If you’re someone who thinks that the very existence of President Donald J. Trump is proof of the coming apocalypse, may I point out that Nordstrom is selling pre-stained men’s jeans?

Seriously. Check out the description:

“Heavily distressed medium-blue denim jeans in a comfortable straight-leg fit embody rugged, Americana workwear that’s seen some hard-working action with a crackled, caked-on muddy coating that shows you’re not afraid to get down and dirty.”

As if that weren’t stupid enough, they’re asking $425. Per pair.

So who do you reckon would buy these? Someone who actually is afraid to “get down and dirty,” obviously—since a $5 pair of thrift-store denim and 10 minutes of real “hard-working action” is how jeans normally become “heavily distressed.”

Then of course, there are the poseurs. You know, the guys who dress like lumberjacks yet lack the upper body strength to lift a framing hammer, let alone a 12-pound splitting maul. Not to get all psychoanalytical, but there seems to an awful lot of blue-collar fetishizing going on these days.

Or maybe it’s just that Nordstrom is run by evil geniuses who understand the company’s audience: people with more money than sense.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

Over at The Atlantic, Adam Chandler describes the scene at a Billy Joel concert:

A mother tries to cajole her reluctant young son to twist with her to “Only the Good Die Young.” A 45-year-old man in a Billy Joel-themed softball jersey, sitting third row and visible to all, hoists aloft a New Jersey vanity license plate that reads “Joel FN” and uses it to air-drum to “Pressure.” Three 20-somethings on a ladies’ night out shoot a Boomerang of themselves swaying to “Scenes From an Italian Restaurant.” A sexagenarian in business attire uses a lull during Joel’s Perestroika-era ditty “Leningrad” to crush some work emails on his BlackBerry Priv. A 19,000-strong congregation—carpenter jeans and Cartier watches, Yankee caps and yarmulkes, generationally diffuse and racially homogenous—all dance, terribly and euphorically, to “Uptown Girl.”

I was, for a time, a professional musician. My first paid writing gig was as a music critic. So you can imagine how insufferably arrogant and condescending I can be whenever the topic of music comes up. And when it concerns the relative merits of overrated pop stars, well…I can be a real ass. (I’m working on it. I swear.)

What’s my point? Just that Chandler has me re-thinking—and questioning—my visceral dislike of Billy Joel. Check this out:

What helps explain Billy Joel’s recent feats (and makes them all the more impressive) is the fact that he has managed to become a commercial juggernaut in two different eras of the music industry; first, when record sales determined everything and later, as tour earnings supplanted sales as the biggest lever of an artist’s financial success.…[O]f Joel’s 121 recorded songs over a quarter of them (33!) became Top 40 hits. Billy Joel has, believe it or not, sold more records in the United States than either Michael Jackson or Madonna.

He’s also sold out Madison Square Garden 40 times since 2014, despite the fact that he hasn’t released a new pop album in 24 years. Now, popularity is certainly not an indicator of talent or ability; nor is it a bellwether of musical or historical significance. But Joel shouldn’t be dismissed simply because he’s popular, either. Something’s going on here.

As for me, while I can’t exactly commit to buying any of his albums any time soon, I can try to not change channels the next time a Billy Joel song comes on the radio. Heck, I might even actually listen to it. Just…don’t tell anyone, mmmkay?

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

The subhead of this article says it all: “What began as an attempt at a simpler life quickly became a life-style brand.” If you still harbor romantic notions of social media as anything other than pure, unadulterated fakery, you need to stop what you’re doing—right now—and read the whole thing. I mean, check this out:

The collapsing distance between brand and life has led to social-media influencing, in which advertisers pay for endorsements from people with strong online followings. Celebrity endorsements aren’t new, of course, but influencer marketing expands the category of “celebrity” to include teen-age fashionistas, drone racers, and particularly photogenic dogs.…Accounts with between fifty thousand and two hundred thousand followers are considered “microinfluencers,” and tend to have higher engagement rates—that is, a larger share of their followers like, favorite, or comment on their posts—than those with millions of followers.…One study estimated that the social-media-influencer market was worth five hundred million dollars in 2015; the market is expected to increase to at least five billion dollars by 2020.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s just that at least one of these “social-media influencers” is lying to you:

Smith had a particular image in mind: King sprawled in the back of the van, reading a book about Ayurveda with Penny nestled next to her, and an “Outsiders” decal featured prominently on her laptop. As Smith shot from the front seat, King tried a few different positions—knees bent; legs propped up against the window—and pretended to read the book. “Sometimes it’s more spontaneous,” she said apologetically.

“It’s about storytelling, and when you’re telling a story it’s not always spontaneous,” Smith said. “Lift your head up a little bit more, look like you’re reading.”

