PAPER MAN III

Now, watch this, because this is where it happens. This is the trick Paper Man pulls without knowing he pulls it —He's not that smart, he's actually kind of stupid, the way a reflection in a mirror is stupid. The trick is, instead of us saying, "Hey, Paper Man, there is no "them" you knucklehead," and then laughing at him. We say, "Yes, we are a "them" and we don't like it. We don't want to feel like a "them" Mr. Paper Man and you're making us feel like a "them." We demand rights for us "thems." There. Did you see it? Right there? Even though there is just "us," we let Paper Man say there is a "them" and we agreed! We even said we were a "them." —Church people sometimes say they are a "them," and church people, of all people, should know better. Even though Paper Man doesn't exist, by saying there is a "them," we've said there is a Paper Man, that he's the "us." But it isn't true! Don't you see, it isn't true! If Paper Man isn't an "us," we can't be a "them." Do you see? The louder we jump up and down and shout and scream saying, "Hey, listen to us "thems," we demand to be heard, we demand to be part of Paper Man too." the more we make Paper Man look real. Do you see how silly it is? To want to be part of something that doesn't really exist? It doesn't happen just to church people. Remember, no one is Paper Man, so everyone, in some way feels like they aren't Paper Man, they feel like a "them." Everyone, in some way feels like a "them." The second we agree and call ourselves a "them" and demand rights and priviledges and a "voice" because we are a them, we make Paper Man real. The more "thems" there are the more real Paper Man becomes. Like pencil marks around the outside of a shape. You don't draw the shape, you draw pencil marks in the space around the shape, and where the pencil marks stop, makes the shape. Without the pencil marks of "them" outside of Paper Man, he doesn't exist. Every time we agree we're a "them" we help draw Paper Man. The more real Paper Man becomes, the more we feel like a them, which makes more marks around Paper Man, which makes him more real, which makes us feel more like a "them," which makes more marks around Paper Man, which makes him more real, which makes us feel more like a "them," which makes more marks around Paper Man… well, you get the idea.

You know what would be sad? It would be sad if we started liking Paper Man more than real people. You know, the way we sometimes like Disneyland more than real life. But, what if we started preferring Disneyland to real life all the time? Wouldn't that be sad? Paper Man is safe and sterile. We can always control him because he doesn’t exist, someone makes him. He is thin and flat. But he is easy, like candyfloss is easy, only you'll die if all you have is candyfloss.

Real people aren't safe, they are messy. We can't control people, because they are themselves, but at the same time they are part of us. Real people are deep and savory. Real people are hard work, like a big feast. But it's worth it, isn't it? Real people are what we need to be alive. I hope I expect people to be real people. I hope I don't expect them to be Paper Man. Maybe I'm so used to the fake thing that the real thing just upsets me. Maybe I think messy real people are some kind of exception to the Paper Man rule, and they should clean themselves up and be safer and more antiseptic. That would be really sad. Paper Man isn't the way things are, messy people are the way things are. I hope I still know that.

PAPER MAN II

Let me tell you why Paper Man is so dangerous. Everyone, to some extent, wants to be an "us." No one wants to be a "them." We all want to belong somewhere. The 5 foot man and the 7 foot man want to belong. Imagine if someone, call him Ad Man, knew there is no 6 foot man, but pretended that there is a 6 foot man. What if Ad Man pretended there is a "normal" man, and he is 6 feet? The 5 foot man and the 7 foot man would both feel like they don't belong. They would both feel outside of "normal." Both the 5 foot man and the 7 foot man would want to be normal because everyone wants to belong. Now what if Ad Man told the 5 foot man and the 7 foot man, "You can't be 6 feet, you will never really be normal, you will never really belong, but you can feel 6 feet." Both men would say, "How can we feel 6 feet." Then Ad Man would tell them about something and say, "This will make you feel 6 feet." Both men would probably buy it, because they would want to be normal, because they want to belong. They would feel they should be Paper Man. Numbers Man and Seller Man would both think Ad Man is very important. The better he is at making Paper Man seem real the more important he is to Numbers Man and Seller Man.

