What is culture?
The term “culture” comes in several forms and has been misused and overused, particularly in the last few decades.
For example, you might hear phrases like “youth culture,” “pop culture,” or “counterculture”, even “subculture”.
In the business world, the word “corporate culture” is often used to describe the shared values, attitudes, and beliefs of an organisation.
However, the word “Culture” is frequently used in a vague or general sense with different
sub-meaning, and the definition can vary greatly between social concepts.
Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, encompassing language, religion, cuisine, social habits, lifestyle, music, philosophies and other forms of art and behaviours.
In the contemporary era, changes within communities and societies are occurring at an unprecedented rate, making it difficult for people to follow and discern what is relevant to them and what is not. This rapid pace of change affects the meaning of the word “culture”.
Culture is what shapes people’s preferences, thoughts, and ways of thinking within societies. Thinkers, writers, philosophers, artists, and political leaders, such as kings, have long been at the forefront of culture.
However, since the advent of globalisation and postmodern society, corporations and brands have taken the lead in shaping cultures by leveraging influencers, celebrities and various media to shape public opinion and taste.
Culture, as traditionally understood, is the living expression of people. Art, architecture, religion, and other social forms are all bound by a shared worldview. But in the modern age, culture has been hollowed out, replaced by corporate simulacra, soulless megacities, and art that no longer speaks to the sacred.
Many thinkers and books like “Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler” argue that cultures are like living organisms: they are born, mature, decay, and die. This model provides a framework for understanding how art and architecture, as an example, evolve from the organic vitality of early cultures to the sterile, oversized monuments of late-stage civilisation.
Birth – Myth and Symbol: Early cultures were created from instinct, not intellect, with low population and low technologies. Art is sacred (cave paintings, totems), architecture is ritual (churches, temples), and cities are centres of worship, rather than commerce.
Peak – Grandeur and Harmony: At their height, with growing up population and wealth, cultures produce timeless works with medium technologies: statues, cathedrals / large temples, castles also art and philosophies, and commerce and exchange are part of this grandeur, driven by high competition and collaborations.
Decline – Size Over Soul: Civilisation is at its peak, with high population, technologies, wealth and inequality inder a certain equilibrium. Art becomes shock or kitsch (abstract chaos). Architecture turns cold (skyscrapers, Brutalism). Culture driven by corporate greed, where Cities sprawl—bigger, emptier and soulless.
Death – Hollow Copies: The end is pastiche: technologies are beyond regular humans, declining population, fake art and “historic” buildings, cities of glass and transit hubs. Culture is now a brand ready to get sold.many believe that decline is inevitable and we live in the late stage, where culture is a commodity.
The question isn’t how to stop it, but what comes next. Instead of a strict “rise and fall,” a timeless observer might see multiple/different civilisations coexisting in different intensities. For example, the “death” of Rome might merely be its transformation into a new configuration (Byzantium, Medieval Europe).
Cultural decay extends beyond mere self-destruction; it includes conquest, both physical and ideological, where dying civilisations are overtaken or reshaped by external forces and philosophies.
The fall of Byzantium to the Ottomans was not just a military defeat but the imposition of a new worldview, just as Persia’s Zoroastrian identity dissolved under Islamic rule.
Similarly, today’s corporate greed culture with hyper-consumerism colonise not through armies but through screens, reshaping even strong traditions like China, Japan, and beyond. These ideological invasions accelerate the final phase of a culture’s life cycle, replacing organic depth with borrowed, hollow forms until the original spirit is erased.
The end is not always collapse, sometimes it is a slow assimilation or change.
Art-Design-Content
Art is connected to the divine, spirits, universe, nature and how a culture sees and represents the world and what is beyond, also to reflect faith, intellectual thought, and occasionally a social standing.
In France, the different genres of art have been classified by type; they often use numbers to call for a specific art. The numbering of arts originated in Hegel’s Lectures on Aesthetics.
Recorded in ‘Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics’, chapter 5: ‘Division of the Subject’ (delivered from 1818 to around 1830).
- The first art: Architecture
- The second art: Sculpture
- The third art: Painting
- The fourth art: Dance
- The fifth art: Music
- The sixth art: Poetry
- The seventh art: Cinema
- The eighth art: Television
- The ninth art: Comic strips
The core list from Hegel (1st to 6th art) established a philosophical hierarchy of forms, from the most physical (architecture) to the most conceptual (poetry). Later on, new art forms combining image, sound, time, and entertainment were added to a respected literary and artistic discipline.
The term “design” was coined during the industrial revotoward the close of the 1800s and gained popularity at the beginning of the 1900s. Over time, the word’s meaning has consistently evolved.
