BIG IDEAS, SMALLS SPACES, LONG JOURNEY

Digital transformation in marketing means using technology to continuously evolve all aspects of the business model, including what it offers, how it interacts with customers, and how it operates.

But what does it mean for creatives, and what are the implications for creativity?

Programmatic, dynamic creative optimization, AI and automation make most creatives in the industry roll their eyes, cringe and simultaneously freeze their brains. But, today, storytelling can happen in various forms and channels, offering opportunities to deliver a message seamlessly and dynamically. At first, it can look fragmented, but in the end, it builds a complete story mosaic in the consumers' minds. However, if storytelling on Stories, bumper, and reels is already challenging, imagine creating Big ideas that will exist mostly on straightforward and shorter formats?

This may look challenging and yet a simple shift, but it's far more complex than it shows. Traditionally, we think about a Big Idea, then apply it to a long format like TV spot, for example, and then trickle it down to social, programmatic, display, etc. But in today's digital, image, and social-driven speed, every second counts; everything is measurable and demands reach and efficiency. That's because competition for viewers' attention has increased immensely in the last few years. Mainly brands are competing with other brands' messages, and on top of it, with user-generated content, which makes the digital space incredibly crowded.

Today's challenge for creatives is to shift the way we work and ideate – flipping it from traditional creative Big Ideas and campaign narratives ideation to thinking of Big Ideas that unlocks the power of small formats, dynamic and always-on social content with the most reach, following a customer journey, connecting channels, and identifying opportunities for disruptive technology to build a cohesive campaign tapestry.

It's been said that a Big Idea is channel agnostic, which is very accurate. But to industry creatives, it is crucial to collaborate with experts to feed Big Ideas with behavior insights data to curate, translate and customize them through innovative and optimized formats. Creative Technologists, Data Analysts, Strategists, and Media and Community Leads, these are the experts.

Even with expert support, the challenges for creativity are enormous. The current competitive landscape demands more functional and straightforward messages delivered in short spaces and formats with enough impact to engage consumers to fall in love with a brand ethos or offer one click away from purchasing.

Consumers today are accustomed to making decisions in a heartbeat. Sometimes all they need is to watch a 10 seconds ad to decide to purchasing the advertised item in a matter of seconds. Just like that. It happens to everyone, at any time of the day, and often it was unplanned - and as we all know, we frequently end up purchasing things on a whim that we simply don't need. But it proves how much is at stake when looking at a seemingly innocent 10 seconds digital ad.

But the mandate for disruptive creativity doesn't stop there. Consumers behave differently on each platform. That's why technology, data and consumer behavior insights are crucial to finding the perfect moment to capture viewers' attention on these platforms. Clarity on what business problem creative needs to solve and balance between transaction and brand building is decisive. It takes a lot of work for a few seconds ad to deliver on this expectation. Never before has so much relied on clear-cut briefings and creativity to move consumers' fingers and increase business performance.

Still, creatives feel that campaign briefings have become more tactical and with many more limiting building blocks. It's true. It's also true that, at first, they might look less sexy and inspiring. But think of that digital ad that, in a split second, made you buy a very unnecessary product. It still offers an opportunity to be creatively disruptive, making Big Ideas come to life in many tiny spaces that build a whole narrative cutting through the noise to reach audiences more meaningfully and delightfully. One itty-bitty spot at a time. Today, storytelling doesn't play out entirely in one single ad anymore; instead, the complete story comes to life through the digital landscape ride.

The marketing environment has changed, but a good creative is always up for a good challenge. Today's digital sandbox offers a variety of tools for creativity, but it also comes with a provocation: never giving up on Big Ideas but thinking of them as a journey.

THE SQUARE BELONGS TO US ALL

In the last few years, Elon Musk and Kanye West have established a reputation among the most controversial personalities in the social media space, mainly because of their off-the-cuff, insensitive, and sometimes plain delusion comments and political stance. But, simultaneously, they accumulated loads of wealth. Likewise, Mark Zuckerberg has made many questionable comments, and his robotic behavior only added to his odd character. But in his case, the extent of his company's lack of moral bearing, now Meta and forever Facebook, certainly set his reputation as one of the world's most heartless and apathetic people. Still, the entrepreneur was among the top ten wealthiest Americans not long ago.

Only a couple of years back, they were riding the highs, exponentially increasing their wealth, and celebrated as disruptor entrepreneurs reshaping industries, behaviors, entertainment, politics, and the world. However, now they are most optimistically in hot waters or on the brink of being canceled.

In November last year, Tesla CEO Elon Musk became the first person to obtain a $300 billion fortune. Less than a year later, he lost more than 100 billion dollars. However, although, according to Forbes, he is still the wealthiest person on the planet, his Twitter buying imbroglio made him sell more Tesla stocks, forcing the electric cars company to lose value.

Kanye West's Antisemitism comments took $1.5 billion off his net worth because Adidas cut ties with the music producer and fashion entrepreneur. Ye's wealth, formerly known as Kanye West, is no way closer to the other two, but like them, his erratic behavior, questionable ethics, and public statements begin to take a toll, and he starts to lose public opinion support everywhere too.

Zuckerberg is now the 20th wealthiest person with a total net worth of $55.3 billion—down $70.2 billion due to Meta's sharp share price decline. But while Zuckerberg is trying to recreate his social media-based empire in the metaverse space, the other two are doubling down on having their own megaphones. Musk just closed the 44 billion to buy Twitter, and Ye is allegedly in talks to buy the ultra-right social network Parler.

They have many differences, but social media have them in common. A lot! However, interestingly, social media is ultimately hurting their personal brands – and businesses too. It's true; money talks and their business losses speak loud and clear.

The most ambitious and successful innovator and entrepreneur of this era, Musk is now the sole director of Twitter – Musk has fired the company's board of directors – has unfettered control over the social media platform. A self-described "free-speech absolutist," he plans to ease Twitter moderation rules. The social chatter around Twitter changes has already shown that many celebrities and civilians are leaving the platform over the fear of hate speech increase.

Last week, George Farmer, the chief executive of Parler's parent company, Parlement Technologies, confirmed talks about Ye, another self-described "free-speech absolutist, buying the right-wing platform, saying: "This deal will change the world and change the way the world thinks about free speech."

Freedom of speech was also a flag carried by Zuckerberg to try to justify Facebook's use of algorithms to subvert the openness of democracy, most famously during the 2016 US Presidential Election and Brexit. Claiming to be championing freedom of speech, Elon Musk also wasn't shy to say that banning Trump from Twitter was a mistake. He wasn't afraid of meddling in the Ukraine war, spreading Covid lies, and, most recently, retweeting conspiracy theories about the Pelosi attack.

Whether their business is booming or tanking, powerful people want more than wealth and business influence. They want to be heard and have a say in pretty much anything in how the world works. In short, they want to claim their political power. As a result, social media has become the ultimate battlefield for authority in a world where reality means much less than perception each day. But owning your megaphone gives you way more power than 120 characters could ever do. It allows you to instantly shift the narrative and public opinion, stirring it in whatever direction you want it to. All in the name of freedom of speech. However, it can also take you to your demise at the same speed.

Threatened by cancellation and woke culture, Musk and Ye are ensuring they will have a space to freely speak directly to people. Zuckerberg is taking Meta in a different direction though - how this will unfold in the metaverse still needs to be clarified. But Facebook, Twitter, Parler, and other social media platforms are based in the United States and have faced relatively little government oversight. So, it is very concerning when mighty, wealthy, and ethnically controversial people buy their own platforms to avoid being banned by others and keep their influence reach.

The silver lining is that people are worried that this century's disruptors have too much power, and in the name of freedom of speech, they are contributing to a more divisive and dangerous global town square. It highlights the need for solid government regulations for these private tech giant companies' megaphones. It echoes what John Naughton – professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University – wrote in a The Guardian article earlier this year: "Twitter is not the town square – it's just a private shop. The square belongs to us all."

THE ONE-EYED IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND

There's a famous saying in Brazil that the one-eyed is king in the land of the blind. But, on the other hand, most of the time, the one-eyed will be most likely exiled from the blind’s land.

History is full of characters who were discredited, ignored, or punished because they chose to call out something evident in plain sight. Yet, the majority of people decided not to see it. 

In Greek mythology, there's Cassandra, the Trojan priestess who was given the gift of prophecy but was also cursed so that her true prophecies would not be believed. 

"And yet it moves" is a famous phrase attributed to Galileo Galilei after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than the converse. Galileo was sentenced to imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition, under which he remained for the rest of his life.

In recent history, there's the case of Martha Mitchel. The outspoken and flamboyant wife of Nixon's Attorney General was the first person to open up to journalists about the Watergate break-in. Editors didn't take Mitchell seriously or didn't want to give her much credit. Still, Nixon's political machinery spread rumors to disrepute her, and as a result, she was largely discredited and even abandoned by most of her family. When Nixon finally admitted, "If it hadn't been for Martha Mitchell, there'd have been no Watergate," she was finally vindicated but died soon after. Later, psychologist Brendan Maher coined the "the Martha Mitchell Effect" to refer to someone diagnosed as delusional for making seemingly outlandish claims — but is actually telling the truth. Martha Mitchel was the modern Cassandra.

In today's highly polarized society, where shifting a narrative and cancel culture has become prevalent, it's becoming increasingly harder to asses truth or anything in accordance with fact or reality. In his paper "Democracy Devouring Itself," Professor of Political Science and Psychological Science Shawn W. Rosenberg argues that the concept of truth has been declining, and ultimately, it can cause the demise of modern democracy. He believes that a combination of people now getting their news from social media instead of established news outlets – which helps fake news proliferate – and society's experts and public figures being sidelined, contributed to a blurry landscape where it's harder to fact-check reality.

