>Doesn't it bother you that Betty Crocker is an invention of '20s era ad men?
>>153656560Why would it?
>>153656560Feminism is about hurting men, not helping women.
>>153656560A lot of modern life, especially the western world, especially American life was made up by ad men to sell more stuff.
A women's perspective anyone?>need not apply
When you really think about it, the artists of the early 19th century plying their skills for trade rather than their own works was fairly similar to the patron-funded auteurs of old. Just recently I watched that one video about the poster to The Shining and how it was designed by Saul Bass, who revolutionized the animated opening title sequence and designed most company logos in the 70s, and whose style would be imitated endlessly by others in the industry due to its novelty eventually cementing itself as the new standard to be supplanted.You don't really get artists like that nowadays, though it's moreso because of corporate demands to broaden appeal rather than a failure of new artists to innovate: how can you run when you're shackled down by Alegria? It's no wonder they're cashing in on the retro craze for logos themselves, but I miss the Maximalist days of the 90s & 00s.Anyway, Lisa is a little moron here for thinking that authorship negates enjoyment when there's nothing explicitly WRONG that the authors had done. One of my favorite book series as a kid was Edgar & Ellen, and the author "Charles Ogden" was a pseudonym for the writing team at Simon & Schuster. These were some of the best written books I ever read as a kid and they still hold up today. Learning there was no real auteur behind it made me a little sad because it meant that there was no chance "Ogden" would ever continue it from the enormous cliffhanger the 2nd arc ended on, but it remains a favorite of mine nonetheless.
no but the add an egg think bothers me because it shows people are morons.
lazy simpsons quote thread.
