If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
When you no longer speak English but switched to Corpospeak you know you're fucked for life.
Hence the three letter acronym at the end of my post. And the first sentence was very deliberately phrased.
Then again, you have not seen the keynote. Not all content has to be shit just because it sells something.
Hi. I like your necklace. - It's actually a rape whistle, but the whistle part fell off.
Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.
Hence the three letter acronym at the end of my post. And the first sentence was very deliberately phrased.
Then again, you have not seen the keynote. Not all content has to be shit just because it sells something.
Not necessarily shit in and by itself and I understand that companies are moving toward or have already arrived at a sort of blend of "entertaining/informative" content, sponsorship and marketing that can sometimes be aesthetically pleasing, at least compared to a fucking car ad and it's commonplace shots of "freedom" being shoved in your face.
I'm re-reading some Sagmeister artbooks and even some of his most mundane corporate business card work can be inventive.
agreed. I'd go even further: most contents, valuable or not, interesting or not, sell something, one way or another. Cf art.
This sounds like the postulate of an undergrad essay. Sure Tolstoi attempts to convey certain values and even to convince you of specific things but it is almost meaningless to say that, in his novels, something is being "sold" in the way an Apple keynote is selling you something. I'm not even talking about the respective value of these two sets of "content".
If what you are trying to say that there is currently very little distinction between a dominant media article (say Le Monde or New York Times) and sponsored content than, yeah, ok.
This sounds like the postulate of an undergrad essay. Sure Tolstoi attempts to convey certain values and even to convince you of specific things but it is almost meaningless to say that, in his novels, something is being "sold" in the way an Apple keynote is selling you something. I'm not even talking about the respective value of these two sets of "content".
If what you are trying to say that there is currently very little distinction between a dominant media article (say Le Monde or New York Times) and sponsored content than, yeah, ok.
ok sorry, i should have added "contemporary contents"
and... hmm... in a tolstoi's book something is being sold. It is the book.
Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.
Hence the three letter acronym at the end of my post. And the first sentence was very deliberately phrased. Then again, you have not seen the keynote. Not all content has to be shit just because it sells something.
Exactly.
Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde
Comment