Puppy Monkey Baby Was Our Jam
If millions can be wasted on what is not good, why can't we display "bad art"?
Hello again, friends!
We sit around twiddling our thumbs, thinking no one will like our art, or they might even get mad at us for thinking it was worth posting (or maybe that’s just me). But just look at what happened last night at the Superbowl. All I see is people complaining about how uninspiring they were, how they missed the mark, how Superbowl ads used to be good.
Three ads stuck with me from the Superb Owl last night. Companies spent millions of dollars on these ads that misunderstood their own references, missed obvious emotional contexts, and seemed oblivious to how an interaction might affect a large portion of their viewers.
And they still displayed them on the biggest stage we currently have.
This week’s prompt: Draw or write (or both!)
about something that annoys you, (especially if it’s me).
Usually Superb Owl Monday leaves me giggling with my friends or children about silly little ads (or scaring each other by screaming Puppy Monkey Baby at each other while we throw stuffed animals around the room—what, I’m an immature baboon, sue me), but this year I/m marinating in the “bleh” of most of them, aside from these three which really hit nerves.
I’m trying to write enough paragraphs here to bore the people who will tell me “stop being so ridiculously sensitive” or up my currently week-long high record of being called “virtue signaling.” Right here, know I will block anyone who thinks this about the way I felt about these ads. I don’t need yet another person to tell me “it was just a joke” this week. I’m not actually put out by these ads, just thinking about them.
This is about the fact that these ads didn’t care about my opinion, and you shouldn’t care about anyone else’s opinion either (but maybe let’s not just go around offending people on purpose, ‘kay?).
Why are we, as nuerodivergent creators so paralyzed about sharing our art? Why do we rush to call our art “bad” before anyone else can beat us to it? These companies can air these ridiculous and questionable ads spending more money than I will see in my lifetime, we can put out the things we’re afraid of for the 10 people who’ll see it. We can call it “brave” instead of “bad.”
These ads in the Owl did not understand the audience that would see them. In one instance I felt it was slightly offensive, but through an obtuse world view, rather than a direct attempt to offend or hurt.
Unlike these ads, our art comes from a place of authentic expression and real emotion, not a group of people with a vision stamped down by committee.
Don’t let fear or criticism stop you. Create a conversation from disagreement, not confrontation. Invite them to write their own perspective. Art is for everyone, included those who disagree with us.
I used the ads for my drawings tonight and will try to explain my issues in words. As the first psychiatrist to suggest I might have autism said, I have a difficult time accessing the words that relate to my emotions.
Or, as the lovely people who love to inform me of who I am on social media say, I “suck and have really bad opinions.”
If you disagree with my opinions, rather than telling me I’m wrong, why not make a piece of art and post it with a tag so I can admire it.
Ad 1. The Harry Met Sally Mayonnaise ad
Undermining your own message through missing crucial context.
I’m annoyed I can’t remember which mayonnaise brand this was for. (You have one job!) But the real problem I have with this ad is that it didn’t seem to “get” the reference.
The original scene was a revelation to many men that women are very good at faking orgasms—that men have too much false confidence in their own sexual abilities, they never doubt the experience women have with them.
The ad seems to have tried to remedy this by saying “oh, this one’s real” but … well, no. The point was that men can’t tell.
So, I question whether the mayonnaise was actually good.
At the same time, my ND need to not be noticed makes me want to never eat mayo in public if there’s any chance it will make me do this.
The ad really undermined it’s own message of the product’s quality by not truly understanding the nuance of that scene.
Ad 2. Knock out Cancer ad from Pfizer
Failure to consider vital perspectives—the emotional reality of families dealing with cancer.
A lot of people didn’t like this ad because it was from Pfizer.
I can’t disagree with them, but the ad bothered me for another reason.
I cried watching the boy strutting down the street, cheered by so many—I was touched by his brave struggle and the message that this boy lived! But when he walked down his own street I started to feel “itchy.” (Itchy is my term for the uncomfortable feelings I’ve been told to hide because no one understands them no matter how many words I use.)
Yes, the commercial isn’t “real.” It’s a “metaphor” or whatever, but within the commercial there is a realness we accept, it’s how all storytelling works.
So how far did they make that kid march?
It got worse.
He walks to his house and his mother hugs him.
I have known enough kids with cancer or long-term illness to know how infrequent a mother would be home. They held this celebration at one of those infrequent times?
And given how much a family goes through when someone has cancer, how did they hold this celebration without making absolutely sure the rest of the family was involved?
It just made the idea of the kid going through cancer all on his own, aside from the drug company, feel like such a dystopian nightmare.
It really missed the lived experiences of cancer patients and their families.
Ad 3. Goldilocks from Ram Trucks with Glen Powell
Problematic silencing of half your audience, continuation of the idea that men are more important than women, a man actually screaming at a young girl that his story is more important than hers
Hi, get ready to start your art because I know this one is going to set people off. You’re just chomping at the bit to tell me how overly sensitive I am.
A story about a girl is taken over by a man, who then screams at his niece—when she asks what happened to Goldilocks—that this is his story now!
In a time when women are being silenced and told that companies need more “masculine energy” this just slammed hard into our modern issues.
It made me feel like the writers didn’t expect me to be watching, because how could a woman watch football?
I assume it was unintentional, but they echoed the idea that women’s voices and their stories should be silenced for the more exciting stories of men.
You can’t prove me wrong. You can yell at me that I’m too dumb to understand, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is what I saw.
Let this also show you that you can’t know what your audience will think. It’s why novelists often try to have sensitivity readers to prevent this sort of thing. All we can do is add our own voices to the fray to make sure they are not missed next time. And listen when someone tells us they would like to be heard as well.
Don’t forget to add your interpretation to the bottom
so I can share it in our end-of-the-week wrap up!
