daniel felstead

graphic communication year 3

how can dissent resist commodification?

research report

Abstract

This report will address ideas of dissent and examine whether it is able to resist commodification. Within this topic the theory of dissent versus commidification will be discussed with examples that started as dissent and later became commodified to sell a product or reverse the initial message. There are various topics on the matter and it may perhaps be arguable that dissent uses commodification itself and that there may in fact be no resistance but simply a change of balance between the two. In this way the report will look at the thesis question

with various argumentative points, firstly dissent will be examined by itself through the creative practice of others and key points about the theory of dissent itself will be established, the second examination will cover the commodification of dissent and argue the sustainability of dissent once the meaning has been changed; can anything truly be dissent? Another key factor for consideration in this topic will be the argument that dissent itself uses commodification and therefore relies on this itself. The final examination

will be on the ecosystem in which both dissent and commodification fit, this will look at varied examples of both. The conclusion will draw from ideas that dissent cannot in fact resist commodification, but instead conclude that dissent relies on the use of commodification equally as much as dissent becomes commodified itself.

Contents

Table of Illustrations4

5

6

8

10

12

15

Introduction

Examining Dissent

The Commidification of Dissent

Commodification for Dissent

Dissent & Commodification: an Ecosystem

14 Conclusion

Bibliography

4

Table of Illustrations

Figure 1. Boban, J. (2003) Victory? Client Syracuse Anti-War Demo, Croatia. Found in bibliography; see [5], page 68

Figure 2. Kien Eng, T. (Unknown) Don’t. Women’s Aid Organisation, Malaysia. Found in bibliography; see [5], page 125

Figure 3. Maviyane-Davies, C. (2004) Non-Suicide Bomber. Found in bibliography; see [5], page 67

Figure 4. Douglas, E. (1976) Untitled. Found in bibliography; see [1], page 127

Figure 5. Hayden, S; Radford, M. (1984/1985) Apple Superbowl Ad & 1984 film excerpt. Apple; Virgin Films. Apple advert excerpt taken from YouTube [Internet] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UZV7PDt8Lw - 1984 excerpt screenshot from the film.

Figure 6. Korda, A. (1960) Guerrillero Heroico. Available within the public domain and online.

Figure 7. Yung, S-Z. (2003) Corporate American Flag. Client Adbusters. Found in bibliography; see [5], page 143

Figure 8. Douglas, E. (1974) Untitled. Found in bibliography; see [1], page 166

Figure 9. Erceg, M. (2001) VW Spoof Ad. Found in bibliography; see [5], page 153

5

This report looks at historic and modern examples of both dissent and commodification to address the question; can dissent resist commodification?This is a highly relevant subject in regards to culture and also to graphics, this investigation into the topic will address various questions about dissent and commodification, the report follows a four chapter structure to gain insight into different areas of the topic. The most important issues this report will be looking at will begin with the first chapter that examines dissent and establishes what exactly this is, how dissent works and what it uses to create messages. To analyse the thesis various sources have been selected and used to gain a broader understanding of key principles the report addresses.

To do this the first chapter focuses on dissent within graphics and visual examples of dissent that demonstrate a key understanding to the major principles of dissent, backing up the visual examples is a relevant discussion that provides insight into dissent with clarity and contextual references. The examples and discussion provide a starting point to further address and understand the thesis question.

After an established look into the key aspects of dissent the report then enters the second chapter which addresses the commodification of dissent and provides a look at the negative and positive sides of commodification using textual and visual references from various sources that further the discussion of the subject matter and demonstrate what effect commodification has on dissent. There is particular focus on dissent being commodified to create a profit or to sell a product through the change of context that takes place when dissent is transformed.

After establishing how exactly dissent becomes commodified the report begins to examine a different perspective of the subject matter; dissent using commodification, this chapter challenges the ideas established and points made in the previous chapter to reverse the thesis question and challenge it, this insight provides a reversal of perspective and begins to examine the question of whether dissent uses commodification equally as much as it is commodified or not. This is a key point within the report as it pulls the two contrasting aspects together so that a critical view of each is established to address the final chapter more thoroughly.

The fourth chapter examines dissent and commodification together and challenges the idea that they exist within an ecosystem so therefore neither can exist without the other, within this chapter key ideas are drawn from the previous chapters and compared to establish an idea of whether a balance exists between dissent and commodification and analyses whether this shifts, the research approach in this chapter is regarded as neutral and is not intended to take a side but rather to highlight the possibility that an ecosystem exists. From this end chapter key principles have been analysed and compared in a way to formulate a conclusion about the thesis question and challenge it.

