Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Advertising conquers physics

Jewelry and reality

A regional jewelry chain has dug into the vaults to unearth a pair of commercials from a couple of years ago to promote sales of the Tacori line of rings. I understand, of course, that one should not confuse advertising with reality—especially not in the case of fine jewelry, which is traditionally entangled with all of the complications and unnaturally heightened romantic hopes and expectations of love and courtship. It doesn't matter. Every time the “Cupid's Arrow” commercial appears, I sit transfixed in grudging admiration of its blatant disregard for verisimilitude. If you can afford the expense of generating photo-realistic animation, why not use it with a careless disregard of the real-realistic world? Just shove that old camel through the eye of a needle! Rich people haunted by Matthew 19:24 will rejoice.



Just so you know it's no accident, Tacori violates the integrity of solid objects just as light-heartedly in its earlier “Checkmate” commercial. Again I cringe.


No doubt we're supposed to suspend disbelief and simply enjoy the surrealism of these highly transgressive advertisements. No over-thinking. Just go and buy the miraculous jewelry. Or ... are the magical powers inherent in the arrow and the chessmen instead? Or even just the black queen? Oh, the confusion of it all!

6 comments:

Karen Locke said...

1) I dislike diamonds, unless they come from Canada or are synthetic; most diamonds (indeed, most precious gems) on the market today come from places where people work in difficult to outrageous conditions. And no, I don't have a diamond engagement ring, though I do have a small ruby. I wasn't as sensitive to the situation with colored precious stones when we were married in '80. My wedding ring is U.S. gold.

2) I find most diamond advertising almost nauseating. Where did the notion come from that some "he" doesn't really love "her" unless there's outrageously expensive jewelry involved?

(I'll take my soapbox and go home now.)

Kathie said...

Second Karen's thoughts totally; no engagement ring, just gold bands for us both.

If husband gave me expensive gift jewelry -- not to mention a car, or other costly purchase -- as a surprise gift, as encouraged by such advertising, I'd seriously consider dumping his derrière, because I believe all expensive purchases by a couple should be discussed at length (just as any business and/or financial decision should be).

The Ridger, FCD said...

Diamonds are fine, in the abstract. I have a lovely one that was my grandmother's. And their ads aren't any worse than any other luxury item's, are they? Really?

The problems of blood diamonds and the expectation of "love" are separate - each troubling, but utterly unrelated, to each other and to the esthetics and business of selling things whose value is artificial.

Gene O'Pedia said...

I'll add that these advertisements did a very good job of pinpointing the segment of the market that, evidently, is not at all interested in the product. But reach them it did.

Tualha said...

And, of course, if the arrowhead somehow did pass right through the ring, exactly why would the ring suddenly acquire momentum and start moving with the arrow, instead of just staying where it was?

Hmm, maybe these rings are made of special, exclusive Elastigold(TM)! Never worry again about your ring becoming too tight. Gain as much weight as you want!

Chakat Firepaw said...

@Karen: Where did it come from?

The same place "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" and "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" came from: The ad department.

Almost all of the modern cultural lore around diamonds comes from various, very effective, ad campaigns for deBeers.