When Ad Man helps Paper Man speak he is helping Paper Man say he is "us." As soon as he speaks, no matter what his mouth is saying, he is saying, "Hey, look at me. I am 'us'." But Paper Man isn't telling the truth, he's not "us." We're "us." Us real people who live and move and breathe in specifics. We're all just "us," autommatically, by being a person you are "us." That's all there is. Anyone who tries to tell you different isn't telling the truth. So Paper Man, by saying he is "us" isn't telling the truth. But Paper Man can't help it. In someways it isn't his fault. He doesn't exist, he's just trying to be one of us, but he isn't.

Everyone feeling they should be Paper Man is a problem. There is no Paper Man, he is Paper Man. Everyone feels this longing to be something that isn't really there, and they can never be it. It's easy to say everyone should or could be themselves, but sometimes that is not easy, and sometimes that doesn’t feel like enough. Especially when Paper Man is so shiny, and nice, and happy, and popular. Part of us thinks we are, or at least should be, Paper Man. Part of us wants to be shiny, nice, happy and popular with Paper Man. Part of us believes Paper Man when he says he is "us."

Another part of us doesn't believe Paper Man and knows we will never be Paper Man. That is a good thing, because no one can be Paper Man, there is no Paper Man, he's made up. But it's also a bad thing, because if you belive what Paper Man says (that he is "us") and you know you aren't Paper Man, you automatically feel like a "them." Which is sad, because really everyone is an "us." We're all just "us." Autommatically, by being a person you are "us." That's all there is. But Paper Man, just by speaking, is saying he's "us," and if we believe it, we are all "them."

Here's the really sneaky part about Paper Man. Since he doesn't exist, he's made up, Paper Man makes everyone feel like a "them." Everyone, to some extent, feels like a "them." It's kind of funny in a not funny way, because everyone feeling like a "them" makes us all "us'es," which is the way it really is, and Paper Man is the only "them," which is just the opposite of what Paper Man is saying. Weird, huh?

PAPER MAN I

Some people think TV is out to get the church. I don't think so. At least it isn't out to get you any more than cotton candy is out to get you. If all you eat is cotton candy, well, to some extent, it's your own stupid fault.

I don't think TV is out to get the church, I think it's out to get everybody, so the church shouldn't feel special in getting got. TV can't live and move and breathe in specifics. TV is only good at making Paper Man. TV isn't the only thing that makes Paper Man, but Paper Man is the only thing TV can make.

Let me explain. Imagine a room. In the room there is a man who is 5 feet tall. There is a second man in the room, he is 7 feet tall. Someone, let's call him Buyer Man, wants to buy, say, a sports jacket for both men in the room, but Buyer Man doesn't know the men in the room. Buyer Man asks another man, lets call him Numbers Man, what size jackets should I buy? Numbers Man says, "The average hight of the men in the room is 6 feet." So Buyer Man buys two jackets, each jacket suitable for a 6 foot man. Obviously, niether of the men, the 5 foot man nor the 7 foot man, will have a jacket that fits. But I don't want to talk about the 5 foot man or the 7 foot man. I want to talk about the 6 foot man who doesn't exist. The 6 foot man is a generalized man. He is a statistical man. But the 5 foot man and the 7 foot man don't live and move and breathe in generalizations and statistics. They live and move and breathe in specifics.

It's obvious to us that the 6 foot man doesn't exist. But since two jackets were made for a 6 foot man, the 5 foot man and the 7 foot man might be tempted to think there is a 6 foot man. Neither of them sees a 6 foot man with them in the room, but still they might think there is a 6 foot man. Even worse, they might think they are suppose to be 6 foot men. They might actually think they are, in some way, inadequate; rather than thinking the made up statistical man is inadequate, too general, not particular enough. The 5 foot man might think of himself as too short, and the 7 foot man might think of himself as too tall. That would be very dangerous, and very sad. The 6 foot man can be a very dangerous man, even though he does not exist.