The conclusion of this report formulates one possible stance on the topic question and further research is provided that can be pursued so that different conclusions may be formed.

Introduction

6

Examining Dissent

To address the thesis question dissent must first be analysed, dissent represents a political voice that avoids consumerism and highlights key ideas and principles within society that are often overlooked or portrayed to the public in a more favourable light, dissent is highly important within the political sphere and also the graphical sphere as it is an alternate avenue of opinions and messages to those that are strictly directed to consumer markets, Figure 1 is a clear visual example of what dissent represents as it changes the literal meaning of a famous World War II symbol to demonstrate that what victory means is simply a lot of death, this creates irony towards a famous image.

A particularly important aspect of dissent is it’s ability to provide a voice for people or groups that may not have the ability to send out a large message themselves and whom are not represented in political avenues, this is a key and important aspect of dissent and it demonstrates how powerful, relevant and important it is. Throughout history there have been various movements that have gained momentum and power through dissent and this power has brought about change that has been sought by various groups of people. A major aspect of this idea of power can be observed within the Black Panthers whom fought for black rights throughout the 1960’s and through this dissent and the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr managed to bring about the change they sought in a time where politics were not apprehending problems the way people wished them to be addressed. Figure 2 is a clear example of the idea that dissent provides a voice through the medium of graphics as what is often portrayed through normal avenues is the idea that you should or should not do certain things to avoid problems, making the person themself the problem, dissent instead reverses this idea and changes the blame, the use of the final line ‘Don’t exist.’ is a powerful message as this demonstrates the concept that restricting a person may equally mean that they should not exist in the first place. This aspect of dissent is something that cannot be achieved in the commercial world where consumerism and messages are used for different purposes.

Dissent can often be viewed as an entity with a rebellious purpose and to an extent this can be viewed as a correct definition in some aspects of what exactly it is that dissent represents, however, dissent is rebellion with a purpose and a

Figure 1. Victory?

Figure 2. Don’t.

7

clear, powerful message, it strives to achieve a purpose or to represent a silenced voice for a majority that aren’t necessarily represented. A particularly useful example of this can be observed within the graphical and political work of Emory Douglas of the Black Panthers party, in the 60s this was of particular importance as the dissent represented a powerful struggle for Black rights in the United States and dissent that is represented visually can motivate a mass of people into making an action or movement possible, Sinclair writes of Douglas’s work for the Panthers in the following regard:

‘The conceptual brilliance and raw emotive power of Emory Douglas’s masterful cartoons and illustrations for the Black Panther newspaper and the party’s other propaganda... brought the Panthers’ revolutionary analysis and daring grassroots political action program to vivid life for millions of opressed African Americans and their white radical sympathizers.’ (Sinclair, 2007: [1] page 4)

This furthers the idea of dissent allowing an avenue or representation for human rights which otherwise may not be spoken for at periods in time with certain political climates. It is not simply to be regarded as a struggle for human rights however, as dissent can also represent a different opinion on a certain situation as can be seen in Figure 3, post the events of 9/11, particularly in America the attitude towards Islamic culture was transformed and certain stereotypes developed, this example of dissent represents a different voice for this and depicts American stealth bombers as non-suicide bombers, to represent the irony in the depiction the media portrays and how the propaganda for pushing to war causes the same devastating effect on a much larger mass of people, particularly civilians in Iraq. The outright visual irony observed is a clear example of how dissent demonstrates an idea that people can often be blind to but is still certainly happening although not reflected upon in this way due to a certain amount of ignorance demonstrated through pro-war propaganda and the idea that it is done for peace. The irony is due to the fact that the same action that prompted the war in the first place is now being done to an entire country, this is something dissent will often highlight. It is also visually represented by Figure 4, where during the Olympics the atheletes for the USA whom win the medals for the country are often black, however are also treated with a large amount of racism and a similar irony can be observed which is again represented by dissent, this is demonstrated through the captioning that clearly summarises the reality of racism ‘and when it’s over a nigger is a nigger is a nigger...’ it is these representations of hidden truths and alternative voices which make dissent a particularly important piece of communication for people.

Figure 3. Non-Suicide Bomber.

Figure 4. Untitled.

8

The Commodification of Dissent

Often the power that dissent represents as a free expression of voice for people gains interest from commercial avenues, although this demonstrates the power of dissent when it is commodified the meaning no longer represents dissent, although to a consumer it can be misconstrued as a way of being rebellious or “against the man” this is simply the trick of using the appealing avenue of dissent to gain a profit within a particular industry or advertising campaign. This change of meaning causes major issues and conflicts within certain social circles and can at times become a double sided coin that can create a backlash, a particularly powerful example of this idea occurred when Nike used the song ‘Revolution’ by the Beatles in an advertising campaign and through this according to Weiner:

‘In 1987 Nike achieved a watershed when they became the first company to license a Beatles songfrom Capitol Records when they used the song Revolution as part of their $7 million TV ad campaign’ (Weiner, 1997: [7] pages 289-293)

What this demonstrates is a clear example of dissent becoming commodified, however in this particular example there were both negative backlashes and positive profits, this shows the reason using highly regarded examples of pop culture and dissent can be a useful way to quickly gain profit within different industries.

The same type of commodification can be observed through Apples use of the ideas of rebellion shown in the visual style of the film 1984, in Figure 3 there is a clear visual representation of the similarities between the two, the ad was intended to appear that it was rebelling against IBM and demonstrated an idea of dissent although it was not true dissent as it was made to sell a product and increase the revenue for Apple, the ad was shown during the Superbowl close to the year the film was released, the successful use of this idea of dissent caused a massive amount of profit for Apple as demonstrated by St. John: ‘After the 1984 ad aired, Apple sold 72,000 computers in 100 days, 50 percent more than even its most optimistic sales productions.’ (St. John, 2012: [9] page 1) this further emphasises the appeal of dissent within consumer markets.Another particularly prominent example of the use of dissent to appeal to consumers is easily observable through Figure 4, Che Guevara, a Marxist whom fought for a communist Cuba was photographed in 1960 and this iconic image has now become a product for consumerism through the commodification and overuse of its image and the idea that buy purchasing or using an image of Guevara dissent is being represented, when in fact, buying into the image on t-shirts or other merchandise is of the opposite polarity of the Marxist principles.Similarly it can often be observed in advertisements for a particular product where a play upon

Figure 5. Apple Superbowl Ad & 1984 film

excerpt.

Figure 6. Guerrillero Heroico.

Further exploration

Hernandez, D. Che is dead. [Internet] http://www.davidhernandez.com.mx/images/graphics/csm-manifesto1.jpg

Frank, T; Weiland, M. (1997) Commodify Your Dissent: Salvos from The Baffler. [3] page 7

9

dissent is used to engage the interest of a person who likes to view themselves as rebellious or pro-dissent, however, by buying into the product they are unawaringly buying into this same comoddification that they do not wish to engage within:

‘Break the rules. Stand apart. Keep your head. Go with your heart. TV commercial for Vanderbilt perfume.’ 1994 (Frank, 1997: [3] page 1)

This is a direct example of this commodification of dissent and demonstrates that by marketing a product to be viewed as dissent for the purpose of profits it can appeal to an audience that itself represents a dissentful nature and unknowingly attracts them to purchasing things that may be against a certain counter-culture that they represent. This same irony of commodification is spoken about further by Frank:

‘Consumerism is no longer about “conformity” but about “difference.” Advertising teaches us not in the ways of puritanical self-denial (a bizarre notion on the face of it), but in orgiastic, never-ending self-fulfillment. It counsels not rigid adherence to the tastes of the herd but vigilant and constantly updated individualism. We consume not to fit in, but to prove, on the surface at least, that we are rock `n’ roll rebels, each one of us as rule-breaking and hierarchy-defying as our heroes of the 60s, who now pitch cars, shoes, and beer.’ (Frank, 1997: [3] page 3)

Although this demonstrates an idea of the reasons for this commodification it could also be argued to an extent that in some ways you must buy into this commodification to become dissentful in the first place, it also highlights the possibility that each individual is fully aware of this irony but still fulfils the purchase of the product for the sake of appearance or to attain a certain individuality that people often strive for, it could also be argued that in some respects it is impossible to avoid this consumerism of commodification as often products sought even by those that wish to pursue dissent and represent it can only be bought through the same avenues which potentially represents a further irony within the commodification of dissent in relation to dissentful individuals.The same ideas that may once have represented dissent have also become commodified and now the meaning within these words no longer holds as much power for dissent due to the overuse of them as a commodity and in this way the commodification of dissent can be very damaging and haltering towards dissent and this represents problems and again raises the question; can dissent resist commodification? A key example of this is the word revolution as spoken about by Frank: ‘“Revolution,” once the totemic catchphrase of the counterculture, has become the totemic catchphrase of boomer-as-capitalist.’ (Frank, 1997: [3] page 1) this particularly highlights how damaging the commodification of dissent can be to dissent itself and perhaps suggests that dissent in some regards is losing the struggle against commodity by having the power it can demonstrate and rally within people used against itself.

