of it home with us. We show it to our friends. All of us have done it. Has the value of sharing an experience eclipsed the value of the experience itself?
  5. Establishing Credibility: I saw two of these rooms in the Mattress Factory art museum in Pittsburgh. I took pictures in both of them. So did everyone else in the rooms with me. I’ve been guilty of taking pictures of things instead of appreciating them.
  6. Thesis: A cultural wave of individualism, driven by the anxiety and loneliness of youth, and captured in the new world of social media, is compromising our ability to appreciate the original message of art like Kusama’s, which embraces the meaningless, monotonous, infinite nature of the universe and the insignificance of the individual.
  7. Preview: Today I will discuss the themes the art was originally meant to convey, the new niche it has taken up in the age of social media, and why an appreciation of the art’s original values is essential to the healing of an anxious modern world.

In order to discover the ways our individualism undermines Kusama’s work, we must first consider her artistic vision, beginning with the first Infinity Room in 1965.

The original function of the art installations.

subpoint 1 – The installations convey Kusama’s philosophy of Self-Obliteration- the individual blending in and disappearing into an abstract, meaningless, beautiful, endless universe, the individual self broken into shards thrown across every wall.

subpoint 2 – There is an essential comfort in forgetting the individual self. One cannot find empathy or appreciate beauty without leaving oneself. Most mental torments would be abandoned if the consciousness ceased to be able to consider itself as an entity, and instead looked towards the universe as a whole.

subpoint 3 – We need to realize the meaningless infinity of the universe in order to find meaning in our daily lives. The anxieties that seem so important disappear when one sees the infinite scale of things. This liberates the mind to choose what matters, and to focus with a renewed sense of calm and community.

With the advent of the personal cell phone camera and the burgeoning movement of cyber-individualism, the way the installations serve us today is drastically different from their original purpose.

The modern function of the art installations.

subpoint 1 – The art installations are now a trendy source of social currency. Posting pictures and telling stories from the rooms makes one seem cultured and educated. The physical beauty of the space decorates people’s virtual existence.

subpoint 2 – Hyper-individualism has created the modern space of social media, where people struggle to keep up a sparkling permanent record that boasts all the best parts of themselves. It is seen as a missed opportunity if one does not use this space to create an idealized self, displaying all of its brilliance, uniqueness, beauty, and culture. All the best must be on display for it to be worthwhile.

subpoint 3 – The art is serving the opposite of its original purpose. Instead of getting lost in infinity, viewers harness it for their desperate personal quest to share every scrap of joy and meaning. One must not only deal with a physical self, and how it is perceived, but also a second, idealized, customizable self.

The way we interact with Kusama’s art today is a sign of the unhealthy side of flourishing individualism. Our selfies hold clues as to how we might escape our modern insecurities about the design of the perfect self.

The anxiety that has changed the way we view these art installations would be assuaged by viewing them the way we once did.

subpoint 1 – Modern cyber-individualism creates the illusion of freedom surrounding one’s identity. It sends everyone into a tailspin, trying to control the narrative about themselves and make it favorable. This obviously causes stress, but it also is borne out of a cultural anxiety and loneliness. Our inability to embrace the idea of not always being an individual shows a fear of being unworthy without one’s individual achievements. In addition, the development of social media, for the first time ever, allows everyone to curate a perfect, interesting, beautiful self for all to see. This hasn’t ever happened in human history before. The self has never been as permanent as it is now. That’s an existential question all on its own, but the importance of this curated self makes the development of a perfect internet self on display more important than the curation of genuine experiences that impact the individual soul that no one else can see.

subpoint 2 – The existential fear of a generation, refined by helicopter parenting and a new age of hyper-security, sits with one question: am I good enough? The fact that everyone strives to refine a favorable individual narrative implies the collective fear that the answer is “No.” Everyone is trying to prove themselves through their identity, and is seemingly unable to accept their worth and value in the universe if that worth isn’t tied to their individualism.

subpoint 3 – People are lonely and afraid. Continuing the control-freak mission of creating a perfect self doesn’t make it any better. People resist letting go of the self and getting lost in the meaningless universe, but this is exactly what they need to learn to do. We must trust the world enough to get lost in it if we wish to see its beauty. We must accept that we have not squeezed all of the social value out of every opportunity, if we want to find value within our own existence.