I was wondering what to call the 6 foot man. The dangerous man that does not exist. I thought maybe Phantom Man, which is good because he isnt' really there, but it sounds too much like a comic book character, so that isn't quite right. Then I thought Invisible Man, more like he's there, but you can't see him, which isn't the right idea, plus, there is a comic book charater called invisible man, so that doesn't work. Then I thought of Everyman, which I think some philosopher used once to describe the same thing I'm talking about, but I didn't want to copy. Then I thought of Paper Man. And I liked that. It makes me think of people getting it right "on paper" but getting it wrong in the real world; and it made me think of papier-mache, like a quote in Heart of Darkness. "I let him run on, this papier-mache Mephistopheles, and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my fore-finger through him, and would find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe." But mostly Paper Man made me think of a thin, flimsy, barely there, not-quite-man, man.

ESCHEW IMAGE VI: Rebuilding the Ediface

Having some understanding of our situation we arrive at what I believe is our best option. Eschew image. Do not willingly enter the realm of shallow images and appearances. By "image" we do not mean images. Indeed visual art, design, film and photography are all potentially powerful communicators of God's work in his creation. By image we mean instead the broader idea developed earlier; a marketing driven corporate identity, or a corporate branding strategy. Fundamentally the church is not about image, it is about substance, the active grace of Christ. As such the church needn't concern itself with "appearing to be" but simply with "being." However, the church does need to concern itself with image in as much as it needs to understand the dynamics and impact of image so as not to become an unwitting puppet of image. That is the least we can do.

Further, Children of the creator God should deeply understand what it is we offer as an antidote to the noise of marketing. Being a child of God is participation in a narrative of complexity and depth as initiated by the Master Poet of the Universe. It is authentic action as an extension of one's heart. It is an authentic spontaneous response of one person toward another, an honest moment. I see this as one of the most fundamental tasks of the church today, to operate in a construct radically separate from the dominant and homogenous construct of media driven image. Where image manipulates for gain, Children of Creator God shed agenda for the sake of grace. Where image ignores and is simplistic, Children of Creator God acknowledge and are complex. Where image hides in convolution, Children of Creator God bask in simplicity. Where image shouts polarization, Children of the Creator God whisper tension. Where image obfuscates out of expedience, Children of Creator God reveal despite difficulty. Where image mumbles, Children of Creator God speak. Where image moves toward the controlled moment, commercial exchange; Children of Creator God move toward the honest moment, mysterious grace.

The church must be situated in our creatureliness, a part of the world we inhabit, a world of image. At the same time the church must be situated in our createdness, separate from the world we inhabit, separate from image. To properly live in this tension the church cannot simply alter the message of a world of image, it must alter the world of image itself.

If the media construct is a tall shiny office building, the church cannot merely rearrange the furniture within the building. The church must begin dismantling the building, violating the intended purpose of various components of the building, and then reordering those various components so they now serve kingdom purposes. We can't wait for permission from the building managers. We have to start right where we are, in obedience to God. Is our allegiance to the big shiny building, it's order, it's immensity, it's appealing sense of solidity, it's effortless sense of entitlement, the security of it's status quo? Or is our allegiance to God? Do we care more for the people in the structure than the structure itself, as God does? Are we willing to violate the dictates of a world of image? Are we willing to begin dismantling our section of the building without asking for prior permission from the caretakers of the building? Are we willing to begin dismantling when we're not sure what we'll be building in it's place?

The caretakers of the building are more concerned with the building than the people in it. They will fight. They will say we are destroying the building. They won't understand re-ordering, nor kingdom purposes. They will say destroying the building is foolhardy, capricious, inhumane.