Commodification can also happen to another persons creative work and this is often looked down upon, particularly within Hollywood where films may be remade or novels adapted into a cinematic for the purpose of gaining a profit by cashing in on the works of another artist, although this is not always necessarily an example of dissent becoming commodified in some cases it is, and it could be argued that a highly regarded film can cause dissent when it is remade for profit as is often observed by complaints of both critics and fans of a certain film.

10

Commodification for Dissent

The principles of dissent becoming commodified also apply in reverse and often dissent will use consumerism or commodified imagery to further highlight a point or a message, this is an important idea that must be considered when addressing the thesis, as dissent itself at times practices the use of taking other imagery to demonstrate an idea, this can be as simple as slightly changing the design of a brand logo or as complex as constructing a parody of something that has become commodified.

Due to the nature of dissent does this mean that it cannot function without commodification? It may be the case that dissent indeed relies on commodification to generate some of the ideas and messages that groups and designers broadcast into the world, but equally it may still be able to function without commodification as there are other key global issues that do not fall under the same category. Figure 7 demonstrates this idea thoroughly through the use of various US Company logos to represent the US flag in a dissentful manner, it is using this commodificiation to represent dissentful ideas and this particular example is important as it has been utilised by Americans whom wish to visually demonstrate their independence and dissent against corporate ruling. It has also been used within protests. There is particular significance in this because it is using logos created for consumerism and using them as a means to promote dissent, it is arguable therefore that dissent in this way practices the same method as commodification, but rather than to sell a product or for monetary gain, it uses this power of imagery to gain momentum and demonstrate an ideal or representation of dissent.

Dissents use of commodification can be viewed similar to the commodification of dissent in that it is in some ways harmful to the other, however it can also be viewed as something that may unintentionally promote commodification. It can be thought of similar to commodofication but perhaps the key principle of understanding dissent is that it is in fact not the same and that this in some regards has always been what dissent is, as it represents an alternative voice sometimes this use may be necessary and is not always destructive. It is also important to consider that not all dissent borrows from something that is commodified but instead uses the power of a word or image that has not otherwise been used to demonstrate a powerful message. This demonstrates that dissent does not rely on commodification in the same respect that commodification currently relies on the idea of appearing dissentful or rebellious.

The purpose of using a commodity to enhance a message may sometimes be needed for a message to be understood, particularly if it is to stand out or catch attention, it also allows dissent to be instantly recognised through the use of something that is already recognised but its alternative depiction can completely change the way in which it is viewed by an audience, this may be a particularly important reason why dissent borrows imagery, it has the power to instantly change a message or idea that is demonstrated as a commodity to prompt real thought about a topic or product that people are buying into or consuming. Further to this purpose it

Figure 7. Corporate American Flag.

11

could also be regarded similar to a hook-line for consumers who will instantly be drawn to a particular brand or image due to a certain favour towards that brand or due to their susceptibility to marketing.Another clear and powerful use of dissent using commodification is demonstrated by Douglas in Figure 8 where it shows the 38th President of the USA, Gerald Ford as a puppet to the large amount of consumerism and brand marketing that occurs, this is made into a particularly powerful piece of dissent because of this use of these brands and the representation of them as a hand controlling the strings of the president to suggest he is not truly in control of the USA, but rather the brands are. This could not be communicated effectively as a visual without these aids and the power the image can instil in people draws from the reliance of brand recognition and the use of the president; the dissent would not function without this. This particular piece also does not demonstrate the same destructiveness towards the commodity as the criticism is on the president as much as it is on the brands, and it is a quiet yet powerful political commentary.