Rosenberg makes the case that historically, the elites – senators, journalists, intellectuals, historians, scientists, professors, judges, and government leaders, among others – "have the motivation to support democratic culture and institutions and the power to do so effectively." To him, this elite has consistently helped people to parse what's factual or not, squashing conspiracy theories and calling out populists for their inconsistencies. Today, with the rise of social media, anyone can make a false claim that can potentially stick. Ironically, it makes it harder for whistleblowers or one-eyeds to be heard or even noticed.

In fact, our human beings' biases skew our brains at the most fundamental level, which it can be fatal to truth assessment. We discount evidence when it doesn't align with our goals, choosing information that confirms our biases. In Martha Mitchell's case, for example, the fact she was a woman – especially a flamboyant girly-girl socialite from the South – made people think she wasn't credible.

Of course, there are an overwhelming variety of conspiracy theories, hysteria, fiction, and alternative facts around us. From silly like Chicken Little to creepy Qnon, with controversy-seeking Kanye in between. But certainly, living among us, regular humans, there are people with a divergent take on current topics; people who question the status quo based on a particular, but nevertheless factual, perception of reality. Perhaps, they might sound or look different than the majority, but maybe that’s exactly where their power lies. Because, in the land of the blind, to take a glimpse of a different future, sometimes all we need is a cyclops.

TO BURN UNTIL FUEL IS EXHAUSTED

It happens almost every night before sleep or when I wake up. It's like a flash and usually doesn't last more than a few minutes before I push it away. At that moment, I try to convince myself that facing my weakness is my strength and to embrace anxiety instead of fighting it. However, contemplating our weaknesses can be genuinely empowering but equally exhausting.

According to WHO, approximately 450 million people worldwide experience some type of mental disorder. In 2020 only, statistics show that 40% of American adults were struggling with mental issues due to the pandemic. However, a new Gallup-Workhuman’s report found that 25% of employees describe being burned out at work "very often" or "always"— meaning that energy, motivation, and productivity is declining for a quarter of the workforce.

I don't know if my daily struggles with anxiety are as bad as the 25% of people on this report. But, still, I suspect that the number of people dealing with stress is also more considerable.

The modern concept of burnout began making tides in 2019 when the World Health Organization officially included the phenomenon in the International Classification of Diseases. After that, the world entered a global pandemic and faced war threats, political polarization, and inflation, and continued moving towards an environmental collapse. These have become global persistent and indefinite stressors, heightening everyone's risk of burnout.

But more recent data is showing an alarming picture of the state of mental health today. As a reference, according to The Harris Poll, about 63% of Americans said the pandemic forever changed their lives. As a result, the survey revealed that the continued hardships fed into unhealthy coping habits such as increased drinking and sedentary behavior. Reports show that adults feel emotionally overwhelmed and fatigued, with 87% agreeing that it "feels like there has been a constant stream of crises without a break over the last two years."

But, as much as we have been working long hours and under unrelenting pressure, and although data shows that the economy has recovered since 2020 – only in the U.S., reports show that the economic recovery from the pandemic has been remarkably fast, with a GDP growth of 5.7 percent in 2021 – it seems it isn't enough and the world’s economy appears to be still struggling. The National Bureau of Economic Research survey showed that nearly 70% of economists predict a recession will start in the first two quarters of 2023. It mirrors what the head of the International Monetary Fund said last Thursday – Kristalina Georgieva, warned that a toxic mix of inflation, higher borrowing costs, and lingering supply chain disruptions increase global recession risks.

An overwhelming wealth of data shows that the burnout driven by today's society's stressors is only getting higher – the hamster wheel and the world's current challenges get more intense daily. Still, the gloomy global economy forecast is a creepy reality check. It begs us to stop and think, "where is this going to end?” So, coping with morning anxiety seems to be a minor problem compared with looking ahead and fearing the end of the day. Something's gotta give.

THE SHORTEST GENERATION ICONS ARE NOT READY TO LEAVE

It might shock Millenials and Gen Zs, but most of what they have been doing is harvesting or reloading what Gen Xers had planted. In fact, being born before the internet, still highly adjusted to it, Gen Xers are the bridge between Boomers and Millenials. Yet, at the same time, this generation's legacy simultaneously paved the way for Gen Z. 

Somewhere in between Boomers and Millenials, Gen X was born, and their impact on pop culture shaped generations to come. Fiercely independent, irreverently cynical outsiders, nonchalant sartorialists, contradictory slackers, and work-hard-play-hard iconoclasts – these are some of the qualities attributed to them. The Gen X icons captured the era's spirit, and their influence and legacy remain, whether true G Xers or late Bloomers who left their mark on G Xers. In many ways, they never left. And they don't show signs of going away any time sooner.

Just look around and see Gen X is still everywhere. Top Gun Maverick - the seventh-highest-grossing movie of all time in U.S. theaters - is there to prove it. But there's more. Recently, we saw the revival of many 80s and 90s hits like Sex and the City, Will & Grace, 90210, Melrose Place, Fuller House, Miami Vice, Footloose, Fame, GhostBusters, Hairspray, and many more. So today, it seems that the long-lasting Gen X's legacy is still fresh enough for a spin-off, reboot, or reload. 

Born from 1965 to 1980, Gen Xers have been pushing the boundaries of youth and age for six decades. They were the first to claim that the 40s are the new 30s. And then the '50s are the new 40s. So obviously, they would argue that the 60s are the new 50s – or 40s, 30s...?

Gen X kids grew up in broken families – in 1975, for the first time, divorces reached the 1 million mark in the U.S. Back then, kids spent most of their time alone at home, becoming the first generation to grow up in front of the T.V.. As a result, they were bombarded by advertising – combined with being left alone; researchers believe it's one reason for Gen X's cynicism. There was also political and economic turmoil, crack, and the AIDS crisis.

Gen X challenged society's status quo by using music as their weapon, from punk rock to grunge, hip hop, and everything in between and after. Of course, the T.V. generation used the same channel – just like Millennials and Gen Z used digital - to fuse everything going on and push it back to the world, forever transforming culture. There wouldn't be an Instagram image-eating society like ours today without MTV and pop music exploding in 1981. Precisely the same year researchers believe to be the birth of Millenials. But in the early 80s, Gen X's reign was still in its infancy.

But the technological evolution and democratization of cosmetics procedures, fitness phenomenon, and overall health improvement made it possible for Gen Xers to be still alive and kicking today. It allowed the iconoclastic Gen Xers to continue to push the envelope of what is considered cool and age-appropriate. 

A late Bloomer and Gen X icon, Madonna carried the flag of sexual liberation through generations and made history by becoming the first woman to earn Billboard 200 Top 10 albums each decade since the '80s. Recently, while promoting her Finally Enough Love– 50 Billboard Number Ones - the singer appeared in a YouTube "50 questions video" – out of 50, 10 times her answer was "sex." Despite her attempts to appear younger, making her look more like an alien than anything, Madonna keeps holding tight and wants sex to be ageless. One thing that Gen X inherited from Boomers and passed along to Millenials and Gen Z is sexual freedom. In fact, heirs of Madonna's outspoken and provocative stand on sexuality, today Megan Thee Stallion, Nikki Minaj, and even true Millennial Britney Spears, pretty much recycled the blonde ambition provocateur's 80's and 90's attitude.

But while Madonna still overuses cosmetic procedures and sex to remain relevant, other Gen Xers, like Nicole Kidman, try to promote an eternal fitness beauty goddess status. This month the Oscar-winning 55 years old star featured the cover of Perfect Magazine, showing ripped-toned arms that could envy any teenager. Her athletic look is vaguely reminiscent of another Oscar-winning star who made history in the 80s and triggered the modern obsession with fitness and gym: Jane Fonda. The actress's 1982 workout program is still today the highest-selling home video in history; Fonda, a trendsetter in her own way, was 45 years old then. Probably, to young Gen Xers like Kidman watching Fonda, that's when the idea that you can be younger forever was planted.

Parallel to Kidman's approach to beauty and health, her iconic star ex-husband is cashing on a similar route. Tom Cruise, now 60, relived his Top Gun character, channeling the same athletic macho American hero of almost 30 years ago. The attempt to revamp the failing star actor paid off big time. It took him back to the similar blockbuster stardom he had when Top Gun 1 thrilled not only the Gen X audience but also the infant Millenials. Now it's Gen Z's turn.

And then it all comes full circle. The tiny generation that once milked everything that came from T.V. – from advertising to cable shows and MTV's fusion of music and image – still wants to be relevant and forever young. It shows that they are not ready to leave the stage of today's social media-driven image-obsessed world – which they helped to create and inspire. Press reload.

THIS IS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. REPEAT.

The last decade spearheaded an always-on disruptive mode which found its best translation in Mark Zuckerberg's "move fast, break things" motto. This concept promoted radical changes through technological advancements and reshaped the global economy and politics. Suddenly, rapid and exponential changes became the world's new order. As a result, the world as we knew it didn't last long enough for most people catching up with it anymore. Fast forward to the 2020s, many things have been broken along the way, but so little has been fixed. In fact, living in a constant state of transformation makes us feel as if we are building things while they are already falling apart. Just like Caetano Veloso wrote about Brazil in his 1991 song Out of Order: "Here everything seems it was still under construction And it's already ruined."

It seems the world's iteration flux loop is leading us to the brink of exhaustion. The idea of taking time to develop something was replaced by an always-on beta mode. Taking time to fully build anything is an old concept that seems to be an obstacle to transformation. However, time has never been of the essence as it is now. Jumping start returning to normal has ignored that the world as we know it's already over. Instead of moving forward, it feels like we are speeding up to the end with an incessant ticking of a time bomb approaching its blasting.

But why are we running faster? Our modern western society evolved under the ethos that competition is the fuel to evolution. The idea of the survival of the fittest created a belief in the dichotomy that winning or losing is a natural way of living. Probably inspired by nature, we saw the world as either we are prey or the hunter. But nature dynamic is far more complex. Looking closer, what superficially looks like a simple case of killing or being killed reveals that it's far more collaborative than it shows. Every living creature on Earth follows a cycle whose primary purpose is feeding the planet's existence. For 4.543 billion years, Earth has gone through four main periods and many environmental changes. It constantly reinvented itself, being humans just a tiny portion of it. So there's no winning or losing when it comes to nature against us because nature will always win. The truth is that we aren't conquering nature because our world ceases to exist without it. And once we are scrapped off the Earth's surface, nature will rebuild itself and move on.

War, Covid, monkeypox, polio reload. The world is falling apart before our eyes while we fight to win. We've been moving and breaking things faster; every day the is another ending of the world as we know it. And yet, we keep trying to back to "normal." Repeating a formula that isn't working anymore and simultaneously perfecting a recipe for disaster.

Meanwhile, there's always a sense of urgency. Getting back to normal, stopping Trump from coming back, stopping Bolsonaro to winning a second term, reaching Mars, selling more, being number one. We keep flip-flopping looking to best worst case scenario – always ending on the same dilemma – or beating the competition. There's always a threat or a goal that we need to meet, preferably this quarter, that has a potential do-or-die effect on our countries, lives, careers, anything. Still, who is winning this race? And more importantly, what are we racing against?

We are sowing the seeds of disruption that we planted ourselves. At the same time, we are celebrating the few winners, forgetting that the majority needs to lose for these winners' existence, glory, and victory. The majority means today, 7,753 billion people, of which only 77,530,000 qualify as winners. These are the infamous one percent. The irony is that without the 99% losers, the one percent winners won't survive. So much for being the winner.

The world as we know it has ended. There are no winners left, only losers.

JENNY FROM THE BLOCK: FROM HUSTLE TO HARD SELL.

Jlo is a well-rounded phenomenon. From her notorious ever-lasting natural beauty - which unbelievably she credits to the powers of olive oil - to her successful musical career and Hollywood stardom, Jennifer Lopez is proud to have hustled her way to the top. However, for decades her glamorous persona and highly public romantic relationships overshadowed her many achievements. As a result, Lopez believes the industry never took her seriously. But now, with her new Netflix documentary, she wants to establish her legacy and set her record straight.

After a timid start as a fly girl in the “Living Colors “television series, Lopez scored the first leading role in the singer Selena's biopic, making her the first Latina actress ever to sign a 1 million dollar movie contract. She also received her first best actress Golden Globe nomination for this role, which she didn't win. 

Lopez became a tabloid sensation staple with the famous green Versace dress. That dress generated a massive online search that triggered the creation of Google images. But her multiple high-profile romances leading up to the Bennifer mania solidified her as a headline fixture. Back then, with the release of her “Jenny from the Block “ music video – featuring Ben Affleck - JLo was everywhere, but mainly not because of her music or movie career. The colossal flop of “Jersey Girl,” staring with her beau Affleck, following their wedding cancelation and ultimate break up, hit the singer/actress career hard. Following a relatively unsuccessful period, she hustled her way back to the top in 2011 with her appearance as a judge on “American Idol” and the release of her seventh studio album, “Love?”. In 2004, she bounced back romantically, marrying Latino pop star icon Mark Anthony. They had two children together before divorcing in 2014.

But the 2019/2021 cycle looked like it was Jlo's time. In September 2019, she modeled an updated version of her Green Versace dress at Milan Fashion Week– her appearance generated $31.8 million in total media impact value. Then later, she was cast to headline the 2020 Super Bowl Halftime Show – hence the title of the Netflix documentary. In the documentary, she complains about the NFL's decision to have her sharing the stage with Shakira, but her performance was a colossal success. The duo headliners brought an average of 103.4 million viewers to the halftime show. Later, Lopez performed at the 2021 inauguration of President Joe Biden when she sang "This Land Is Your Land" and "America the Beautiful", while also reciting the last phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish. Then, there was the Globes and Oscar buzz. Her performance in the crime drama Hustlers – which she co-produced- garnered critical acclaim, and many believed she was a sure bet at the awards show season. But she didn't win the Globes again, and she wasn't even nominated for the Oscars 

That extreme media exposure parallels what happened in 2001, during the Bennifer sensation. This time though, Lopez was everywhere again, but instead of her personal life, her talent was in the spotlight. And just like she did in the past when she was a beginner dancer, crossing from the Bronx to Manhattan on the L train, fighting for the spotlight, JLo hustled hard. It echos Donna Summer 70's hit song, saying, "She works hard for the money."

“Halftime” showcases her drive to become a dancer and establish herself as an accomplished actress and singer. In the documentary, Lopez says that from the start, she knew she would need to work harder to succeed and prove her talent just because she's a Latina. And that's what she did; she worked harder. Watching her exercise routine to get prepared for the Superbowl is exhausting to anyone, especially when you think Lopez has just turned 50 years that year.

Her documentary tries to set the record straight about her multiple accomplishments - from performer, singer, and actress to mom, Latina, and social advocate- but it ends up looking like a glorified infomercial. JLo is on a mission to get people to take her seriously, and while highlighting her success and layered talents, she isn't apologetic about being glamorous and sexy. And perhaps that is precisely what makes the documentary compelling. It makes viewers realize that for a woman, especially Latina, freely expressing her sexuality still makes people doubt her talent and commitment to her craft. History has a long line of iconic women who struggled with the same challenges – Marylin Monroe is probably the most famous example. But Jennifer Lopez belongs to a lineage of women who challenge the status quo and want to be superwomen. However, she went from little to a lot, people still won't forgive her for the rocks she's got.

"Halftime" highlights that hustling is part of being Latina as much as being a woman in this business. And JLo shows she has been doing it relentlessly for 3 decades– she doesn't give signs of giving up too. Instead, the documentary serves up her credentials, building excitement for her career's next cycle. But maybe because of her over-media exposure, it falls short by coming across as hard selling.

WHAT COMES AFTER 15 MINUTES OF FAME?

The Kardashians are back. And almost simultaneously with the reality show's arrival, The Andy Warhol's Diaries series hit Netflix.

It's interesting watching Warhol's Diaries and looking for parallels between the Pop Art genius’s views and the success of the K Klan -one of today's most famous pop culture expressions.

I imagine that if Andy Warhol was still alive, he would probably think Kim Kardashian is the perfect embodiment of his ideas. But there are probably more similarities between them than meets the eye, as much as one is perhaps the product of the other.

Born in Pittsburg, Warhol was the first generation of Russian immigrants to the US. Warhol eagerly embraced everything of American culture and channeled it into his work, first as an illustrator, then as a celebrated artist. He found America's best inspiration and expression in entertainment, advertising, personality cult, and making money. Finally, Warhol consolidated all his fascination with America forging his own unmistakable personal brand. He famously said "being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art, working is art and good business is the best art."

In today's pop culture Kim Kardashian, and her eponymous family, are the true expression of turning a personality cult, or "being famous for being famous," into a global making money machine brand. 

For over a decade, the Kardashian family has been cashing on conversations about some of society's most controversial and relevant topics. From sex tapes to sexual gender identity and body affirmation to prison reform, the K Klan has always been on the top trending topic. As result, they built an empire whose net worth comes to over 1 billion combined. 

It seems impossible to imagine the Karsdashian’s success without Warhol's influence on culture. But they share more than this – they both also look at culture from an inside and outside point of view. Warhol and Kardashian, both first and second generations of immigrants to the US, seemed to have chewed and spilled out everything that American culture stands for. It is as if they seem to mirror society while simultaneously staring at it in awe, just like tourists arriving at a famous attraction. That shifting point of view might be one of their most appealing traits. As much as their insiders, they never stopped being outsiders. Both Warhol's and Kardashian's brands successfully became the object and the viewer simultaneously. One side is the brand, and the other is the commentator.

The Kardashian brand's extravagant, often controversial lifestyle mix is perfect for today's quick and straightforward snack content social media-driven culture. It's very visual and easy to digest, just like Pop Art. After all, you don't need to understand much about art to appreciate the fascination with Warhol's work. From the iconic Campbell Soup painting, Interview Magazine, celebrity's portrait series to his collaboration with graffiti artist Jean Michel Basquiat, Warhol's artistic expression truly helped the democratization of art.

But beyond the monumental importance of his body of work, Warhol's persona shines bright. Famously known for being monosyllabic and monotonic, Warhol's produced one of the most iconic quotes in history, proving prophetic: “everybody will be famous for 15 minutes”. Kim Kardashian's masterminding of social media catapulted her family to an incomparable level of celebrity that extends far beyond 15 minutes. However, if soon everybody will have their 15 minutes of fame, what happens next? Once everybody is famous, then is the concept of fame still valid? As much of a visionary as Warhol was, he died before predicting what would come next. So it's curious to think if The Kardashians show will be leasing another 15 minutes, or maybe their time is up.

POLARIZATION IS MAKING US SICK

In a highly polarized clickbait-fueled world, we are all acting out of resentment towards a world we lost. The partisan political tensions, the failure of our social institutions, the environmental collapse, a global pandemic, and a social-media-driven narcissistic society created a dystopian echo chamber where we are all disillusioned and needing to speak up. As a result, cancellation culture became entertainment. While we struggle with a 2-year pandemic and a potential nuclear war threat, the Depp Vs Heard trial became our distraction– or our catharsis. Is she lying? Or is he? The social chatter is undecided but leaning towards Depp. Some people even think that taking Heard down will trigger the death of the #metoo movement. We wonder if she is just a bad person? Is he an abusive man disguised by the charms of a likable character? Or are they just another dysfunctional couple with their neurosis going way more profound than today's society narrative about power?

