Cartier Advertises in Vain

Are you going to buy some Cartier products this Christmas? In case you are - look at these advertisements, and I GUARANTEE you will change your mind. The rings etc. and watches are hideous. They're as subtle as a, a, a... er... an amaryllis? A vindaloo? No simile exists that will do justice to the absurd height to which these gaudy trinkets take their scorn for decent, restrained values. The advertising tries, but fails, to impress upon the public the desirability of what is in truth, and costly materials notwithstanding, coarse bling. The quest was doomed from the drawing board. My point is, that spend what you will on fancy advertising campaigns, it profiteth you nothing if the merchandise doesn't cut it - and this definitely does not.

 

Look at this, and gasp :



Innocent leopard cub startled by monstrous jewellery objet.

 




"What in the name of all that's a waste of valuable precious metals is this?"

 



Leopard cub has disposed of the glittering gewgaws by pushing them away across the floor. Only empty boxes remain.
Quite reasonably the cub finds them and cherry petals infinitely more attractive.




Totally bemused by the leather bag, leopard has to have a lie down.

 



"What fresh hell...?"

 




"SURELY my eyes deceive me? There can't be MORE of this stuff."




"Right. I've had as much of this as I can stand. Engage Attack Mode. DIE, tawdry item - DIE."



There. You'll not be buying anything with a Cartier label NOW, will you? If you will, you're a stronger man than I am. This horrible collection of jewellery must have destroyed any customer-base they might once have had, as its only possible appeal is to a non-existent target demographic that consists entirely of multi-millionaire East-End barrow-boys aged 2. Population : zero. Bad luck, Cartier. Instead of spending Lord knows how much money hiring baby leopards and fake snow etc. they should have put their advertising budget into product research and designed some things people would actually want to buy. These advertisements must make everyone think Good heavens that's not the sort of thing Araminta would wear, not even when she's been on the Bolly; I shan't go to Cartier for her present.

 

 

Araminta refers you to the 18ct gold hunter in the previous post, if you want to please her at Christmas.

 

 



Advertising Done Incorrectly. The Sad Consequences.

It costs £23,625 to put an advertisement on the back cover of Saturday Times magazine, and £27,195 for a full page in the Times newspaper. It really does. Usually I just make up the data for my blog posts but these are the genuine figures. You would think that if they were going to spend that amount of money the watch companies would make sure their advertisements were definitely going to persuade people to buy their wares.
But look at this:

Patek Philippe! What possessed them? NO-ONE - NO-ONE - is going to buy any of their watches now! Who would EVER run the risk of being thought of as being like these beastly people depicted here? That overly-immaculate man is clearly getting too much money if he can afford to wear an expensive watch like that for rough games like rowing. The child is Fotherington-Thomas come back to us, and he looks covetously at the watch instead of listening to his father's instructions about not catching a crab. The father is about to smack him one whilst saying "Get your eyes off my watch, Brat. Over my dead body you are having that." (They actually admit that in the text, if you read between the lines.) Also no gentleman worthy of the name would own such an ugly watch; and as for the matching cufflinks... here we see vulgarity taken to new limits.

This self-defeating advertisement graced the whole back page of the Times magazine recently.

 

 

 

Rolex are just as bad, because this took up a page of the Times on 19th November: 

Who the devil are all these nonentities? One of them is, I think, Elvis Presley, there's a bird who might be Sophia Loren but I'm not sure, and apart from that... one of them could be William Hague though it seems unlikely. There's a fellow dressed up as a Cherokee brave for some reason, and what is presumably a ghastly sportsman (the one kissing a big cup). What they have got to do with Rolex I can not tell, and the idea that their pictures could make me want to buy a Rolex watch is absurd. There is no clear picture of any watch so it's a remarkably unhelpful use of the page. 

As for the WORDS -  dear oh dear. "This watch is a witness"? No, mate. It's a watch. It just sits there, with its hands going round. It is not a witness to anything and it does not "dare men faster", or further, or any other speed or distance. This is TOSH. Someone at the advertising agency must be squirming with shame at having written the stuff. It's as bad as that terrible British Airways campaign "To fly. To serve.", though admittedly that one granted our family HOURS of amusement teasing our brother who works for them. Anyway, you won't catch me buying a Rolex after THIS, I can tell you.

 

 

Look, boys. THIS is an advertisement that would make people buy your watch:

 

18 ct Gold Hunter.

Keeps good time.

£5

Available now

from Jewellers in Minehead High Street.