We must question whether we come to art to absorb the artist’s intent or to feed our individual selves with its parts as we see fit. If we are to experience the art the way the artist meant us to, we must return to her philosophy.

  1.  Kusama’s philosophy, and her method of physical immersion in it through art, are needed now more than ever, when collective insecurity drives the cultural narrative. A generation of anxious young people must return to the original purpose of the art that decorates their perfect, cultured social media pages.
  2. In summary…
  3. The purpose of the artwork is not getting photographic proof of having experienced it. The purpose of the artwork is to experience its message through its strong aesthetic language, and to glimpse the interconnected nature of the universe which the artist believes should be our ultimate comfort in existence.
  4. Kusama’s art, and the comfort of her infinity, is everything we need. The anxiety of creating an ideal self, which is one perfect person in every environment, must be cast aside and destroyed just as one’s reflection is smashed into infinite pieces in the mirrors of the rooms.

Essay Draft:

Japanese artist Yayoi Kusama’s Infinity Rooms immerse the viewer in a world of strange shapes and colors that stretches out in all directions. The goal of her art is to smash the individual self into fractals and leave one gazing out into a nonsensical, infinite sea of space. Now, however, her work is known as the best selfie background on Earth. It has gone from representing getting lost to the very opposite: individual attention cultivated through social media. Hyper-individualism is thriving in modern young people’s culture of loneliness and anxiety, where people are desperate to feel unique and by posting the same art selfies and buying the same products. Every company is taking advantage of this cultural shift by releasing an ad campaigns about how individual and unique their consumers are. Few are more famous than Share a Coke, a campaign that encourages people to buy Coca-Cola bottles with their names on them. Even though the bottles are obviously not individualized in any meaningful way, the modern trend of fear-driven individualism makes this campaign work. This cultural moment of anxiety  is feeding advertising and changing the meaning of art. When Sharing a Coke – or a piece of art – becomes more important than the experience of enjoying the product itself, advertising thrives and art suffers. The commonplace of individualism is growing unchecked in a new social media environment, and Coca-Cola took advantage of this by seizing the moment of cultural change, captivating the right young audience, and using emotional appeals to promote the sharing of their product.

Soft drinks, especially Coca-Cola, have completely integrated themselves into the fabric of American life. I’ve been to restaurants that serve Coca-Cola to every table by default as one might serve water. Across demographics, people love soft drinks.  The Share-a-Coke campaign was one of the first major advertising campaigns to completely capitalize on the potential of social media as free promotion. Whether or not people bought Cokes with their names on them, they posted pictures or sent them to friends, increasing awareness of the brand and campaign. This was the first major advertising success of its kind, completely captivating audiences. As of this writing, over 662,000 Instagram posts are tagged #shareacoke, with hundreds of thousands more across related hashtags and other social media platforms. In a time when health-conscious movements of young people were starting to threaten Coke’s stance in American society, this campaign rejuvenated the image of the beverage, taking it from default sugar water in a restaurant to something new, fresh, and exciting to share with friends. Meanwhile, individualism, a traditional value in the Western world, has been given a digital facelift. The power to curate a perfect social media persona has completely changed the way people communicate, express themselves, and, most of all, choose what is important to them. In an age when both corporations and individuals can be called brands, the mental question of whether something can fuel one’s social media image often comes before all other priorities. The development of a persona that is charming, cultured, in-the-know, and unique can bring all sorts of social and practical benefits to the modern social media user, from finding professional connections to feeling closer to friends to making money from one’s image by promoting products. To fall behind everyone else’s social media curations, on the other hand, is to announce that one’s life (and, indeed, personality) is boring and out-of-touch. As this cultural realization was first developing, with a camera in everyone’s pocket ready to capture life’s most interesting moments, Coca-Cola seized the opportunity to turn this cyber-individualism into sales, promotion, and a “rebranding” of its product.