There were periods of fast scientific and technological discovery during the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. Mass production and standardisation have gradually introduced the term and idea of “Design.
From this point on, a craftsman and artisan have slowly been transformed into designers, while an Artist creates for philosophical, emotional, and personal reasons connect with the divine, heart and nature.
A designer is a creative individual who devotes their expertise to problem-solving, generating visual communication, and developing or producing goods and services for external purposes primarily commercial.
Since then, new art trends have emerged every 15–20 years. It’s also the period that takes to have and educate a new generation. Art and Design share the same fields and expertise, they are also influencing each other; Even if the difference between art and design lies in the intention and motivation of their creators.
Today, Design plays a huge role in bridging between Art and Commerce ( branding, marketing and advertising).
In the commercial view, branding and audience size (fame, notoriety, status, and wealth to make it simple) became more important than the work we produce, and everything became entertainment and consumable, waiting for the new to emerge.
With social media, everything that we create and publish is called content, and this is killing art, because:
–The viral intention is unsustainable.
–The mass intention is hard to keep because experimentation has moral limits.
–The creativity in social media is here only to suit an algorithm and stay relevant.
–The desire to monetise creativity and stay relevant led creators to lose authenticity.
Value vs Status
Life has no inherent meaning, and individuals must give it meaning through their subjective experiences. From this standpoint, Value is a subjective concept that varies from person to person and culture to culture.
Value is often seen as something that individuals must own, pursue, or create for themselves through their choices and actions, and it has always been tied to labour and intellect.
From a labour perspective, in medieval England, the term acre referred to the area of land that a yoke of oxen was capable of ploughing in one day. However, Karl Marx established a framework in which the value of a product is not based on subjective judgment or market forces but is rooted in the labour expended in its creation. That’s how we arrived at the hourly rate as the production value.
The labourer believes that the more difficult a task is, the more precious it ought to be. But according to the market standpoint, people value a product or service enough to pay a price that justifies their interest.
Ex: People seek medical or business school because they believe that the value of a doctor outweighs the cost of their human capital investment.
If the value of a product is not based on subjective judgment or market forces but is only rooted in the labour expended in its creation, then no business would ever go bankrupt, and because value is subjective, customers change their minds on a dime. Especially in the actual market, which is influenced by scrolling content on social media, we often have something trendy today and outdated within the next few weeks.
Value changes overtime because it’s completely subjective, also it’s related to social and cultural movements, and it’s in the heart, taste, mood, and mind of buyers/consumers, and it has nothing to do with the effort produced.
In the market view, if you don’t provide value, customers determine which products, services, or businesses succeed or fail. We must satisfy the customer, which is where marketing and branding come in to evoke emotions and enhance value. Again, if labour is attached to value, how do we explain luxury goods? Why do Apple and Louis Vuitton, for example, have such command and pricing power, and they can charge five or ten times more than others and never go on sale?
It’s because they’re focused obsessively on value and the customer experience, and that’s what gives them that pricing power.
In the contemporary era, brands and corporations act as a promise of stability and quality. A product’s price reflects the perceived value of the company as well as societal values. As a result, buying from specific brands does more than just obtain a product; it provides a feeling of prestige. The item becomes a symbol, enhancing the owner’s perceived identity and value through its related brand story. where wealth, material possessions, and social standing are highly valued, a person’s status and possessions are considered an indicator of their value.
As Niccolo Machiavelli said, “It is not titles that honour men, but men that honour titles.”
To conclude: Throughout the entire human history. Money is the only product or idea that is disconnected from labour and trends, and It has many controversies, especially when it involves making value from it, which is making money from money (usury), and many religions and philosophies believe that money does not contribute to the production of real value.
Craftsmanship
vs
Entrepreneurship
Most highly successful people in their careers, like Steve Jobs, say:
“You have to have a lot of passion for what you’re doing, the reason is that it’s so hard that any rational person would give up, and you have to do it over a sustained period.“
So if you’re not having fun doing it, you’re going to give up, and that’s what happens to most people. If you look at the ones that ended up being successful in their respective field and the ones that didn’t, in the eyes of society, oftentimes it’s the ones that are successful who loved what they have been doing because they enjoyed their journey and loved what they have been doing, they could persevere when it got tough, and the ones that didn’t enjoy it, they just quit.
Who would want to put up with months and years of fruitless effort and energy, with constant worrying about failing and how they can go through the next day?
Being passionate is the most crucial prerequisite.
The primary motivation of craftsmen and artisans is not only to develop and create ideas and projects that they love and enjoy, but also to pursue their passion, make a difference, change and contribute value to their particular fields. In this way, they can withstand hardships and emergencies for an extended period.