This use of commodification can be viewed as a powerful and key aspect of dissent as it allows for a critical commentary on a brand or image that may not otherwise be possible and allows messages or issues to be highlighted that would otherwise not be seen or thought about. Particularly the way in which things are initially viewed but may not always be the case after something is examined closer. Figure 9 is a particularly key example of this as Volkswagen are a very popular car brand, however it was also a brand that was highly regarded by Adolf Hitler and is manufactured in Germany, it may in fact be the case that the profits Volkswagen made in WWII funded military exploit and this example of dissent brings attention to this and Hitlers favour as the cars to prompt a different interpretation of the brand and to change the viewers view of it simultaneously. This is another way in which commodification is used to create a powerful and key core message for dissent, although this particular instance may not be as particularly damaging to the brand as initially thought due to the way in which it focuses on Hitler, whilst overlooking that he was also a consumer and in this way it may not directly represent the brand as being bad but rather one consumer. However this use is still important to understand the reasons for dissents use of commodification as a powerful medium.

Figure 8. Untitled.

Figure 9. VW Spoof Ad.

12

Dissent & Commodification: an Ecosystem

In final regards to dissent and commodification there exists an ecosystem between the two, as they both use aspects of each other to their own ends, this provides a balance between the two that exists and is not always thought about but is considerably important as it demonstrates different voices and avenues of communication both visually and conceptually. Frank himself mentions that:

‘Culture is, quite simply, a binary battle between the repressiveApollonian order of capitalism and the Dionysian impulses of the counterculture.Rebellion makes no sense without repression; we must remain forever convinced of capitalism’s fundamental hostility to pleasure in order to consume capitalism’s rebelproducts as avidly as we do.’ (Frank, 1997: [3] pages 3,4)

What this demonstrates is the principle of this same ecosystem which is similar to a dysfunctional family in the sense that though neither regard the other in a positive light they both sustain and provide for each other and broaden culture in different yet equally relevant ways, particularly within a capitalist system. The need to consume rebellious products is a fundamental importance to the ideals of free thought and the ever changing dynamics of political and social climates. The further importance of both providing for each other although described as a battle can also be considered as a balance that further provides different aspects of this theoretical ecosystem.

It is also important to consider what would happen if either dissent or commodification were taken away, there would be consequences for both which reaffirms Franks idea that we indeed must remain convinced of the hostility of capitalism. This demonstrates that although there is a resistance between the two there is importance placed on the emphasis of having both in a world where everything is considered democratic and it may be that if dissent indeed did resist commodification fully, then dissent itself would become an oppressive force in this same ecosystem and further dissent would then follow. Equally so with commodification culture would become out of balance and the over consumerist culture could cause mass financial and political collapse.

A further consideration towards this ecosystem may be that although dissent can be regarded or viewed as destructive in relation to commodification this is not always the case as argued by Glaser in an interview by Heller:

‘“Changing an established order is the goal of dissent. But is it done in a constructive or destructive way?” “It can be either. Dissenters usually have the idea that their dissent is an attempt to improve an exisiting condition.”’ (Heller & Glaser, 2005: [5] page 224)

This demonstrates that dissent is not simply about anarchy and disorder as it is sometimes viewed but it also serves as an ideal to improve a situation or aspect of a community without destroying or interfering with commodification. Perhaps with in this ecosystem the only interaction the two have with each other is infact the small colissions that occur through the borrowing of principles or imagery from each other, in this way it could be regarded similar to a mobius loop, with one loop being dissent and the other, commodification where although there are two small connection they are primarily seperate from each other but instead small parts feed through. This could be as simple as the ecosystem between the two is and perhaps through understanding this small interaction a more accurate conclusion can be reached in the respect

13

that although they may seem like opposing and destructive forces to each other they for the most part do not collide at all and this is all only thought about through the perception of each to the other.

It is also considerable that the interaction is much greater than an explanation summarised in simplicity, perhaps it is the case that the interactions between commodification and dissent are destructive and equally creative to each other, this idea purports that when one degrades part of the two a void is created that will then be filled with a new form or piece of commodification or dissent that would not occur without the previous damage being done. This type of ecosystem could equally exist between the two and may also answer or demonstrate the reasons why both can be viewed throughout history without one dominating the other and eradicating it completely. There will always be a need for an alternative voice to the mainstream consumerism that occurs within the everyday world, and this consumerism will always produce a form of dissent through some unanswered or unspoken political or social issue that is not covered by one of the two. This principle idea backs up the idea that neither one can function or exist without the other, commodification will always produce dissent and dissent will always produce commodification.

The importance of this ecosystem may often be overlooked or considered to not exist at all, however this may be what allows the ecosystem to continue and within this idea it could be considered a silent relationship between the two which isn’t interactable with itself because it is produced by the other interactions of dissent and commodification.