 

 

That's all you need. A fine product, with a picture to show you how lovely it is, and information about the price and where to buy it from. Notice the complete lack of silly gimmicks. The customers will flock to your counters. I am afraid it may be too late for Rolex and Patek Philippe, but thanks to me other manufacturers can benefit from the mistakes made by those foolish firms.

N.B: About the price, £5 :  I am sorry but this is a lie.

Another Soul-destroying Leaflet from the Government

Here we are. Another attempt by our masters to keep us miserable and subdued.

Page 1



Page 2

 

 

Page 3

 

No, actually. Do NOT use the space to write notes about keeping safe on your birthday. Make lists of the wine and beer you are going to buy for your party and the unsuitable guests you will invite.

 

 

 

Page 4

 

Templates for this and other Govt. publications are available as Word documents from G-AHLK and can be easily personalised to suit your own birthday person. Let me know if you would like me to email them to you. Tremendously useful.

 

Photography Homework

I  have undertaken a Photography Assignment whose aim was to try to take some photographs in the style of Martin Parr. 

The 2 pictures below represent my best attempts. Some critical remarks are appended.

 

Image 1 

Weymouth 2013

The background here is cluttered which is typical Parr practice. Quite correct.

Garish light conditions prevailed at the time of taking the photograph, in accordance with Mr Parr's established principles.

Jaunty camera angle is another Parr trait which this photographer has emulated. Well done.

A lack of litter, however, lets this picture down. The foreground should have been abounding with food wrappers, discarded chips, beer cans and cigarette packets. Left bare, it presents a large expanse with nothing of interest in it. A profound blunder.

Composition shows some Parr-like tendencies - the top of the buildings cut off, the presence of waste bins, the fisherman's face obscured by his hand, the little girls not facing the camera - but the gentleman on the bicycle (though his unpleasant apparel is a characteristic Parr cipher) is too well-placed for this picture to be an authentic work. A pole of some sort bisecting the frame would also be required in a genuine Parr picture.

Superficially quite a commendable attempt to take a photograph that might be mistaken for a Parr, but a little analysis reveals glaring shortcomings to anyone who knows Parr's methods.

Image 2

Bennett's on the Waterfront, Weymouth

Another fair try.

Again, a cluttered background, glaring light, a waste bin in the picture, and unco-operative figures refusing to acknowledge the camera. In this shot we have also a car bumper in the bottom left hand corner - a nicely Parrian touch, especially when paired with the tiny bit of a car's front end at the right hand side of the picture; full marks for that - credit where due.

Evaluation of the camera angle is slightly problematic but careful study will show that the photographer here has held the camera all but level, which reveals poor attention to detail. The litter is absent, as is any dominant pole; and the Parr habit of cutting off the edges of his subjects would have had the "Bennett's on the Waterfront" sign partially obscured to read, say, "nett's on the W". Furthermore the man in the blue coat would have struck a more discordant, Parrian, note had he been walking out of the frame rather than into it. As it is, because he is looking at the other 2 figures he seems connected to them and that makes the 3 a coherent group. A fatal mistake which Parr would never have made. These facts betray the originator of this image as an artist who falls far short of Parr's ideal.

 

The final mark for this candidate can therefore be no more than a β-.

 

 

My comments. 

A photograph taken in the manner of Martin Parr should include

• Overly bright light : which I have faithfully applied.
• Camera angle of approx. 15° out of true : Image 1 has this but I forgot to use it in Image 2.
• Waste bins : Both pictures feature these. Good.
• Cluttered backgrounds : Done. 10/10.
• Litter in foreground : Not evident in either photo. Poor. Weymouth is too salubrious an area. I could have scattered litter about prior to taking photos but this is frowned upon in Dorset society. Besides, men in white coats would have come and placed me into padded custody - and rightly so.
• Subjects cut off against side of photo : Got this in Image 2 (the cars). Splendid.
• Composition breaking accepted rules : I tried, God knows I tried, but it is difficult to override instincts which have always served one well.

The skill lies in i) finding the scene, and ii) waiting till just the wrong moment. Mr Parr has mastered it; but WHY? WHY?

The attainment of expertise such as Mr Parr's seems to be a lot of effort for very questionable reward. I will be deleting both pictures from my collection.

 

Here is a proper photograph, for which I would expect an α++ at the least: 

 

 

Actually I didn't take this but I wish I had. Steve McCurry took it. God bless him. It breaks ALL M Parr's rules and is therefore marvellous. Justifiably a v. famous picture, of an Afghan Girl in 1984.