For entrepreneurs, money is the main great motivator, but a lack of it in the creation journey makes the experience hard and tasteless, also the idea of swapping fields and projects or the feeling of giving up is the only solution in the current society.
For entrepreneurs, the need to be well-connected and have a network is primordial, despite intelligence and talent, entrepreneurs need a strong support system and great people, this requires evaluating people properly, quickly and fairly because there are many dishonest and cunning people out there who would like to take advantage, exploit any project or idea as soon as it starts looking promising and profitable.
Entrepreneurship is often tied to a narrow view of financial prosperity, where ideas are launched primarily for monetary gain. This pursuit has become the sole motivation in a challenging commercial world. In contrast, the craftsman and artisan operate on an opposing principle. The drive comes from a profound love for the work itself. They handle the struggle and dedication because the craft is their own reward. This creates a value system where passion, not profit, is the core purpose.
Luxury
Beyond price and status.
When it comes to luxury, the story and meaning behind a product often carry more weight than the item itself.
True luxury isn’t defined by price; something expensive isn’t automatically luxurious.
For example, a rare collectable Pokémon card may fetch a high price, but it doesn’t convey the essence of luxury. Balenciaga’s $3,000 “packing tape” bracelets are another example—they may be high fashion, but they don’t embody true luxury.
Instead, luxury goes far deeper, often symbolising an elevation of status, artistry, and identity, a tradition that has existed for thousands of years.
From the aristocrats of ancient civilisations to the elite circles of today, luxury has always served as a marker of distinction.
Wealthy aristocrats and royalty elevated themselves above the common people through luxury items, building a visible divide between social classes. Plato, in Ancient Greece, saw luxury goods as symbols of vanity and greed, but even he noted the value they offered in showcasing the work of skilled artisans, who poured passion into their craft. This duality continues today; we celebrate the creativity and craftsmanship behind luxury goods, yet we also often critique the act of buying them.
Across different cultures and eras—from Ancient Egypt to the Renaissance—luxury has been a display of social status.
In these societies, everyday etiquette, from how the ruling class dressed to how they walked or dined, served as a visible marker of hierarchy. Even the French word “étiquette,” meaning “label,” is directly linked to social conduct, a concept that now parallels modern luxury brands, whose distinct aesthetics serve as symbols of status.
A notable historical example is Louis XIV of France, who elevated French artisanship and established French luxury goods as globally desired items.
By promoting the work of skilled French craftsmen, he tied luxury to national pride and cultural identity, a concept that persists in luxury brands today.
Similarly, in Renaissance Italy, powerful families like the Medicis funded grand works of art and architecture, using luxury as a tool to convey their status and influence.
With the decline of monarchies and the rise of the Industrial Revolution, luxury became more accessible across the Western world. As luxury goods became less rare, brands had to find new ways to maintain exclusivity and allure.
This shift led to practices where even those with wealth must often “earn” the privilege to buy. There is a distinctive connection between luxury brands and their customers; they are the object of their respect and often dominate their clientele.
Take Ferrari’s newest models or Hermès’ Birkin bags: ownership isn’t just a matter of money—it’s about status, loyalty, and access. Even with the funds, customers may find that a transaction isn’t simple; they must show commitment to the brand over time.
This exclusivity has turned the traditional sales model upside down. Rather than brands trying to persuade customers to buy, the customers must convince the brand that they’re “worthy” of ownership.
Rolex, for example, has notoriously long waiting lists for select models, and Chanel restricts the number of iconic bags a customer can buy annually, maintaining scarcity and allure.
So, why do people go to such lengths to buy a car, a bag, or a watch?
There are several reasons:
1— For those accustomed to constant affirmation, a bit of challenge and rejection from a brand can be perversely appealing.
2— People deeply crave exclusivity and uniqueness, and these practices amplify that desire.
3— By making purchases difficult and weaving rich brand narratives around them, luxury brands tap into an old saying: “You have to suffer for beauty.” In luxury, the effort and time spent add meaning, transforming the transaction into a rewarding experience for the customer.
The paradox of luxury is that while we applaud the craftsmanship of these products, we also condemn the consumers.
Take Hermès, for example, where a single Birkin bag might require over 18 hours of meticulous handcrafting by a skilled artisan.
This dedication to quality and detail is highly respected, yet the unattainable nature of the product also attracts criticism. Similarly, Patek Philippe watches, known for their master craftsmanship and generational durability, stir admiration for their uniqueness, but the price and limited availability fuel debates about accessibility.
Luxury brands understand that, for their clientele, time and money are abstract concepts experienced differently than for the average consumer.