I think that the ferocity that people are following every piece of news about the trial and the vileness on social media reflects our own state of mind. But it goes deeper than what it seems: we are all sick. 

Last January, Michelle Goldberg, author and New York Times Opinion columnist, wrote about a recent study by Kevin B. Smith – chair of the political science department at the University of Nebraska. The study suggests that the current political environment is a torment much more significant than we'd realized.

The "Politics Is Making Us Sick: The Negative Impact of Political Engagement on Public Health During the Trump Administration" study reports that around 40 percent of Americans "consistently identify politics as a significant source of stress in their lives." Moreover, people from both parties noted that political stress during the Trump years has damaged their health. Shockingly, 5% of people have considered suicide in response to political developments.

I personally experienced the effects on my mental health during the Trump years while living in NYC. After 4 years of Bolsonaro and living an election year, my friends in Brazil report similar signs of distress. 

So, it's easy to redirect all our passion and frustration to the Depp Vs Heard. The Hollywood stars' trial became society's modern version of "panis et circences". While we feast on the painful public display of the breakdown of a romantic relationship, we can put aside our own frustrations and anger for a moment.

Now, we are experiencing a few pockets of relief, giving us the confidence to go out and interact with others and the world in person. But as we step outside, we find out that the world has changed dramatically. Not only the world looks more somber and knocked down, people look the same way too. Whether we feel like we need to top others' misery or simply dismiss them, we are eagerly craving attention. It seems like our empathetic qualities were severely decreased after a long period of isolation. People are in desperate need to share their misery and have their frustration validated. Pushing blame, calling out, and canceling is just an expression of how badly we feel victimized by what's happening in the world and how much we are yearning to be heard.

Taking sides, venting our disillusion, or dismissing others, won't change that we are angry with what has become of the world. Likewise, it doesn't matter if Depp or Heard wins. Just like today's Left Vs Right narrative, they are both sides of the same coin. Sadly, whatever will come next is as good as a coin flip. 

SLAPPING AND SHIFTING THE NARRATIVE

Ok. Let's break it down: Jada Pinket, badass Jada, needed her man to defend her because of a bad joke? Jada Pinket, movie star, talk show host, all-too-white 2016 Oscar boycott instigator, who has been openly vocal about her personal life, needed her man to smack another fellow black artist on live tv because of a joke gone wrong?

In short: a powerful and outspoken woman needed her man to defend her because of a stupid joke minutes before what would have been his most glorious career moment?

It's hard to know what was going on will smith's mind or in the couple's personal life at that moment, but wtf?

I read somewhere that when a black man protects his wife from the majorly white elite, he invites other black men to take their place as protectors. I'm not in a position to question or discredit a black woman's voice addressing how her community should handle a situation like that. However, it's hard for me to believe it validates any type of violence. I can't help thinking of another powerful black woman's word saying when they go low, we go high. Yes, that was Michele Obama.

There's nothing more ancient than the idea that men need to protect women. And I believe Jada is among the women who stood for and fought for having the right to stand up by themselves and claim equality as a baseline.

But what bothers me the most about the whole incident is Will Smith's attempt to shift the narrative in his acceptance speech. Telling that love makes you crazy is not a valid excuse. Love has been making men crazy for centuries, and its result is a history of abuse against women.

But Will Smith's words during his speech are more telling than the slap on Chris Rock's face. It shows how much we are used to narrative twists and turns to change reality to look for sympathy. We watched what happened, and the attempt to gaslight people by claiming his role as a protector is shameless.

Smith resigned after the academy decided to put the incident under review. But even with a damage control strategy in full speed, the Oscar winning actor will be canceled, and the digging up the past to review everything he ever said and posted is in full steam. It’s a nobody wins scenario– a historical moment that has been overshadowed by a stupid act is sad enough. But the words that came out of his mouth were more damaging than the act itself.

Like Denzel wisely said, the devil tempted Smith at his highest moment. This could have happened to anyone. Unfortunately, it did happen, and I'm sure that even Chris Rock feels sorry for him. I believe Smith deserves everyone's understanding as much as he needs to be accountable for a regrettable event. However, this is an opportunity to stop calling out, and instead call people in too. Disqualifying Smith is not the answer. This as an opportunity to pay attention and wise up.

The incident reminds us that shifting a narrative can be used simply to rewrite history. But history is happening right in front of our eyes. Meanwhile, people are trying to write something stranger than fiction.

FAKE IT TO TILL YOU MAKE IT GENERATION

In HBO's documentary, The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley, about disgraced entrepreneur Elizabeth Holmes, behavioral economist Dan Ariel claims, "we have lots of people who are overconfident, and from time to time some of them work out, and we get penicillin." He argues that the Theranos founder, despite all her scamming and fraudulent deceiving, actually believed she could make it. Theranos, according to Elizabeth Holmes, was going to revolutionize healthcare.

After dropping out of Stanford in 2003, she used her tuition money to start her company. By 2010 she had raised 92 million dollars in venture capital, and Theranos's board of directors was recognized as "the most illustrious board in U.S. corporate history." In 2014, she appeared in Forbes 400 as the world's youngest self-made female billionaire. At that time, Theranos was valued at $9 billion.

Fast forward to January 3, 2022, when Holmes was found guilty on four counts of defrauding investors – three counts of wire fraud and one of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. After that, Theranos literally had no value anymore.

Holmes fashioned herself to a select group of incredibly successful disruptors– Musk, Zuckerberg, Besos, and her idol Steve Jobs. But she wasn't only after money. Instead, accumulating wealth would result from her real goal: fame.

The HBO documentary and Hulu's miniseries, The Dropout, both based on the Theranos creator story, share a sneak peek on Holmes's public persona overhaul. From her voice – when in public, an octave lower with formal instructional cadence, to her daily uniform—a black suit and a black cotton turtleneck, and hair pinned into an unruly bun. In her days of glory, the N.Y. Times described Holmes's look as promoting "impressions of power like confidence, and single-minded, maybe ruthless, in the pursuit of a goal." In fact, her public image helped Theranos raise $945 million from high-profile investors, including former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Rupert Murdoch, and the Walton family.

Such attention and dedication in meticulously crafting her public persona reminded me of another character involved in a recent notorious scandal-turned-into-miniseries-and-documentary: Anna Sorokin.

Like Holmes, Sorokin, aka Anna Delvey, believed she was destined to do something unique. In her case, it was the Anna Delvey Foundation– a private members' club and "dynamic visual arts" foundation to be housed in a historic building at 281 Park Avenue South. Holmes, wearing her Steve Jobs-inspired turtleneck dressed like a tech disruptor, fooled heavyweight investors. Delvey, with her signature Celine dark glasses, Dior, and Fendi clothing, perfected the heiress look and impressed the NYC glitzy circles. Dressing the part definitely paid off to both of them. At least, until it didn't. But before it, Holmes and Sorokin could convince notorious business players that they were up to something big. In the end, they left an undeniable mark in history as con artists. But most importantly, these two machiavellian characters seemed to seriously believe in the "end justifies the means" motto– or its modern twist, "fake it till you make it." 

I can't help thinking that this generation, both Holmes and Sorokin are Millenials, were heavily influenced by the image obsession promoted by social media. But, of course, social media is the usual culprit and source of all evil in today's world. However, I feel that searching for fame has been one of the most influential drivers to success since the invention of moving pictures and the evolution of modern entertainment and media. Millennials might be taking the bad rep this time, but I suspected the seed was planted way before them.

Nevertheless, I can't avoid thinking of the implications of accepting faking as fair play or even its glamorization in today's world. One is faking reality by using filters on pictures posted on Instagram, but faking blood test results on cancer patients is entirely different. It is almost like accepting sociopathy as a conventional personality trait, like being funny or charming. Of course, we have experienced our fair share of sociopaths in recent history. But is their success and lack of empathy shaping an entirely different perception of reality? So, how far can we go faking anything before reality checks in? It seems that after the post-truth era, we might be living now in the post-fake age. 

I BOW TO THE WOMAN WHO LICKED MY FACE

The day is March 7th, 2020 – just one week before NYC declares the first Covid lockdown. The virus's sinister wings were closing down around the city, and I was at my usual Friday night spot, Hudson Bar & books, in the West Village. My husband and I were sitting at the bar talking about the ominous threat when a friend next to us decided to stick her tongue out and proceeded to decisively lick my face down from my chin all the way up to my forehead. 

Firstly: Ewwww! Secondly: Don't mess with Covid, girl! 

And thirdly: Hail to Gen Xers! Shout out to the people from the shortest generation in history whose defiant, iconoclastic, and contradictory irreverent attitude dared to challenge the order! Bless those nights when when we bonded with my friend over Dolly Parton – yeah, Dolly rocks! – and NYC style loaded with dry martinis and cigarettes puffs at our favorite smoky joint.

Fast forward to today, walking back home, AirPods on, listening to Jolene, this song reminded me of that night. It also made me think that Gen X's spirit has become the next generation's mannerism. 

If it hadn't been invented by them, Gen Xers perfected the concept of pop life, aloof coolness, existential boredom, defiant irreverence, sex, drugs, and rock'n roll. But unfortunately, this energy subsequently served on a silver trail to following generations, was mostly regurgitated, often missing the mark. 

Today, in our constantly on pause Covid lives, always glued to our feeds and believing that this simulation of life is actually living, it looks like Millennials and Gen Zers are copying the spirit, but unfortunately, simultaneously missing the substance. Here's a question to them: Is there still a part of you that wants to live?

I hear all around the cries out to be brave, be a maverick, be daring, shake society's foundation. But these became only words; they sound like empty chants that find no correspondence in actions. Sucked into our devices, we forgot the value in shock value, opting instead for mere disturbance. Yes, James Baldwin was right; artists are here to disturb the peace. But he also said that out of the disorder of life, art is about recreating a new order. 

I got it; today, it is all about tracking. Slap some recognition on it – likes, tweets, tags, hashtags, badges, trending topics, you name it – everybody is out there looking for validation only. Attention-grabbing, show stopper, oh boy, all buzz words. But the authenticity veneer is only is a schtick. If this is the new order, it was born old. So then I say, out with the new, and in with the old! Don't try to be number one, don’t care about second best either; be an odd number.

I miss the original hotstepper who could march into a room with a stray cat strut demanding attention with uniqueness. The Met Gala or any Kardashian appearance should not be confused with Ballroom culture spunk. These are no more than costume balls. It's all fun, but come on! All dressed up for the part but missing the role. We love the texture, but we deserve more context too.

So, strike a pose, Madonna. But stop trying to be relevant by copying the following generation's twitch– which, frankly, is just a caricature of what you did decades ago, Boo. Speaking of posing, give me Billy Porter over Harry Styles any day of the week. The category is authenticity, y'all! 

And just like that, make it new. But, please, don't give me a New York reload that feels more like a New Yawn. It's time to update. Let's free Britney from the prison we put her in, but let's not forget Janet there too. Let's stop canceling and rather kick off the revelation. The revelation is that the wheels are still spinning, and the time needs to be changing. So I think it's time we stop. Everybody look, what's going down?

Too much sharing how wasted and how many people you had sex with last night. Sex, drugs, and rock'n roll is a state of mind. And empowerment for the sake of empowerment can quickly trap you in a despair and disillusioned cage. Enough with recreation. We need more creation! Do it like Keith Harring, Prince, Bowie, and Basquiat! Put that sex drive and attitude to work. Like Ru Paul says, you better work, bitch! Work the room of life, show us range, and in the process, give us some rapper's delight too. Be lit, c'est chic.

Hello, hello, hello, how low. It smells like shinny happy and kinky afro people need to rock the Casbah with some sex pistols again. But, from this time, unchained, we're all looking at a different picture. Losing our religion and opening the glory box. 

It’s time to follow your heart, don't be dragged by it. Because being pulled by all your desires isn't freedom; it is slavery. Instead, be a slave to the rhythm. Own your body and soul, and let your mind flow. Be a master blaster, be a chameleon. In between days, go for never being boring. And let’s dance! We've been walking through walls and floading down for too long. Bring me back the dancing horses, unicorns and cannonballs. However do you want, however do you need me, we need more love tearing us apart. Feel free to hate me. Call me old if you like too. I'm good with it. I'd rather be old than outdated.

To my friend who unapologetically licked my face, I bow to your spirit.

Finally, to everyone else, don't be literal, please.

THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH ABOUT ADELE'S RESIDENCY, BRAZIL'S SUMMER, NYC COMEBACK AND TSUNAMIS

This week, singer Adele announced in a tearful Instagram post the postponement of her Las Vegas residency one day before it was set to kick off. Last month, the singer's residency news set a box-off record with fans snapping up all of the roughly 100,000 tickets in about six hours. Adele claimed on her Instagram video that she was "gutted" with the cancellation but claimed Covid-19 has rendered it impossible to move forward.

Also, this week, my social media feed was flooded with images from Rio de Janeiro's packed beaches. Brazil, with 213 million people, is one of the worst affected globally by the pandemic, second only to the United States. With about 70% of the population fully vaccinated, the country is among the most vaccinated globally. Still, it has recently registered record daily Covid cases.

Adele fans were disappointed, but the singer emotional video apparently moved her social media followers, the majority being sympathetic to the artist's Covid delays struggles. Meanwhile, Brazilian beachgoers seem to have decided to keep living their lives despite the omicron rise.

It is hard to imagine that an event of such scale and anticipation as the world's biggest singer Vegas residency didn't have a contingency plan to deal with Covid, or more specifically, with the rapid omicron spread. When the residency was announced last December, the world was fully aware of the omicron wildfire spread. As a result, events have been canceled from Broadway shows and New Year's Celebration to major business even before the end of 2021.

As for Brazil, summer is expected to attract thousands of people to the beach. It's summer; it's Brazil, for God's sake! However, despite omicron's initial reports suggesting the variant is less severe and Brazil's high vaccination rate, Covid's third wave hit the health workers hard again. The country's health authority estimates that between 10% and 20% have taken sick leave since the last week of 2021. Only in Rio 5,500 professionals have left their jobs since December. So much for a mild symptoms variant!

From Adele's adoring fans to Rio's beachgoers, it seems everybody opted, let's say, to have a more optimistic approach in dealing with today's Covid reality. After all, we all want this to be over. Actually, we are cheering for it! We want Adele, we want to go to the beach. And let's not forget, we want NYC to come back too!

In fact, last December, The New York Times posted a very optimistic article about the long-awaited and most debated NYC comeback. The article "Omicron Surges in NYC During Its Comeback" by Ginia Bellafante, a fashion and art critic, lists a couple of signs that the city seems pungent again. According to her, despite the predictions made during the current crisis's early and most dire stages, more than 6,300 people have newly moved to the city since July of 2021. Reports show that in 2020, New York City lost fewer people to moves, per capita, than Washington or San Francisco. However, New York City's job losses were more significant than the national average. New York hasn't made up the lost ground as the American economy has recovered. Omicron made NYC’s path to recovery more challenging.

However, Adele's residency, Brazil’s summer, and NYC comeback have more in common than Covid. There's an uncomfortable truth staring us in the face in both cases.

All over the world, it seems that the uncomfortable truth is that we all want a version of the truth that suits our desire to have the world back to what it was. And we are willing to keep living as if nothing has changed. Which is in striking contrast to the world's sentiment in early 2020. Back then, a survey from the World Economic Forum found out that people yearned for significant change across the globe rather than a return to a "pre-Covid normal." According to the survey, nearly nine in ten wanted the world to change instead of returning to how it was.

What has happened since then? Maybe we just got too tired and let the inertia take over again. Or perhaps, the changes we wanted back then revealed to be too hard to tackle. But reality keeps checking in. Wave after wave; Covid keeps reminding that not only we can't just enjoy the moment as we did before, but we can't plan anything in the future the same way anymore too. We can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.

This leads to the tsunami. Last week I flew to LA to get a booster shot and enjoy two days at the beach. Unfortunately, on my second day there, a volcano eruption in Tonga triggered a tsunami alarm across the Pacific, prompting to close all beaches on the West Coast. A Tsunami alert in LA, seriously!? As if Covid itself isn't enough of a buzz kill. But looking back, it is a painful reminder that, hey, today anything is possible!

The reality is that as much as we try to have a "normal life," it looks like it's not going to stop. No matter how hard we try, we can't go back in time. Perhaps the absolute uncomfortable truth, like on Aimee Mann's 1996 song, it's that “it’s not going to stop until we wise up”.

IT'S UP TO YOU HOW TO INTERPRET THIS METAPHOR

Before Christmas, I posted on Instagram saying I was taking a break from 2021 - meaning a week vacation before the end of the year - and asking 2022 to give me a fucking break too. Well, both 21 and 22 answered: “Gracias, pero no gracias.”

On my first day of vacation, two days after Christmas Eve, my husband and I found out we had been exposed to Covid-19 at our 8 people Expat's Christmas dinner. We had asked everyone to get tested before, but somehow omicron sneaked its way into our celebration. It happens.

I tested negative after a rapid and a PCR test, but my husband was positive. Luckily, both didn't show any symptoms, but we quarantined for 5 days following health protocol. After that, 5 days of social distancing, using a mask at all times when outside. Needless to say that all NYE celebrations and traveling were canceled to avoid spreading the virus. This means, during our quarantine, we watched the rest of the world on social media celebrating the beginning of another COVID year with different interpretations of social distancing. 

Being locked inside once again – last year, without the vaccines, we were still in NYC during the holiday – gave me plenty of time to reflect. But reflection doesn't help much anymore. The writings are on the wall for anyone to see. So, at this point, when it comes to Covid-19, regardless of the variant du jour threat, we all know what to do or, most importantly, what not to do. But do we all really know what to do?

But one thing is for sure: there's more than only writings on the wall about our current dystopian reality. One of the hits of the end of the year was "Don't Look Up," the star-studded Netflix Adam McKay’s world's environmental collapse satire. The social chattered was divided between those who thought it was funny enought and those who thought the catastrophic metaphor wasn't sufficient to convince climate change deniers about the unavoidable upcoming environmental disaster. To me, a comet heading towards the Earth is a clear metaphor for any disaster. Still, some people argue that deniers will always be deniers.

But curiously, while enlightened people questioned the film's efficacy in delivering its doomsday message to a not-so-enlightened and deniers audience, in a very democratic way, everybody decided put aside their differences for NYE's celebration. Social media was invaded by images of fireworks, people dancing, drinking, hugging, kissing, and posing for pictures – severe case of FOMO here. In this highly polarized world, it's very refreshing to see people coming together to celebrate a new year's arrival. After all, we all needed a break, right? Well, maybe not so fast.

Whether the comet is a good metaphor for an impending disaster for some, or the virus spread is enough of a fact for others, it seems denial isn't exclusive to one side or the other.

In the first days of 2022, the US only registered 1 million new cases of Covid. If this doesn't look like a comet, I wonder what would make people understand that stopping spreading the virus is a real challenge, and it doesn't look like it will end soon?

But, of course, it is different from 2020 when we didn't have a vaccine. According to many reports, omicron can cause not much more than a "mild cold" to vaccinated people. Nevertheless, as a reference, the US has only 62% of its entire population vaccinated. It means that about 1/3 of the country can get really sick and compromise the whole health system capacity. Yes, it’s a Petri dish from hell! But, of course, one can argue that those unvaccinated people chose this way. Still, we can't forget that those are human lives too.