To properly live in the tension of creatureliness and createdness the church must feel the tension. Rearranging the furniture weighs too heavily on our creatureliness, we can become fairly confident and self sufficient in furniture arranging, therefore there is little tension. Dismantling and then rebuilding the only available residential structure because one has received orders to do so from an authority the caretakers of the structure do not acknowledge, while one remains living, along with the caretakers and all else, within the structure, is living in tension.

ESCHEW IMAGE V: Engaging Image with Image. An Unholy Accident?

In contrast to a conscious media holy war, a more pertinent and prevalent situation exists. The church, unaware of the dynamics and perils of image, unwittingly stumbles into the realm of image. Image is no respecter of persons. Whether one has entered image by choice of by accident, all rules apply. The rules are not dictated by malicious people, but by the construct, the epistemology of image, the intrinsic nature of the media edifice our society has produced.

Image, being anathema to the Gospel, does not bear the Gospel well. Unaware of the intrinsic perils of image, the church feels betrayed by those who operate in the sphere of image and media construct. The church does not realize the caretakers of image are merely operating within the prescribed limitations of media, and so the church blames "them" and leaves the media construct unquestioned. Thus the church marginalizes itself, affirms its powerlessness, and leaves the construct uncriticized and untouched.

The construct actually brings about a reciprocal straw-man attack which serves to distract and deflect on both "sides" of the Christian divide. As noted, the Church's attack on "them" deflects and distracts from a critique of the construct. Conversely a populace, also uncritical of the construct, is deflected and distracted by a negative image of the church, never encountering the church as it is. (How prepared the western Evangelical Church is for an authentic encounter is a completely separate course of investigation. The point here being, the good which does exist is not allowed an authentic encounter.)

This is the heartbreak of an unintentional engagement of image with image—that even one person would miss an authentic encounter with the reality of Jesus Christ because they first encountered a shallow image constructed by the chruch. It is particularly heart breaking when the church itself, however well intentioned, manufactures and facilitates the shallow image. It is further shame that the church, unwittingly caught up in image, unaware of the realities of image, is unable to provide an antidote to image.

ESCHEW IMAGE IV: Engaging Image with Image. A Holy War?

Given this reality, one of the options available to the church is to embrace image. Do image better than anyone else. Create and manage an image that overpowers the current image already created. Unfortunately engaging image with image is fraught with peril.

On a pragmatic level creating a positive image that is superior and more ubiquitous than the current image while retaining control of said image would require complete independence from the existing media edifice. One would need to, in effect, create a "Christian" media empire greater in scope and reach than the existing media edifice. There are a number of chilling issues with such a scenario, some all too current and real. However, suffice it to say a simple logistical issue presents itself. Creating and managing an image more ubiquitous than the image offered by the current media edifice would require financial resources equal to or greater than all current film, television, newspaper and magazine production. Unless one is willing to posit self-interested advertising driven commercial exchange as the hallmark and duty of those professing the gospel—recognized as a chilling current reality—one will have difficulty envisioning philanthropy expansive enough to sustain a "Christian" media ediface set about to challenge an existing media ediface built and predicated on self-interested advertising driven commercial exchange. Simply put, the church cannot out media the media without eviscerating the gospel.

One may argue that while the church cannot overpower the media edifice, it could work within the existing media edifice toward improving the church's image. I would contend that any willful use of image is counter to the gospel. Image is detatched, impersonal, synthetic, constructed, pliable, appearance focused, concerned with verisimilitude rather than reality, unable to broach complexity and depth. Hardly a list one wishes to associate with the transcendent and immanent person of Jesus Christ.

Catch phrases and gimmicks are shallow, one dimensional and encourage fleeting engagement. If the church enters the realm of image it is bound by the epistemology of image. The medium is the message. Thus, if the church uses catch phrases and marketing gimmicks it encourages people to engage a simple catch phrase or marketing gimmick. People will bounce off of gimmicks and into Cartoon Christianity. That is, gimmicks won't lead people toward Christ, they will lead them toward a media constructed image of Christianity, Cartoon Christianity. They haven't encountered Christ.