As such, luxury retailers design immersive in-store experiences, where time seems to slow down, and the quality of the encounter matters as much as the product.
This contrasts with regular brands, which focus on convenience and efficiency, recognising that, for most, “time is money.” In luxury, time is part of the enjoyment, and money is merely a stepping stone toward the experience.
True luxury brands focus on the entire customer experience, not just the product.
For instance, Bentley allows customers to personalise their car interiors extensively, offering a sense of ownership in the creation of the product itself. Luxury retail environments echo this personalised experience.
Louis Vuitton’s flagship stores, for example, create an atmosphere resembling an art gallery, with museum-quality displays and exclusive VIP rooms that enhance the feeling of belonging to an elite group.
Some mass-market brands successfully incorporate luxury principles to elevate their appeal, even without full exclusivity.
Apple, for instance, adopts a minimalist aesthetic in its retail spaces that feels almost like an art gallery, creating an environment that encourages visitors to linger, explore, and fully experience the products.
Balenciaga, known for its avant-garde approach, sometimes ventures into provocative designs like its infamous “trash bag” handbag, designed to draw attention and appeal to those who value rarity and distinction in their fashion.
Ultimately, a luxury brand isn’t interested in mass approval; in fact, criticism or ridicule from the general public can benefit luxury brands by reinforcing their exclusivity.
By distancing themselves from the mainstream, luxury brands make a clear statement that their value is for those who can appreciate it, not necessarily for everyone to understand.
For luxury brands, it’s not about how much they can sell, but to whom, and how much meaning they can infuse into every interaction. In a world where convenience dominates, luxury’s allure lies in the opposite: the time, effort, and story behind each product, and the sense that true luxury is a privilege earned, not just bought.
The concept of minimalism in western view is to eliminate all unnecessary elements and achieve simplicity,
as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a director of the Bauhaus, famously said, “Less is more”.
Minimalism
Minimalism, in the European view, is an art movement that takes its origin from the Frankfurt School in Germany and has since become a dominant style in various fields of art and design. The term minimalist often colloquially refers to anything spare or stripped to its essentials.
So, why has minimalism been taking over in the design world?
Many designers would argue that the reason is its effectiveness.
Minimalism has been taking over because it just works. Minimalist design is simple and easy for users to understand and engage with. Despite its appearance of simplicity, it requires a lot of thoughtful planning and execution from the designer to achieve a stripped-down look that still serves its purpose.
By stripping down the design to its essentials and eliminating cultural and personal properties… The design will be so neutral that everyone can identify with it and won’t reject it, and designers can create products that please globally. This is why companies like Apple have become successful — their minimalist design appeals to a wide range of people around the world.
The Marxist philosophical view of the Frankfurt School has led to social conformity by being neutral and avoiding cultural or personal references, whereas minimalism appeals to a large and diverse audience and is less likely to be rejected. From this point, we have observed the expansion of the design throughout different styles and movements like the Bauhaus, Swiss style and Brutalism, which is distinguished by its cubic and harsh geometrical shapes, as well as its simplicity in cement and brick colouration.
Today, we are at the pinnacle of minimalism. When it comes to design, even fonts have been simplified to the maximum of non-serif fonts, due to digital simplicity. The lack of differences and personality has reached its limit. We will see shortly a comeback to a more detailed design with more character and personality
Ideas and facts are meaningless if their audience does not grasp them. It might be tough to describe a complex topic while keeping its integrity and value to a larger audience.
Every expert and professional is aware of this; nevertheless, putting it into effect may be challenging because it requires a specific set of skills to communicate complex or large amounts of information in a way that anyone can understand.
Appearances have taken such a massive place in people’s perception of reality that even communication is used only to sell and impress, while the content is completely shallow and meaningless. The invisible part, which is the thinking process, has to change, simplifying the expression to give clear information and communication. The goal is to be able to see and understand complex information and represent it in a simple way and manner.
Removing unnecessary details from your mind to make thoughts clear and understandable.
As Albert Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”.
By applying precise, accurate, and clear language to convey your thoughts, you can break down your ideas into their smallest constituent parts to identify the key elements of what you are considering.
You can also realise that your initial idea is merely a draft that needs to be organised.
Consider yourself the reader or listener. To simplify it for comprehension, act as if you’re a novice with the subject and remember when you first heard and learned about it.
Minimalism has only served art, design and branding to alter, simplify, and adapt the visual to reach the standard and market of any culture and society. However, when it comes to our thinking process, we are doing the exact opposite by making it complex.
We need to spend time alone with our thoughts to give space to our ideas and minds to expand ourselves.