Anyway, during my forced break – in between binge watching – two recent articles called up my attention. 

First, CNN's last week headline said: "Previous rules of virus are 'out the window." CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner says in the article that "now, even a quick, transient encounter can lead to an infection. And the he added, "including if someone's mask is loose, or a person quickly pulls their mask down, or an individual enters an elevator in which someone else has just coughed." Yes, he said all of that.

CNN is indeed shameless in posting sensationalist headlines as clickbait. However, if this is true, how come governments and health authorities are not making a big deal about it? Instead, what we read in the press is mostly about the "mild cold" effects – which lead vaccinated people to believe they are safe regardless that they are still spreading the virus. As a result, over the holiday, thousands of vaccinated people traveled everywhere feeling confident that the worst-case scenario was feeling a little "down."
Just to give a little context, when it comes to spreading, invincible vaccinated American travelers over the holiday only, have pushed the virus spread across all the Americas. Now, only a few days into the new year, and it's confirmed we are in a new Covid huge wave, the most transmissible so far. Fasten your seatbelts!

Another article that I found interesting was on the Washington Post today. The article "This is not the same pandemic" says that the coronavirus might have mutated to "highly transmissible, hard to avoid contracting and less dangerous for most people.” However, it argues that "to understand that omicron is (apparently) different is to understand that the response is different and the old recommendations potentially less effective or appropriate." In short, the context has changed as much as the virus itself has mutated too. But in the current context, more than the virus, what we see is a lot of misinformation circulating. Again. 

We know very little about Covid-19 yet. A version of the virus that grants broad immunity to all strains for an extended period, leaves fewer people at risk of severe illness, and offers only brief periods of sickness for the infected, looks like it's not what we have circulating right now. Also, the current surge is likely to strain hospitals, given the sheer number of people getting infected and seeking care. It might look mild to some, I might be disappointed for wasting my holiday at home, but news flash guys, there’s a pandemic ravaging the planet.

There's a lot of misinformation and denial out there. Lots and lots of politics involved too. And whether we are positive or negative, we are all VERY tired of Covid. Fact. However, we can spin it the way we like it, but there's a comet heading towards the Earth!

*Note that the Covid-19 pandemic is also linked to environmental collapse.

THEY CAME LOOKING FOR FRIENDS; INSTEAD, THEY FOUND SEX AND THE CITY

Once, I was outside a bar on West 4th Street when a couple tourists came and asked me: "We are looking for friends. Is it here?" While I was still trying to decode their question, my friend standing next to me quickly jumped with an answer: "It's not "Friends". It's "Sex and the City", and it's just around the corner." She pointed to the next crossroad, Perry Street.

That's when I realized the couple was looking for "Friends" apartment on Bedford Street. But just a block away, on Perry, it was another famous TV show apartment, Carrie's, from "Sex and the City"– in the show Carrie lived in the Upper East, but the building front that appears on the show is actually on Perry Street.

While they walked away, excited on their journey through the West Village and sitcom's iconic impossible NYC apartments, I turned to my friends and said: "They came looking for friends and what they found was sex and the city."

It's a fun memory to start this post.

"Sex and the City" and "Friends", together with "Seinfeld", are iconic shows that simultaneously influenced generations and changed TV history. Even today, you still can find people arguing which one was funnier, "Friends" or "Seinfeld" - personally, I'm team "Seinfeld". SATC was more niche than the others but no less iconic.

After six successful seasons and two feature films, Carrie, Miranda, and Charlotte - Samantha decided to give it a "no, thank you, I'll pass" - are back. And boy, last week they were the talk of the town once again.

I'm going to start by saying a few things: 

First, yes, I was a fan, but towards the end, I think the shoes, bags, and all the fashion had turned the characters too much into accessories. Secondly, I never bought Carrie/SJP's nice girl schtick. Finally, we can't fix the past.

The first two things are still there. SJP does her Carrie as she does her public persona: an illusion of dimension and relatability. The fashion is more costume than ever, especially after Patricia Fields, taking a cue from Kim Catrall, decided to give it a pass to series reboot too. Just like Sam, Patricia will be missed.

However, the problem with SATC 2.0's "And just like that" isn't necessarily the past; instead, it's the present and the future that seems to be out of synch. The updated reboot tries hard to make the characters and storylines more relevant to the current revisionist spirit. "And just like that" taps into sensitive topics gender-fluidity, sexual orientation, racial sensitivities, and privilege. But does it with the same depth of window shopping at now-defunct Barney's. Actually, this is very consistent with what the characters have become over the years: a bunch of middle-aged privileged white ladies who lunch. But, of course, they display a culture and wokeness veneer – as any Upper East lady should – to counterbalance their frivolous lifestyle. 

Carrie is now a sex podcast host working alongside Che Diaz, a "queer, non-binary, Mexican-Irish diva". She is still obsessed with shoes and "fabulous fashion", but the character itself doesn't seem to have evolved – she looks and acts like a wax figure of the "original" Carrie. The other characters seem mostly frozen in time too. Maybe except for Miranda. In the sequel, she quit her corporate layer job to go back to school to get a Masters in human rights. Seeking to advocate for women in need, Miranda joins African-American professor Dr. Nya Wallace's classes at Columbia. There, after several uncomfortable interactions, she's forced to face her own racial bias. Despite the fact that the show's script is mainly weak and shallow, Miranda's bit has more depth. It shows a middle-aged woman trying to get updated with diversity and culture while dealing with the challenges of aging. 

Meanwhile, Charlotte tries to become friends with fellow parent Lisa Todd Wesley "LTW", a biracial documentarian and humanitarian who is, of course, on Vogue's best-dressed list. Not much to say here - Charlotte was always the least layered character of them, to put it nicely.

AJLT gets it right to cast a very diverse and inclusive group of characters to try to fix the whiteness of the original SATC. But the new characters don't have their own storylines, depth, or dimension. They seem to exist only to make the main cast look woke. 

And there's Samantha's absence. "She is no longer here", tells Carrie before detailing the reason behind their friendship's fallout and Samantha's moving to London. Samantha's piece is clearly a metaphor for SJP and Catrall's very public rift. Unfortunately, the result is more embarrassing than explaining. SJP has done already an exhausting press and social media tour sharing her side of their squabble. Still, it seems her attempt to maintain her innocent profile wasn't enough for her. Alternatively, she used the show to send a message or shape the narrative. But unfortunately, it was enough for many viewers who begin to see the cracks in her carefully crafted public persona. 

Lastly, as for the sex and the city, there's still some left of it in "And just like that". It's refreshing that the show addresses sex after the '50s – shocker! – and the city and its "come back" spirit. However, the sex seems a little forced. Watching Carrie watching Big masturbating fails to be provocative; instead, it appears random and uncomfortable. As for the city, we don't get to see much of it, except the character's apartment and a few classic luncheon scenes. Overall, it lacks NYC's famous excitement and energy, but that is the "post" Covid reality.

“Sex and the City” was perfectly in tune with its time when it was aired in the late 90s and early 2000s. Of course, it had issues - many issues. But they were a reflection of that time, and its legacy surpasses far beyond its misses. SATC presented a flawed vision of the world. Still, women were multi-dimensional in this world, and they had the same power, imperfections, and freedom as men.

But in "And just like that" efforts to be relevant today, it tries to relive the past by attempting to rewrite it. SATC's legacy - especially forgetting the two awful features films - has a guaranteed space in the future. However, trying to reshape or write off what was uncomfortable had the opposite effect. Now we can’t stop seeing it. Which helps AJLT to look already old

In the end, we thought we were going to meet old friends, but instead, it seems that just like Samantha, they are no longer here.

THE SAMENESS OF NEWNESS

"Time, time, time, see what's become of me. While I looked around for my possibilities. I was so hard to please"

As the seasons change, the transition from fall to winter becomes more visible. And we begin adjusting our clocks to catch up with the imminent end of another year. 

Just about everyone agrees that time is passing very strangely since COVID-19 started in early 2020. Some days take forever, while months fly by, partly because there is so much "sameness" created by successive lockdowns and remote working. According to a survey conducted in the UK, more than 80% of participants felt like their perception of time had shifted during the lockdown restrictions compared to pre-quarantine times. People like me. I began writing this blog at the end of 2020 when I realized that my life had become an endless Tuesday loop, an eternal groundhog day. Since then, things have changed, but the feeling of being suspended in time is still quite the same. 

And here we are! It's almost 2022, and with the omicron threat, our post-pandemic world looks not as post anymore. However, if the moronic repetition of the same tricks our memory to believe that time isn't passing by, the unquestionable fact is that time is indeed passing by. The upcoming of another year proves it and invites us to a reflection.

"What's become of me?" is a familiar question that we occasionally torture our souls at moments like this. It is about introspection and questioning what we did wrong. Simon & Garfunkel's "A Hazy Shade Of Winter" lyrics reflect on your journey up to that point. That point when seasons change, and fall's brown leaves remind us that another year has passed and winter's darkest hour is unavoidably on its way. This is where we are now.

I believe it will take years for us, or maybe the next generation, to look back and understand how this experience has changed us. But what I find most intriguing about what we are living today is the contrast of the sameness we have lived for a prolonged time, the newness that our society always celebrates, and the repetition of history. We search for references and clues in the past to understand what's going on and what will play out after trying to find confirmation that this will pass. As if the concept of time itself isn't enough to prove it certainly will pass.