Worse still, simple gimmicks are open to subversion. Easy catch phrases, simplistic symbols, marketing gimmicks will be subverted. It is what media does. To everyone. Media, and a very media savvy public, will co-opt shallow symbols and spit them back with an ironic smirk, no problem. Tradition, doctrine or even Christ himself won't have been engaged, therefore Tradition, doctrine or Christ won't have been subverted. A simple catch phrase will have been subverted. This happens all the time to virtually all catch phrases, regardless of content, regardless of who started them. One has little excuse to be upset when "Christian" catch phrases are skewered. "Simplistic" and "easy" are the argot of media. If you lob the simple ball, be sure you're going to get the kill shot bouncing back off your forehead. I would contend that when the church willingly enters the realm of image it encourages an assessment of itself based on image. This is an undesirable dynamic as the epistemological constraints of image are counter to the gospel.

ESCHEW IMAGE III: A World of Image+Other

Having established the underpinnings of image and other we arrive at the crux of the matter, that is the dynamic between the two. To explore this dynamic we are not limited to Christianity. Virtually any identifiable group within society has, to some extent, deal with the "image/other" dynamic—women, Hispanic, gays, postal workers, francophones, teenagers, boomers, the elderly, Jews, Muslims, lawyers, skaters, jocks, punkers… ad nauseum. To begin, whenever a perception of "other" exists a reciprocal perception of “other” exists. If we use feminism as an example, feminism would view media, dominated by representation of white, middle class males, as "other." Conversely, media would classify feminism as "other." This is important to note. Media, by its design, not by malicious intent, must appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Its raison d'etre is to be inoffensive. This may seem a misguided assertion until one realized media's offensiveness and rebelliousness happens within rather rigid and structured norms. It operates in accepted modes of offensiveness, accepted modes of rebellion. The word convention comes from the root meaning "to come together in agreement." In that sense media is quite conventional in that there is broad agreement in how it should and does operate, indeed, how it should and does offend. As evidence I proffer the billions generated every year by the entertainment industry despite on going and persistent protestations regarding its content.

The important thing is to realize media isn't a function of its content, it is a function of its structure. The medium is the message. It is more important to understand media as ubiquitous, fickle, decentalized, primarily visual, rather than understand or analyze it's content. Given a broader systemic approach to the media edifice it becomes evident that society's protestations are part of the accepted structure, a convention of the larger discourse between society and media. The protests are merely part of the show. It is expected that media will "push the envelop" and it is equally expected society will "protest." We would surely be alarmed if anything else occurred for it wold disrupt our broadly agreed upon expectations. That media is not intrinsically offensive, but rather intrinsically homogeneous, is critical. It is precisely through its hegemeny that it excludes everyone. By becoming the non-existent "every-man" it becomes no-one. Media is a recursive feedback loop of expectation. Media violates the social norms of the generalized values and expectations of the non-existent "every-man," and we expect that it will. Media violates artifical social norms it has itself constructed, it's "violation" of artificial social norms becomes part of the construction.

By proffering generalizations media marginalizes everyone because everyone lives in specifics. Specific social norms, specific values, specific expectations. Everyone protests the betrayal of their specific values and expectations. However, in protesting the violation of generalized social norms we affirm the existence of the generalized social norms. The generalized social norms are simply a media construct, the values of "every-man." By engaging them we give them credence.

Taking feminism as an example we see the dynamic at work. Media presumes and creates generalized norms and expectations. Media then violates those same social norms. It does this in prescribed culturally accepted ways which allow it to continue creating and violating norms, seen as "pushing the envelope." Feminism, not sharing the generalized norms, see's itself as "other," marginalized. A violation of the generalized norms, (say an overtly misogynist radio show meant to shock) is viewed by feminism as resulting from the violation of actual social norms. By protesting the violation feminism acknowledges the generalized values thereby giving the non-existent values credence and shape. Simultaneously it gives credence and shape to feminism's position as marginalized, which, within the media construct it is.