King positioned Penny at her feet, but the dog kept moving, distracted by grebes bobbing on the waves. Smith grew frustrated by the strong contrast between the dim van interior and the bright ocean beyond. King attempted to placate him. “Corey, this is O.K., this is O.K., this is fun,” she said.

After more than half an hour, Smith got a shot he was satisfied with. The next day, as he drove in the rain to Los Padres National Forest, King sat in the back and fixed the overexposed ocean in Photoshop. The post, when it went up, looked cozy and relaxed. King added a long caption, about how living in the van had made her reconsider what “work” actually means. “I no longer define work by money, instead seeing it as our focused action collectively creating our world,” she wrote. “Currently my work is storytelling and aligning with companies supporting our lifestyle and Earth.”

“Such a beautiful lifestyle,” one commenter wrote. “This looks like heaven,” another said.

I know, I know: lying in advertising isn’t new. It’s just that this seems so much more, I dunno…brazen.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

Jeff Koons is unveiling his latest project, and, from the sounds of it, well…let’s just let him describe it:

“They touch on the metaphysical: the right here right now and its connection to the past and the future.”

Hmmm. Since metaphysics includes ontology (the nature of existence), cosmology (the origin of the universe), and epistemology (the theory of knowledge), Koons must really be on to something this time.

“They’re about shine, the basics of philosophy, passion, what it means to be a human, what it means to be an animal, the idea of transcendence.”

My copy of the OED helpfully describes transcendent as “surpassing or excelling others of its kind, supreme; beyond the range or grasp of human experience, belief, etc.” Which helps explain the next line:

“Working on this, I felt a sense of my own potential, and the sharing of that with a large community.”

Hard to believe that the record holder for “price at auction for a work by a living artist” could be so humble, right?

“I hope people understand my ideas. I hope they embrace them as a continuation of my effort to erase the hierarchy attached to fine art and old masters.”

So. What’s Koons up to? Glad you asked. It’s…handbags.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

Today I was going to write about the recent decision by the editors of the AP Stylebook—perhaps my least favorite guide, but one that wields enormous influence—to allow they/them/their as singular pronouns. I see, however, that the great Andrew Ferguson not only beat me to it, but did so in a way that should leave no question on the subject. So I’ll just point you to his takedown over at the Weekly Standard. If you care at all about language clarity, please give it a read.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  comments(1)

Unwieldy? Or unwieldly?

This is a tough one—because neither the correct word nor its root are all that common these days. We generally have an inkling of the meaning when we use it, believing (correctly) that it refers to clumsiness or awkwardness. But which is the correct word?

Let’s start with the root: wield.

According to my OED, the pertinent definition here is “Direct the movement or action of, control, (a bodily member, a faculty, etc.).” Another is “use or handle with skill and effectiveness; ply (a weapon or tool, now always one held in the hand).” Both come from the Old English wealden. Then there’s this etymology entry, which mentions “moving gracefully” as a meaning dating back to the 1520s.

Now that we know what the root means, let’s apply some basic rules of English word construction. If wield means “with skill and effectiveness,” adding the suffix -ly would create an adverb:

Swinging the battle axe in a downward arc, Steven wieldly cleft Aaron’s skull.

Not very pretty, though, is it? Partly because it’s somewhat redundant. If wield already means “with skill and effectiveness,” we don’t really need an adverb form. But if we did, it would probably be wieldily, wouldn’t it? It stands to reason, then, that unwieldly isn’t an option.

Wieldy, on the other hand, starts to make more sense—especially when the prefix -un is added. As an adjective, unwieldy would therefore mean “not (un) under control (wield),” or “without effectiveness,” or “ungraceful.”

English doesn’t always make sense. But when it does, it’s a beautiful thing.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  make a comment

Keeping with this week’s theme about John Richard Mraz (who celebrates his seventieth birthday tomorrow), I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a couple of important honors.

John was awarded the distinguished 2000 Advertising Professional of the Year Award by the Spokane Advertising Federation (below, left). And if that wasn’t enough, ten years later he became one of only six recipients of the prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award from the same body (below, right).

I met John around 1979 while attending Spokane Falls Community College. He came to speak to a small group of students who were part of the FAD Club (Future Art Directors). I remember he passed around his brown portfolios and shared stories about projects and clients. It seemed that most of his work was logos: black and white representations along with printed stationery samples. I was in awe; enamored with how clean, crisp, and polished his design solutions were—not to mention how nicely they were presented within those plastic sleeves. He told us that his work represented a lot of “blood, sweat, and tears.”

The meaning of those three words have never been lost on me. As true then as they are today, they represent a kind of old-school ethic. Practical. Sensible. Accountable. The kind of thing you learn growing up near a small town, on a farm, in the middle of the Palouse. The kind of thing that helps explain the success John has enjoyed, both in his personal life and throughout his career.

posted by: CK Anderson  |  category: the design life  |  make a comment