The Share a Coke campaign targeted a young audience of social-media-savvy consumers who respond well to appeals to individualism. Coca-Cola found millenials’ need for social connection in an increasingly digital age, and fulfilled this need by creating a product that started conversations and provided shareable content. As millennials struggled to cultivate interesting online personas, collecting social currency with photographs of interesting experiences, buying a Coke during the prime of this campaign was, for the consumer, an inexpensive way to connect with friends and publicly engage with something exciting and new. This need for postable and interesting experiences is born from social media’s cyber brand of hyper-individualism: everyone in Coca-Cola’s social young audience is in a race to stand out and find a validating sense of unique importance. Though most might assume the “Share” in Share a Coke means the traditional sharing of a physical drink, Coca-Cola reaped far more benefits from the digital sharing of drinks with friends’ names, even when the drinks were not actually bought. Though taking part in a trend like the Coke bottle pictures, paradoxically, invites everyone to do the same thing, it makes each individual feel that they have added another interesting tidbit to their social media identity. This desperation for a unique, perfect online persona flourishes in traditionally individualistic cultures that teach children the value of being different. While praising uniqueness, the culture of young people in the United States is increasingly characterized by loneliness and fear. Whether or not today’s young people are lonelier than those of previous generations (and there are some indications that they are), the commonplace of youth has long been characterized as a struggle to find one’s place in the world. Psychologist Erik Erikson’s famous psychosocial stages famously describe age 13-21 as a time of “Identity vs. Role Confusion”. This longing for a place in the world manifests as loneliness, which latches onto the illusion of control provided by a perfect, unique social media persona. Coca-Cola tapped into this anxiety by creating a campaign that made young people feel unique when buying and sharing Coke products in person and online.

Both art and advertising are driven primarily by emotional appeals. This is especially true today, as the advertising world has ricocheted away from full-page text advertisements towards video and image advertisements with low word count and high artistic appeal. Everything from colors to cinematography in a modern advertisement takes priority over an informational message, because the way we consume advertising – usually because someone has placed it in front of us, not out of an innate desire to view advertising for information or entertainment – requires a quick way to retain interest. This need for a way to hook the viewer has thrived in the age of hyper-individualism. Just as salespeople were always instructed to use the customer’s name, every mass-produced email listing addresses the receiver directly, and advertisements on the internet are increasingly tailored to the viewer’s interests and search habits. This sort of tailored message makes customers feel significant, important, and unique. Our need for this validation has skyrocketed, and advertising has found myriad new ways to fulfill it. This is the primary emotional appeal behind the Share a Coke campaign. People are thrilled to see not only their own names, but also the names of their friends, on billboards and in vending machines. The customer is struck by the feeling that tailored advertising is designed to convey- a feeling that fortune has smiled down upon them and matched them with the perfect product. This turns what might have been a plain bottle of Coke into a sale, and, often, that sale turns into free advertising through social media, as consumers share the experience that has made them feel special. 

The Share a Coke campaign was a smashing success for Coca-Cola because the advertising team behind it understood the cultural pivot represented by the rise of social media. They took a risk by embracing a new form of advertising, which paid off in years of free promotion from consumers, a new trendy face of Coke in the minds of the public, and, of course, sales. The internet individualism that drove the campaign, however, hints at a troubling reality. At no other time in human history did people have perfect, editable highlight reels of their best moments available to anyone at any time. As individuals use the internet to communicate more and more, and other methods less, the importance of this curated self only grows. This is the first time it has been possible to maintain such complete control of one’s image, and it has created a new desperation to be unique and on-trend, especially among young people. When curating one’s best self becomes a full-time obsession with capitalizing on any shareable content, advertisers will get away with far more than just getting us to Share a Coke. When enjoying art falls to the wayside and sharing it becomes the priority, all of humanity’s way of viewing the world has changed. The more we culturally value what others think over one’s own enjoyment, the more everyone’s lives, both real and digital, will be turned over to the personal gain of corporations.