Ummh

Omnirizon · #1 March 31st, 2008, 04:00 PM

your still not placing it in the correct context. of course the content is completely interchangable; but that's not the point.

This is all about medium and texture over content and substance. This is modernism attacking the established order of the enlightenment's orthodoxy. War/strategy games have always been very stodgy, orthodox, with a slight distaste for all of those "low" games of the masses; simplistic action games and such whose advertisements ARE flashy and suggestive. War/strategy advertisements are about how realistic they are, and portray pictures and symbols emphasizing their history, tradition, accuracy, and high quality.

Now here is Dom3's advertisement. What do you see? Is it WinBattle Tanks "We are so realistic the REAL army uses our game to train"? Nope. Is it Raging Tiger's or Falkland's emphasis on history, war, and battle? Nope. These are symbols of the War/Strategy orthodoxy. Dom3's advertisement is a woman looking back at you, legs in a suggestive position, asking for her Dom3. There is NO substance in that, but there isn't supposed to be. If you don't get it, it is because you are too caught up in the orthodoxy of war/strategy. It is all about the attack on that orthodoxy, portraying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what war/strategy is all about.

I'm not arguing that it is a great idea to run that ad, but I think its point is to seperate Dom3 from the war/strategy orthodoxy. In that sense it is a very modernist ad; I think its imagery is deliberate, and not so shallow as people suggest. It is aware of and utilizing its context and medium.

Sombre · #2 March 31st, 2008, 04:10 PM

Yeah I'm familiar with postmodernist theory. But in my measured opinion this isn't a clever juxtaposition of high and low revealing the absurd arbitrariness of artistic value. It's just a crap advert. I don't care how knowing or self mocking or ironic it supposed to be, it took longer for me to type this sentence than it did for them to come up with that ad. That's just lazy.

Omnirizon · #3 March 31st, 2008, 04:14 PM

well i'm studying Pmod theory right now. so I enjoy taking opportunities to exercise its perspective. helps me digest what I read

to thejeff: it isn't the attack on advertising orthodoxy, it is the attack on war/strategy orthodoxy.

Dedas · #4 March 31st, 2008, 04:18 PM

Give them a break. I think it is a pretty brave thing to do in their position. I'm with Omnirizon on this.

As for the nakedness it is just a nipple, I see that every day. Both for real and in the history books I'm reading at the moment.

Omnirizon · #5 March 31st, 2008, 04:25 PM

another way of looking at it would be along the lines of what edratum suggested. it is pure marketing forced by capitalist endeavor. I don't want to open that can of worms. But while some Pmod critics claim that modernism is more of a 'counterfeit culture' than an actual 'counter culture' (similar to Sombre's position), others claim that fault lies not with modernism or Pmodernism, but with capitalism. Capitalism creates the necessity for the boundlessness reflected in modernism.