However, when we want things to go back to normal, do we wish to go back just like before? If the answer is yes, I'm afraid this will keep repeating because time seems to be at the core of our current challenge. Time we have stopped, the time we needed to reflect, time passing by too quickly, and the time left to do anything before it's too late. This reflects the never-changing zeitgeist of the century. We live longer, and yet never before youth has been celebrated like now. We live in a time of progress, but progress in this era means newness. As a result, the idea of newness associated with youth became a simulation and a driver. From the latest gadget to staying young, newness is everywhere. It even seems like we are trying to re-engineer time itself so we can be and remain younger and anew forever. But, what we are experiencing isn't rejuvenation; instead, we only repeat an old formula.

But where did this idea start? There are many theories, but one that I find fascinating has to do with the contrast of newness, sameness, and youth culture's invention. It says that since the late 19th century, modernization and universalistic norms have encouraged the growth of youth culture. In addition, many societies use age grouping, such as in schools, to educate their children on societies' norms and prepare them for adulthood; youth culture is a byproduct of this tactic. Because children spend so much time together and learn the same things as the rest of their age group, they develop their own culture.

However, as we know them today, teenagers have only been a distinct part of the population since the 1950s. By this time, youth culture in film and popular music began to celebrate the years when young people were no longer children but not quite adults. As a result, young people suddenly became very conscious of their own identity. 

Fast forward to Gen X, while divorce rates skyrocketed, and while parents focused on their own achievements, marketers saw a growth opportunity. They discovered the youth market at this time, and since then, this marketing group has been one of the drivers of the world's economy. Young people make such valuable consumers because they influence the purchasing decisions of their friends and family. Only in 2020, Millennials & Gen Z teens' combined spending power was nearly $3 Trillion.

It looks like the perpetual search for newness reflects nothing more than the needs of the world's economic engine to maintain our lifestyle. We are programmed to crave novelty all the time. We created an artificial novelty world to keep the machine working – if there's something new every minute, then what's new after all? Ironically what the pandemic offered to us was only sameness. Covid, Spanish Flu, Polio, AIDS. We find the very sameness in the repetition of each new pandemic time after time.

So, what has become of us? We want the world full of newness back again. We want the novelty that only offers us more of the same and simultaneously feeds the world's inequalities and disrupts the environment. It's an old story whose repetition led us to where we are now. And if we keep trying to stay young and new, it seems like we are only feeding an old cycle that is keeping us from trying something...eh...new. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF REFERENCES

We are made of references made by books, movies, songs, pictures, and moments. Each of those pieces is part of our identity and knowledge, encouraging us to want to know more to feed our natural human curiosity and creativity. 

If you work in an industry related to entertainment, marketing, fashion, design, art, and culture, having poor reference sources can be a death sentence. Albeit today's society seems shallower and less articulated than in the past, the reality is that historically these fields constantly fed from cultural references. Recycling references produced some of the most iconic and memorable moments in pop culture. 

Take the images illustrating this post, for example. On the left is one of the most iconic photos of the Twentieth-Century, the Mainbocher Corset, captured by Horst P Horst in Vogue's Paris studio in 1939. The other one on the right is a scene pulled from Madonna's 1991 Vogue music video directed by David Fincher.

Horst was a German-American fashion photographer best known for his photographs of women and fashion. The Mainbocher Corset, considered his masterpiece, has influenced photography, style, and pop culture for almost a hundred years.

A former visual effects producer, assistant cameraman, and photographer turned into a film director, Fincher debuted directing commercials and music videos. When he looked for references to create Madonna's Vogue music video, he found inspiration in films and photography from the Golden Age of Hollywood, the artwork by artist Tamara de Lempicka and Art Deco design. As a result, many scenes in the video recreate photographs taken by Horst, including the famous Mainbocher Corset.

Voilà! One of the most iconic images of the 20th century, 51 years later, inspired the third spot on the Rolling Stones 100 most famous videos in history.

This is an excellent example of the importance of references to recycle and create memorable moments in culture. Diana Vreeland, legendary editor-in-chief at Harper's Bazaar and Vogue, famously said: the eyes have to travel. It speaks to the importance of making things visually interesting to satisfy our eye's natural curiosity. Articulating different visual references is a crucial element in making things more engaging and attractive. That's when having a lexicon of visual references makes all the difference.

But in a dynamic society fueled by the fast pace of social media trends and news cycles, are we losing our memory and creating a generation with an insufficient reference pool? 

With the technological advances of the last 20 years, culture research has become more accessible and democratic at the tip of everyone's fingers. What would take hours or days of research, with the invention of Google Images in 2001, can be found in a matter of seconds. But if searching for subjects on Google is easy, finding aesthetic references isn't that simple.

For example, you just need to type "woman's back," and the search engine will offer up millions of options in a flash. However, if you are looking for a specific aesthetic style, you will need to know what you are searching for. And that's when things get tricky. How can you start looking for something that you haven't ever heard about it before? It's not impossible, but it will undoubtedly be more complex and possibly unsuccessful.

When you think of the role of aesthetics in advertising, you have to consider that besides the representational depiction of signs, it requires artistic creativity and originality. Form, composition, texture, chromatic palette, and cultural context are core elements of a style. But the ability to connect different references to create something new and unique seems to be intrinsically human. However, as much as inheriting this quality might be, to be fully refined, it still requires visual education. 

But if people are fishing references from the same pool, they will likely come back with the same findings. Which makes us wonder how many times one can recycle the same idea to come up with something new? In the end, everything will end up sort of looking the same. So, to keep people engaged and feed their curiosity, we'll need to fire out faster and louder. But because it's all about the speed and the splash, there will be little recall might be left. It is like walking on Times Square. Everything is fighting for your attention, and although it might look dazzling at the moment, nothing stands out to become memorable. So, as necessary is letting our eyes travel; at some point, they need to land somewhere in our memory.

Today, it seems things don't last long enough to become genuinely iconic anymore. However, ironically, today, we have all the information we want available to anyone 24/7. It's there; you just have to Google it.

IS AMERICA THE END OF AMERICA?

I texted, "OMG, this is the end of America!" She replied back in a zap: "America is the end of America." Period, no exclamation mark, just a dry and sharp period. 

It made me think of an 80's Canadian movie called "The Decline of the American Empire." The film, directed by Dennys Arcand, follows a group of intellectual friends as they engage in an extended dialogue about their sexual affairs. In the movie, one of the characters releases a book titled "Idea of Happiness." The book's central thesis is that modern society's fixation on self-indulgence is indicative of its decline, predicting a collapse in the American Empire. 

Walking on Atlantic City's boardwalk, the idea of the American self-indulgence seems distant. But it looked more like the day after hungover or the collapse of a dream.

I texted back: "brilliant!" And shoved my phone back into my pocket to focus only on what was in front of me. I was strangely intrigued and fearful at the same time. I asked a friend: "is this Trump country?" She grinned sheepishly while nodding yes with her head. I thought to myself: "watch out, buddy, you are a walking target here!"

Looking at the decaying neighborhood around the boardwalk made me think of my own journey. Caught up amid despair, fear of failure, and self-indulgence, I spent most of my life thinking I had no choice but to move forward. In our capitalist society, survival equals progress. Surviving means pushing further, working harder to buy more comfort and validation. It is a never-ending hamster wheel where anything is never enough and you end up wondering if it was all for nothing?

I looked at people's faces from the window as the car drove me away from Atlantic City. They looked heavy, bloated, and sweaty. All white, all pale, all very sad. The casinos demanding attention, dangling a glimpse of hope and glitz, but the party was over. Yet, somehow I felt connected with them on their disillusion.

Arriving in NYC, I was bombarded by a different type of demand. The city's landscape revealed itself just like in all the movies that shaped our imagination. Like Emerald City, glistening on the horizon, NYC welcomes you, promising excitement and opportunity. One can hear Jay Z and Alicia Keys whispering in your ears, "concrete jungle where dreams are made of, there's nothing you can't do." Empire State Of Mind seems to encapsulate the American dream – "One hand in the air for the big city, Street lights, big dreams, all lookin' pretty. No place in the world that could compare". But What they don't tell you in the movies and pop songs is that NYC is a tale of two cities. Two distinct, disconnected social and economic ecosystems, one "shining city on a hill" and another city, one where the glitter never shows. The second one has more similarities to Atlantic City than NYC would like it to admit. However, the glitzy affluent NYC's self-indulgence seems to reflect better Danny Arcand's pessimistic view of the upcoming decline and collapse. But if the Canadian director appears too high brown for some, just look around, and you can find more mundane clues that he might be right. Take a look at Page Six. Or tune in to Bravo or E!. American celebrities, reality tv stars, and social media influencers share daily snapshots of self-indulgent and decadent lifestyles explicitly designed to entertain lovers and haters.

This love and hate dynamics turned to into entertainment started long ago, and it’s at the core of this tension. Back in the early 20s, journalist Walter Winchell became famous for panning Broadway shows and writing about NYC's celebrities in a style precursor of the media coverage offered by TMZ, Page Six, and other tabloids. 

A resentful unsuccessful ambitious vaudeville artist tuned into a celebrity himself, he found glory in creating his own journalistic style. Winchell broke all the rules of what was considered "good journalism," giving voice to regular people. But, of course, giving voice means that, from grammar to ethics, no rules were applied when entertaining the masses- does this sound familiar?  

Winchell tapped in the tension between the resentment and fascination of the poor towards the rich and offered them a banquet of gossiping, scandal and decadence. Fast forward to today, if Arcand's thesis is correct, we can see that the writings on the wall were visible back then.

In his book "Winchell: Gossip, Power, and the Culture of Celebrity," Neal Gabler tells about one night when a producer confronted Winchell, saying: "If people like to read the slang that you write and the junk you prepare, and publishers pay you for that stuff, what will happen to art, literature, and intelligence?" This happened in 1928.