It is critical for the church to realize this dynamic and free itself form the powerless victim hood of "an antagonistic media." Replace "feminism" with "chruch" and the preceeding explaination yet rings true. Replace "feminism" with "Hispanic, gays, postal workers, francophones, teenagers, boomers, the elderly, Jews, Muslims, lawyers, skaters, jocks, punkers," and it yet rings true. Media is antagonistic to anyone that is not every-man. In other words it is antagonistic to everyone since no one is every-man. Media must generate visible labeled groups to give shape to its absent Every-man. The positive (visible labeled groups) shapes the negative (absent Every-man.) The visible labeled groups exist only to give shape and credence to the absent Every-man. It would be like filling up a whole page of paper with pencil marks, except for a 5cm circle in the middle. You didn't "draw" a circle. You made a bunch of marks where the circle wasn't and by doing so a circle appeared. Media can't draw Every-man, he doesn't exist. But by filling up the page with the marks of labeled groups, shaped around the imaginary Every-man, media can make Every-man appear.

The all embracing antagonism of media has little to do with content. It is the structure of the media construct that keeps us entertained and distracted. Life the movie. The greatest expressive artists of our age are sports celebrities, film and television celebrities, followed by a host of minor celebrities from every walk of life blessed with 15 minutes of fame. What celebrities do as professionals is, ostensibly, "the show." The real show is their lives. Perfectly crafted "lifestyles," the holy embodiment of consuming expressive individualism. The celebrity slips into the skin of the non-existent Every-man. It is no accident that the negative shape of Every-man, provided by labeling the the rest of humanity, is a perfect fit for the celebrity.

Ironically, margianlized groups comprise virtually the entire populace. We are all part of several labeled groups. Thus we are all in the precarious tension of feeling we should be, or are, the Every-man Celebrity. At the same time we identify with several non-Every-man labeled groups. In this tension we loathe and love the gods who have risen from among us, but are now so very far above us. In the labeled tension of non-Every-man, that is, all of us, we moan, I should be like Every-man Celebrity, but I am not.

One final spin closes the loop and perpetuates the cycle: this entire "dialogue," between constructed social norms and marginalized groups decrying the violation of constructed social norms, takes place in the arena of image. The medium is the message. The shape of the medium, decontextualized shallow image, is the grease that keeps the whole machine spinning. There is never an actual reasonable person engaging another actual reasonable person. If there where it would become quickly and abundantly clear, specific non-labeld people don't make for good television, and the whole thing would grind to a halt. Labeled groups conflicting with labeled groups make for good television. A labeled group is entirely a media construct, and it is therefore an image construct. A labeled group's response to media becomes part of its image, to be used by media to further define the labeled group. In a visual culture of image, media calls the shots. The squeaky wheel, becomes "The Squeaky Wheel," news at 11:00.

By decrying content and the erosion of values the church is complicit in the assumption that we are marginalized and powerless. The louder we yell the more crystallized our image becomes. An image that is, as we have seen, out of our control. The more calcified the image the more it enables the self propagating cycle of media constructed generalized values. As the cycle spins we lose more and more control of our image, calcifying the image which enables the cycle... ad infinitum.

