like you mfers really getting tattoos of video game characters and pickle rick? corporate commodity fetishism, but you go through a painful process to permanently etch it into the largest organ of your body
I mean if you’re tatting brand logos on yourself, I’m so sorry for your loss.
But cultural shit? It varies. Under a capitalist mode of production, with the bourgeoisie maintaining cultural hegemony, most media is going to be produced and spread involving a corporation somehow. But culture is nuanced ideologically, and simply can’t be narrowed into a label of purely corporate.
Like, you mentioned video game characters, right? There’s a ton of nuance inherent in that category. A gamer who tats Mario on his skin is doing the equivalent of repping a brand on themself, due to how hollow a character Mario is.
On the other hand, games can have strong and hard-hitting messages that resonate with players of it. Games have a uniquely immersive narrative capacity that a lot of other mediums can’t replicate, because it too is a medium for culture and counterculture. Do any of you libs have something from Disco Elysium tatted? I wholeheartedly bet at least one of you do.
Culture isn’t inherently corporate. Honestly, games are probably the worst medium rhetorically for this point due to the more grassroots nature of the indie scene.
Don’t have tats personally but :shrug-outta-hecks: tat what you want to tat
though if you tat the Apple logo on your skin it will be used as a target when the zone gets cool enough :sus:
I agree its fucking weird, but that’s not what commodity fetishism is
Get a tattoo of a table. A bit closer to the real thing
“Why do you have a tattoo of a table?”
“A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noonda y, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, everyda y thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than “table turning” ever was.”
:what:
