Good lord! I’m being so sarcastic at this point, I can’t even sense what my position on this is from what I just wrote. So, okay, this all really does have the taste of an alternate dimension, whether it’s happening or not. Making sense of it would be essentially impossible for me, so I’m just going to ask one basic questions, after a brief disclaimer.

Disclaimer

I really see nothing wrong with the behavior of former Senator David Vitter or “Stormy” Daniels, the adult entertainer being courted to run for the open senate position. That is to say, I have no problem with women making pornographic movies and men hiring prostitutes. It’s sex and it is ridiculous that we have decided that it’s only proper usage (usage?) is for the purpose of breeding. So, I’m not here to judge anybody’s “moral” positions vis-á-vis sex. It’s the same reason why I keep putting all these words (family values, questionable and moral) in quotes; you really do misunderstand the human psyche when you are assured that you understand a “completely correct” position on matters of morality.²

“Stormy” Daniels, as near as I can tell, is doing what she is doing because it has brought her success, notoriety and probably wealth. Do I think that she’s been kidded into believing that this is a life that will make her happy and bring meaning to her existence? Absolutely. Do I think that she has the right to peruse her own happiness in her own right? You bet. As for former Senator Vitter, the only thing that I can figure he did wrong was that he had to have lied to his wife somewhere along the way. If he didn’t, props to him for having an honest relationship. That he is a hypocrite is just not a problem for me. Our society will do better by itself when we realize that hypocrite and politician are synonymous by necessity. You will do better by a politician who is fighting for you when he or she believes in what they are fighting for, but there just aren’t that many people with integrity in our government. Many of them engage in what is convienient. Get over it. Lying is not great either, but it’s forgivable. She did see fit to forgive him, after all.

No, the irony here is that both of these individuals, on the outs with different segments of society, are on essentially the same side of an issue—that appearances are really all that matters in our culture. Fame is more important than power or wealth. Selling millions of copies of superfluous work is more important than works of care and patience. (Now a world different from what I just described actually was a Sliders episode.) The story of the porn star running for Senate and the story of the Senator’s fall from grace continue represent the blatant illusion (or mass delusion) of conformity and opinion that our media pushes on us as relevant information.³ Meanwhile, the truth, that these stories are both wildly irrelevant, goes unnoticed. There is, of course, the even greater illusion that we are not animals. If we, for a second, insisted on applying our embarrassment about our physical form to the other creatures of nature, the results would be absurd. Not really the point here, although we should try to get over it. Nakedness ain’t that big of a deal.

The Question

My question is how much has this very common presentation of outlier-as-mainstream had an effect on what we believe about the world? During one portion of the multiple interviews with Stormy Daniels, her own director, in a complaint about the difficulty of working with high definition video was that “not everything is as pretty as it should be [emphasis added].” I don’t think I could stress enough what a disturbing comment that should be to you. Put another way, what that comment reveals is that not only is the natural design of our world something to be cherished, it isn’t good enough for commercialism. And what’s really funny is that one of the unsightly problems that the director notes shows up in his high definition pornos is “razor burn” which is itself an attempt to manipulate the human body into something that it is not—namely hairless.

“It’s not as pretty as it’s supposed to be.” I’m sure the maker of this remark did not realize the insidious nature of what he was saying; however, I can’t think of a more insidious comment when you apply to the world of media at large. We have arrogantly termed our age on this Earth as the Information Age and failed, utterly, to notice that it is the Noise Age. It is the age of Bullshit and Noise and most of it is very, very pretty—of course, only because the very definition of pretty went down the drain some time ago. So, just for fun, let’s edit the Wikipedia entry on the Information Age:

“The Information Noise Age, also known commonly as the Computer Bullshit Age or Information Irrelevant Era, is an idea that the current age will be characterised by the ability of individuals to transfer information freely, and limited by the bandwidth of their brains, to have instant access to knowledge have limited access to irrelevant garbage that would have previously have been difficult or impossible to find will not assist them with life at all.”

“I don’t believe Condoleezza Rice can actually play piano. Everything else she’s ever touched has been a fraud and a catastrophe, why should her alleged musical abilities be any different? Think about it. Think about any event she’s been even remotely involved in since you first heard her name. An endless string of threats and blundering and arrogant bluffs turned squalid pigf*cks. It’s not that she can’t do her job; she can’t do anything. I think when she plays piano the piano catches fire and the audience dies.”

That last sentence really got me. Mind you, I’m not entirely in agreement here. It was Secretary Rice’s State Department individuals who investigated the actions of commanders on the ground in order to find the “build and hold” strategy that Petraeus was able to utilize force-wide. Granted, the war had been thoroughly screwed up at that point, but it is one of the elements that has helped to make Iraq less of a disaster. Credit where credit is due. However, that last sentence still really gets me.

For starters, you might consider the opinion of typographers Hoefler and Frere-Jones Frankly, when it comes to typography, it doesn’t get more expert than that.¹ They think that Obama is really the only one not hiding being false imagery with the use of Gotham, but rather embracing the image he has. Considering how little he has deviated from his message of hope and change in the last year, it’s not odd that his aesthetic and message line up nicely. He’s even inspired quite a few artists with his message. It’s instructive to let design critic Steven Heller walk you through an interesting history of campaign art to see what other candidates have inspired artists in the past. And while Heller doesn’t admit to being all that inspired by the poster that Sheppard Fairey created for Obama, I would personally have to disagree. Fairey’s image truly captures, in my mind, the fact that Obama stands for an America that is no longer willing to kowtow to the fear mongers. And another thing that is clear about Obama’s web site design is that designer’s John Slabyk and Scott Thomas didn’t get overrun by their client—their voice and design sensibility is clearly part of the mix. That, I think, is a good sign that Obama isn’t the kind of leader to run roughshod over his own advisor’s advice. Of course, even with a message as clear as hope, not everyone gets it.

McCain’s design isn’t terribly original, but I don’t think it disguises what he wants to portray himself as: a tough straight-shooter. And by shooter, I mean using a gun. You can’t get more obvious than including a military style star in you logo. And you can’t get more morbid that using black in most of your materials, including a desaturated gray American flag on your web site. Actually, the use of black is problematic, not because it’s inherently morbid, but as the absence of color, it often invites the viewer to fill in the blank. Black is just as easily chic as it is morbid. Given the yellow highlight, there’s a hint of hope—or support for the troops. But in a campaign that is seeming to shore up around the dichotomy of “hope” and “stay the course” McCain’s graphic style will re-enforce his message; namely, that this is a dark time for the country with horrible people out to get us. We need to fight!

And as for Hillary, I have to agree with Sam Berlow and Cyrus Highsmith’s article in Boston Globe that her design seems like an afterthought; staid. In a sense, a stereotypical aesthetic does re-enforce her message that she is the candidate with experience² but she is also saying that experience is dull and uninspired. Unfortunatly, that ignorance of design or lack of excitement about it isn’t all that different from out last commander-in-chief whose flagrant disregard for aesthetics is pretty horrific to the eyes. Oddly, a number of people have raised the question about the three stars in her logo being a subtle hint at the idea of a third term.

In short, Obama inspires, McCain stands firm, and Hillary stands for more of the same. I get a distinct feeling that the final results of this election will likely reflect the same order in terms of success.