ESCHEW IMAGE II: A World of Other

Along with existing in a world of image, the North American church exists in a world of other. North America has been called a post-Christian society. Most people do not possess even a cursory understanding of the doctrines of Christianity. The word "Christianity" has become a culturally shaped social norm. As such it permits nominal engagement by both adherents and observers. Thus even those professing to be "Christian" have little understanding of the dynamics of Christianity. However, Christianity's historic impact is deeply felt in North America. Some bemoan the loss of "the good old days," and work toward a legislated return to our "Christian heritage." Unfortunately legislated change will, at best, produce behavioural compliance while completely ignoring the crucial and, in Christ's eyes, non-negotiable issues of the heart. Many others have realized that a force of will is contrary to Christ's agenda. Christ behaves, not as legislator of our destiny, but a persistent suitor, romancing us, wooing us to his side. The North American chruch needs to proceed with all the consideration, dexterity and aplomb of a persistent suitor, and as such offer only what Christ offered each and every member of His Church. It is a vision of the Church in keeping with Hudson Taylor's radical approach to missions in China. He didn't presume a Christian heritage meant cultural superiority, thus requiring an imperial transposition of cultural values. Instead he gave equal footing to Chinese cultural values and norms. In this way the Gospel wasn't superimposed on a culture nor did it displace culture. Rather it was allowed to suffuse the culture thereby enabling Christ’s mysterious work of transformation. Indeed, it would be impossible for the Gospel to operate any other way. The gospel is not a book. It is a life lived. The transforming power of Christ's life, death and resurrection doesn’t exist in a vacuum. His life, the Gospel, only has meaning in the context of another life lived. The mystery of Christ incarnate, the Gospel, is in transforming another life. That life in turn becomes the Gospel incarnate. It would seem this is a critical role of the persistent church to simply incarnate the gospel. Live a life in light of Christ's life lived.

ESCHEW IMAGE I: A World of Image

In North America we live in a world of image rather than substance. Image is synthetic, that is it is constructed, malleable, simplified and vivid. In thinking of image one can think of Nike's corporate image. It is carefully constructed and has virtually nothing to do with the manufacture and distribution of running shoes. Because the image is constructed it is malleable and can be shifted to accommodate different cultural milieu. The image has no subtlety or negative aspects, it is a distilled positive "experience." Stripped of the richness of actual experience, image is well suited to media. In fact it is constructed at great cost specifically for media. A corporate image is custom designed for sound bites. It is easily repeated and disseminated making it vivid and compelling. Thus image doesn't have to “be,” it just has to "appear to be." Interestingly this works synergisticly with media. Image demands media, media demands image. The two have a dynamism that is more than the sum of their parts. Yet both are limited by the intrinsic constraints of the other. This notion is at the core of Marshal McLuhan's aphorism, 'the medium is the message" —more on that later. What the image/media synergy doesn't handle very well is substance, which is extemporaneous, authentic, complex, unedited "being." Actual people are complex, unpredictable, take time to figure out, real people don't translate well into sound bites.

Apart from its synthetic nature, image is also autonomous. It exists separately from the reality of the original. As we have noted, the Nike image has little to do with the reality of the company. The image, although initiated and created by Nike, exists "out there," residing between it's creators and its intended audience. As many celebrities have discovered, the autonomy of image has its perils. Although a celebrity image is very carefully crafted it can be subverted, co-opted even hijacked and replaced with an image wholly beyond the celebrity's control.

Things Which Have Passed In Front of My Windshield in the Last 96 Minutes

01. 014 FAM
02. Two old ladies. One wearing a white hat, one wearing a pink sweater
03. Three people. Two men, one woman. The men are talking the woman is silent
04. A white haired man wearing a black leather jacket. He just bought a parking ticket
05. 090 FCM
06. 756 BBJ
07. 1407 VT
08. 171 GGP
09. 006 JKN
10. A large woman carrying a marine engine block.
11. Crow
12. GPM 744
13. 340 JEE
14. WVN 280
15. A Jaunty silver haired man. (He turned back half way, so maybe that doesn't count.)
16. VFM 759
17. A23076 M (Not from here.)
18. Seagull
19. 2373 ET
20. Clouds
21. GXD 668
22. Mountains (slowly)
23. Time
24. A fly (inside)
25. A small plane (outside)
26. 3324 FL
27. Another crow. (Could be the same one.)
28. A large woman with a greasy blue t-shirt (No engine block this time), walking beside a small curly haired man.
29. WVN 280
30. A yellow motorcycle (4x)
31. 2373 ET (With a dog in back this time.)
32. 6249 HK
33. KAH 479
34. 28 Japanese people who work for AFLAC Insurance carrying Dungeness crabs and/or Pacific salmon.