Hi all, I'm currently finishing up my capstone senior seminar and one of our final projects is an analysis of a cultural phenomenon based on Anne Norton's Republic of Signs. In case you are not familiar with the text, Norton argues that many staples of American society, from aspects of our political culture (the Constitution, the Presidency, the very idea of "freedom") to food and pop culture phenomena, are represented not only by the original intent and context in which they were developed, but by a sort of meta-representation that has been developed by entrenched liberal and neoliberal values in a modern society.
For reference:
“Americans in Disneyland do not mistake it for reality. Rather, recognizing it as a representation of desire, they celebrate their collective capacity to produce a world more rational and more rewarding than that which Providence supplies them. In their play, as in their politics, they know themselves as the creators of a new world order" (21).
We were given free reign to choose any topic to analyze within this context. I, much to the annoyance of most of my friends, have chosen to analyze the luxury watch industry. My theme around which I am going to work is going to go something like this: The luxury watch industry, once a sign of the finest craftsmanship, has become a sign of excessive luxury and conspicuous consumption. It is important to note that I am doing this through the lens of the majority of the American population and thus, excluding WIS (although perhaps that may end up a counterpoint).
I'm going to look at the advertising techniques of a few brands, namely Tag, Breitling, Omega, and to some extent Rolex, focusing mainly on brand ambassadors and the advertising rhetoric. I'm purposely going to leave out JLC, AP, PP, VC, and ALS because I think to some extent they have not fallen into the same category as the others.
So here's my question for you all: If you have any inkling of interest in this project and agree to any extent with what I am arguing, can you provide me with some examples of how the watch industry has become a sign for conspicuous consumption and unnecessary luxury?
If you don't agree with my argument, can you point out the flaws and provide me with the tools necessary to strengthen it?
Best,
Chanslor
For reference:
“Americans in Disneyland do not mistake it for reality. Rather, recognizing it as a representation of desire, they celebrate their collective capacity to produce a world more rational and more rewarding than that which Providence supplies them. In their play, as in their politics, they know themselves as the creators of a new world order" (21).
We were given free reign to choose any topic to analyze within this context. I, much to the annoyance of most of my friends, have chosen to analyze the luxury watch industry. My theme around which I am going to work is going to go something like this: The luxury watch industry, once a sign of the finest craftsmanship, has become a sign of excessive luxury and conspicuous consumption. It is important to note that I am doing this through the lens of the majority of the American population and thus, excluding WIS (although perhaps that may end up a counterpoint).
I'm going to look at the advertising techniques of a few brands, namely Tag, Breitling, Omega, and to some extent Rolex, focusing mainly on brand ambassadors and the advertising rhetoric. I'm purposely going to leave out JLC, AP, PP, VC, and ALS because I think to some extent they have not fallen into the same category as the others.
So here's my question for you all: If you have any inkling of interest in this project and agree to any extent with what I am arguing, can you provide me with some examples of how the watch industry has become a sign for conspicuous consumption and unnecessary luxury?
If you don't agree with my argument, can you point out the flaws and provide me with the tools necessary to strengthen it?
Best,
Chanslor