Although it is clear the two utilise each other both constructively and destructively it is not clear on what level the destruction and construction exist together and whether this is completely balanced, for this reason the ecosystem may be impossible to understand completely, but it can be theorised that this ecosystem is constantly evolving and changing at the same time as both dissent and commodification change and this is the reason the ecosystem itself cannot be directly seen or examined.

An important consideration to contradict these ideas is that the ecosystem does not exist at all and is instead manufactured as a way to understand each, but perhaps neither commodification or dissent regard each other enough in their seperate practices to care about the other enough to fully target each for dissolution. The consideration however is that the ecosystem does indeed exist because the two interact with each other on some small level and any interaction between two things creates some sort of ecosystem however small.

Through examining the different possible ideas about the ecosystem of commodification and dissent it is understandable that an ecosystem does indeed exist between the two although it is not exactly clear on what level this ecosystem really functions or how the full extent of interactions between commodification and dissent work.

14

Conclusion

Addressing the thesis; can dissent resist commodification? It is sensible to assume that dissent itself is the resistance and in this regard it can, however, as there is also a reliance on commodification to produce dissent and the reverse it is not possible that either can fully resist the other, this highlights the importance of the ecosystem that summarises the two as a battle or balance that neither can win.

After examining and understanding dissent it is clear that it provides a grounds for issues that would not be addressed otherwise and this highlights the individual importance of dissent itself and the ability to find irony and flaws in what is commercially or politically broadcast to the general public on global scales.

With commodification the importance stems from the ability to take ideas of dissent and apply them to consumer goods or ideas with an appeal for mainstream culture, and this may be viewed as a negative or a positive. In a sense it creates an illusion of rebellion but it could also be considered that bringing dissent into a mainstream culture through commodification it brings issues or ideas that would not otherwise be seen by mainstream avenues directly into contact with various different consumers, which could be regarded as further communication of dissent.

It is also important to note how dissent itself relies on commodification to highlight aspects of society or issues that are otherwise overlooked and it also provides an alternative perspective on things which are presented as factual or right when they may in fact simply be an opinion or a stance. To this regard dissent resists by using commodification against itself, which is a particularly important and powerful away to address it.

The final chapter demonstrates the idea that this ecosystem is an important part of society which provides different avenues of communication and democracy and ties both commodification and dissent together in a world way there may seem the total opposite.It can also be interpreted that there are similar aims within both contexts and thus it is almost futile to resist either but ever so important that both remain and continue to develop each other as social structures and global issues develop and change. This provides the circumstances for both commodification and dissent to develop and change and to continue providing and addressing different issues within this ecosystem.

It is also important to note that although there is evidence of an ecosystem from what is discussed further exploration may demonstrate that dissent can completely resist commodification, or that commodification can completely resist dissent. As it is a broad subject matter there will always be a conflict with various opinions and discussions about it and it is imperative that conclusions are formed on an individual basis as well as a theoretical global basis.

15

[1] Durrant, S; Baraka, A; Bourne, St; C. Cleaver; K. Gaiter, C; Glover, D; Jung Morozumu, G; Sanchez, S; Seale, B; Sinclair, J. (2007) Black Panther, The Revolutionary Art of Emory Douglas. Rizzoli, New York.

[2] Frank, T. (1997) The Conquest of Cool. The University of Chicago Press.

[3] Frank, T; Weiland, M. (1997) Commodify Your Dissent: Salvos from The Baffler. W. W. Norton & Company

[4] Bradshaw, A; Sherlock, R; and McDonagh, P. (2004) You say you want a revolution: Music in Advertising and Pseudo-counterculture. Conference papers. Paper 45. [Internet] http://arrow.dit.ie/buschmarcon/45

[5] Glaser, M; Ilić, M. (2005) The Design of Dissent. Rockport Publishers Inc.

[6] McQuiston, L. (1993) Graphic agitation: Social and political graphics since the sixties. Phaidon, London.

[7] Weiner, J. (1991) Beatles Buy-Out: How Nike bought the Beatles’ “Revolution”. In J. Weiner (Ed.), Professors, Politics and Pop: 289-293. London/New York: Verson.

[8] Holmes, S. (2007) Che: The icon and the ad. BBC News [Internet] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7028598.stm

[9] St. John, A. (2012) After 1984: The Superbowl Ad That Almost Killed Apple. Forbes [Internet] http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2012/02/02/the-super-bowl-ad-that-almost-killed-apple/

Bibliography