This takes me back to my weekend visiting Trump county in Atlantic City, my friend's insightful text about America, and finally, my return to Emerald City. It all kind of made sense and, at the same time, brought shivers to me my spine. Good or not, this is the world we know and compared to many other places in the world, it is still a beacon of freedom and democracy. However, the very same narrative that makes us believe "that there's nothing we can't do" gets us simultaneously addicted and blinded by the limelight. Life imitated entertainment, and as a result, we ended believing in the stories created to distract us. As we lose grip of reality and our own humanity, Metaverse ironically seems the natural evolution of our society's dystopian destiny. Suddenly, I feared that it might be all too late already. We don't know what will come next, and what we see in the rest of the world is chilling. The possible failure of the American dream seems to indicate the end of our entire civilization. Our own western culture, our metaphorical American Empire, appears to be eating itself from within. It randomly reminded me of Bowie's "This is not America." It goes like this: "A little piece of you. The little peace in me. Will die."

Suppose my friend's sarcastic remark is correct. If America is the end of America, consequently, it's the end of the world as we know. As if we feasted too much and for too long on ourselves. While looking at NYC’s mesmerizing skyline, I reached to my phone inside of my pocket and texted my friend: "I miss you!"

EMPOWERED OR IMPRISONED?

Lately, so much has been said about empowerment, but so little about what kind of expectations are behind it. Empowerment seems to have become the ultimate goal behind everyone's actions: we need to empower women, minorities, children, and of course, ourselves too. Inclusion is definitely a crucial topic that society has begun finally to address. However, empowerment seems the word of the moment, feeding hashtags, fueling debates, call-outs, and calls to action. Everything comes down to empowerment, from expressing sexual freedom and fighting against discrimination to the freedom to wear whatever you want. The flip side of it is that the expectations are higher, and society keeps putting layers on top of what it means to be an empowered person today. It's like a call to action that you are a retrograde if you ignore or don't engage with it. With so many expectations about people's empowerment, I wonder if empowerment isn't becoming imprisonment?

Looking for answers to this question, I began searching for insights into the Oxford dictionary. I found out that empowerment speaks to the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality. It's about the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. Basically, when we are able to do something, then we have power. But what happens when you are able to, but instead, choose not to do anything? Or, what if you have the will, but you find yourself unable to act due to circumstances beyond your control? Not accepted. You need to push further. You need to be brave.
So, should a housewife feel disempowered or be labeled conformist? What’s the appropriate age to reach financial independency before being a failure? Is being a bossgirl only a copy of a male stereotype? From the ability to do something to the capacity to direct or influence the behavior of others, why are we so obsessed with the idea of having power?

It seems today's culture constantly pushes people out of their comfort zone. Other times, it shames people for choosing to stay as they are. As if we don't have enough pressure and frustration to deal with in our daily lives. We often hear that we need to be brave and daring to be successful in anything we do. Myself, I always struggle with the idea that people need to be brave. Yes, we can decide to be bold against obstacles that challenges our survival or the ideals that we stand for as an individual and a community. However, the concept that we need to be constantly brave suggests that we are always under threat or live in an intrinsically hostile environment. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the threats we face about the environment and freedom in the world today, to begin with. However, data suggests that this moment is literally the best time we could possibly be alive. This is the time with the most significant opportunities available to the greatest number of people, the safest and most peaceful time in history. But it seems we are programmed to think otherwise.

Still, the very foundation of our western white male dominant society establishes that to thrive, we have to fight for power. Fighting for being number one is essential to keep the engine that feeds our lifestyle. As a result, It looks like we are brainwashed to compete against each other, and our own sense of validation is closely tight to the idea of power.

I recently watched a video saying that our school system teaches us to be afraid and uncollaborative. It argues that schools offer only one possible correct answer to any problem and it doesn't encourage children to collaborate instead of winning or being supportive instead of competitive. Maybe it stems from the early times of our civilization when the human species had to fight against each other and nature to survive.

We came this far as a civilization and species. Still, society tells us that we need to be brave, beat the competition, fight against our enemies, and be empowered by doing so. However, one of the things that the pandemic made clear is that we are doomed as a species without collaboration. Yet, power and competition still trump it all.

Today, you first need to become a super being to live your own life without anyone bothering you. But, unfortunately, in our strive to become superbeings, we are just constantly giving power to society to tell who we should be.

Personally, I am exhausted from hearing those calls to action. After being bombarded by it all the time, I just want to be me at the end of the day. Seeking empowerment became a psychological prison that pushes people to be someone they haven't even chosen to be in the first place. Being ourselves is already such a hazardous endeavor that the ultimate power should be to decide not to do anything and just be. Then, just doing whatever feels right to you seems like a blissful release.

Oxford dictionary says that empowerment is the process of becoming stronger and more confident, especially in controlling one's life and claiming one's rights. So if there's one power that enables people to claim their own rights, that is choice. Choice is freedom.

TOM FORD DEFINED THE CONTEMPORARY CREATIVE DIRECTOR'S ROLE

Gucci turned 100. Let's talk about Tom Ford.

If you worked in advertising in the late 90s and early 2000s, you remember that fashion editorials were a constant source of inspiration. Many ad campaigns weren't only inspired by Harper's Bazaar, British and Italian Vogue fashion editorials; they were literally lifted directly from the pages of these magazines. As a result, fashion aesthetics and lexicon leaped from magazines and exclusive sartorial circles to the mainstream. Together with the invention of MTV, fashion aesthetics solidified the contemporary symbiotic relationship between fashion, rock'n roll, and pop culture.

Since the late 80s, magazines have been creating a lot of excitement among creative people. I remember waiting anxiously for the arrival of the newest issue of Vogue Italy, Visionaire, and Rolling Stones. In the '80s and 90's graphic designers and art directors like David Carlson, Neville Brody, Fabien Baron, and Fred Woodward inspired a new creative generation. Together with photographers, editors, and stylists, they were developing a new visual language.

Many names led this aesthetic shift: Testino, Rankin, Demarchelier, Roversi, Lindeberg, Hits, Meisel, Baron, Franca Sozzani, Grace Coddington, Andre Leon, Carlyne Cerf, Carine Roitfeld, just to name a few. However, if they were many talents, there was only one Creative Director: Tom Ford.

One of my favorite Tom Ford’s legends tells about a key moment in the relatively unknown American designer tenure as Gucci's Creative Director. Upon finding out that the Italian luxury brand was going bankrupt, he realized that the brand had no choice but to put out whatever collection he designed. So he fearlessly went for it and brought his updated vision for the Gucci brand to the catwalk. Later Ford told NBC he saw an opportunity to do what he thought was right for fashion and what he believed consumers wanted at that moment. The rest is history.

Until Ford, what made fashion designers great was primarily their talent and skills in creating clothing and accessories. Although heavily influenced by predecessors like Halston, Ford believes that "many designers have much greater talent as a designer than I do, but they may not have my drive." Indeed, he was driven, but more than this, he had a vision. Ford understood that his talent went far beyond his lack of extensive fashion education, sketching, tailoring skills, or even experience. His most remarkable talent was having a clear vision of how Gucci consumers should experience the brand and creating a narrative to enhance it. He also had a keen eye on casting a team of collaborators with a suitable skill set to help him to develop his vision. So there it is! The essential quality of a contemporary Creative Director.

A great observer of culture and always a storyteller, Tom Ford partnered with photographers, editors, models, celebrities, and stylists to create Gucci's narrative and image. So naturally, advertising played a crucial role in building this narrative.

Since the 60s, fashion took inspiration from what was going on the streets – think Carnaby street. Oliviero Toscani's United Colors of Benetton, Calvin Klein and Levi's campaigns started the shift. At that time, British and Italian Vogue were creating provocative editorials establishing a conversation with current culture. Still, Benetton and CK were among the first big brands to launch ad campaigns that tapped on what was going on in the world at the moment. They took fashion to the mainstream, but Ford would take it to another level. Today brands look to create a consistent narrative that flows seamlessly among each touchpoint; Ford was a trendsetter in creating the playbook followed by every brand today. 

In 1997, collaborating with Testino and Carine Roitfeld, Gucci launched a new ad campaign that brought the 'sex sells' tactic to new heights. Making advertising campaigns became more exciting than editorials, Ford's years at Gucci are strongly associated with provocation. He turned fashion advertising campaigns into narratives that enticed the audiences showing each ad almost as an episode on a storyline. What made Ford a great Creative director was his storytelling approach to fashion. Fashion always relied on leitmotifs to inspire designers to create a collection. Still, Ford took it to outside the atelier expanding it into a brand’s narrative.

Back then, the internet was still in its infancy, and social media was unimaginable. For most people,images were not seen immediately from the runway and the first looks of a collection would be the advertisements in a big book, like in Vogue's September issue.

Gucci's 1997 campaign portrayed glamorous and gorgeous models in sleek, sexy settings telling a provocative story of sex as if it was captured by surveillance camera lenses. The campaign was perfectly tuned in to the 90's zeitgeist– a moment when people were ready to leave behind the depressing grunge era to embrace glamour, sexual freedom, and excess again. Then, in a curious twist of synchronicity and parallel with pop culture, George Michael was arrested in LA for lewd public conduct one year later. The arrest led him to release Outside. The music video used the same surveillance camera aesthetic combined with provocative sex scenes that produced a snapshot of the cultural tensions of the end of the millennium. 

After leaving Gucci and taking over YSL, he launched his own eponymous fashion brand. Then, in 2009, he debuted as a movie director. His first film, A Single Man, collected raving reviews and established Ford as a talented director.  

A storyteller and a meticulous esthete, Ford defined the role of the contemporary creative director. On Ford's playbook, a creative director role is all about a vision and craft. The craft can be trusted to an essential cast of highly skilled collaborators, but having a vision defines a creative director.