what are u in 2?

Yes, Fine, Fine! I admit it. I write about what I read on the nytimes, because who cares about sports or movies...wait...we'll see. It's this.

Calvin Klein is trying to figure out what the next hip fragrance is to market to youth culture. They had fragrance and cultural hits in the early 90s - we may remember if only through some ancillary back of the head notion - the CK ads of marky mark if not the Lolita-esq Brooke shields of the late 80s. Back then, they were cool because they created, or at least tapped into something about the blow up - now they're trying to recreate that success by contriving a new fragrance meant to do the same thing it did 15 years ago. The difference is that instead of being on the leading edge of that culture, they're trying to hitch on the bandwagon. Calvin Klein, not even owned by Calvin Klein, is trying it's latest fragrance in2u. Because yup, that's how we talk and write. In fact, I don't even know why I'm bothering with sentences. Bro, r u crazy? Deh. Roo crazy? What bothers me about this, is two things.

1. The co-opting of youth culture by big corporations. Yes, youth culture is flawed and amorphous. Everyone has different likes and experiences, and no, it's not hard for us to imagine the CK brand marketing to urban 20 somethings, in the same Manhattan that hosts the CK offices. This generation, that the article lovingly describes as the millennials, or the technosexuals, is self described as being resistant to advertising. Yes, finally, out post modern senses allow us to resist ideology - corporate or otherwise. Back up a minute, Have we named our generation? Truly, the name technosexual was coined by the company to describe us. It's a marketing name that seems to have little to do with the reality. So, there's something weird about marketing to young people who describe themselves as being resistant to marketing. There's also something odd about a company that is not only trying to be in step with youth culture so that they can sell to youth culture - but at the same time is creating youth culture. Is it that out of the realm of possibilities - i have no sources here - to see a CK party hosted in a posh Manhattan loft, and featuring a lot of young, hipster, indie urbanites. The powers at be, be contriving a culture that young people are so resistant to - yet not totally unwilling to accept. After all, we're powered by coin.
1a. Do people even buy fragrances anymore? I mean, really? Especially young hipsters?

2. Problem 2 is that we actually talk like that. Well, you don't, and I don't - but the people of this generation - described as 1982-1995 do talk like that. The problem is that it gets worse the younger you get. There wont' even be language in 20 years. It will be like mike judges "idiocracy" - not a great film about the dumbing down of America in the future.

So, as I am working to defeat Emo, the question is, what do we do? Are we so resistant to any ideology that we ignore everything, or do we get sucked in and become patsies for the man? It's sad to think that there's no culture that exists anymore that can't be co-opted by a corporation. Ironically, even being resistant to being advertised to/being co-opted by someone, seems to be co-opted. If they can make some money off of it, they will sell it to masses. I think ultimately if you like something you buy it, if you don't you don't. It's a tough world we live in, where it's harder and harder to make what increasingly becomes a morally right choice. There seems to be a moral value in what you buy. Is the thing pro-environment, is it anti-corporate, is it green, free trade, is it trendy, is it anti-trendy, is it because you need it or because you want it, and whose side are you on? Hybrid drivers are liberal, gas powered car drivers are conservative.


There might have been more to this, but I was interrupted, so i don't remember.

-cjfer-