As many figures have said, “The time we enjoy wasting is not wasted time”.
Having time that you enjoy with your own company allows you to think for yourself, by yourself, and offers you a unique way of understanding the meaning of your thoughts and knowing yourself.
“I just needed time alone, with my own thoughts
Got treasures in my mind but couldn’t open up my own vault
My childlike creativity, purity and honesty
Is honestly being crowded by these grown thoughts
Reality is catching up with me
Taking my inner child, I’m fighting for custody
With these responsibilities that they entrusted me
As I look down at my diamond encrusted piece.”
-Kanye West – Power-
Avant-gardism
The Power Of Being Ahead
The ability to see, practice, and get the next wave before it crashes into society is a superpower that some people can have, called avant-gardists or vanguards, who are sometimes ahead of their time and misunderstood.
Every creative profession experiences movements, fads, stylistic shifts, and evolving preferences and practices.
But how do trends happen, and how are they sourced and predicted? Is a trend defined by its newness or influenced by important figures?
As an example, the Pantone Colour Institute,
The Pantone Colour Institute studies colour trends throughout the year in order to decide on the next Pantone Colour of the Year. They take into consideration all aspects of society: fashion, marketing, social media, and even politics. The hue chosen as Colour of the Year has become increasingly influential in the vast world of design and brand marketing. The first Colour of the Year was selected back in 2000, but it wasn’t until 2007 that colour trend forecasting took on a life of its own. Nowadays, when a new colour is announced, Pantone offers colour lovers an array of inspirational products and colour combination palettes designed especially with the corresponding colour in mind. Hundreds of brands take on the task of designing products with the Colour of the Year. This reinforces the importance of the Pantone colour trend forecast is important and influential.
Studying and analysing people’s and society’s behaviours and thinking to predict and influence the future taste and style is easy today with social media and big data, which is mainly controlled by big corporations such as Google, TikTok, and Facebook.
So, how can a creative person be an avant-gardist?
It is mainly a personal trait and a God’s gift that we need to maintain by following these habits.
•Love and enjoy our passion, and money comes next.
•Understand and master our field.
•Bring value and change.
•Knowledge and curiosity: “Know something about everything”.
•Expand our thinking.
• Analyse society and people.
•Be out of the box.
•Be mentally strong to criticism and take it positively with analysis.
•Be truthful, fearless and free.
•Appreciate times of struggle.
•Raise our consciousness.
•Be open-minded and responsible for taking action.
Colour Theory
How colours shape our world.
Colour is both a physical phenomenon and a psychological experience.
The way we see and interpret colours depends on light, wavelengths, and how the brain processes these signals.
Furthermore, cultural, personal, and contextual factors play a significant role in how colour affects our emotions and behaviours.
Colour is the result of light, a type of energy that travels in waves. When we see colours, we’re seeing specific wavelengths of light that our eyes can detect. This range of visible light, called the visible spectrum, is just a tiny part of the larger electromagnetic spectrum, which also includes waves we can’t see, like X-rays or radio waves.
Frequency: Refers to how many waves pass a certain point per second. Higher frequencies (like violet light) have shorter wavelengths, and lower frequencies (like red light) have longer wavelengths.
Wavelength: The distance between two peaks (or troughs) of a light wave. Shorter wavelengths produce colours like violet, while longer wavelengths produce colours like red.
The Physics of Colour
There are two main ways we perceive colour, through additive and subtractive colour mixing.
- Additive Colour Mixing (Light)
This happens when different coloured lights combine. The primary colours of light are red, green, and blue (RGB). When you mix these colours in equal amounts, you get white light. This is how digital screens like TV, phones, and computers work—by combining red, green, and blue light at different intensities
Example: When you look at a white screen on your phone, it’s not actually “white” light coming from the phone; it’s a mix of red, green, and blue light blending.
- Subtractive Colour Mixing (Pigments)
This occurs when pigments or dyes absorb certain wavelengths of light and reflect others. The primary colours in subtractive mixing are cyan, magenta, and yellow (CMY). When you mix these pigments, they absorb more light, and the resulting colour becomes darker. If you combine all three, they absorb nearly all light, resulting in black. This is the principle behind colour printing.
Example: In a printer, cyan, magenta, and yellow ink are layered to create various colours. When all three are combined, they absorb nearly all visible light, and the paper appears black.
Key Difference: In additive mixing (light), adding all colours produces white, but in subtractive mixing (pigments), adding all colours results in black.
Colour Psychology
Colour psychology explores how colours affect our mood, behaviour, and decision-making. It’s widely used in areas like marketing, design, and therapy, though personal experiences and cultural backgrounds can lead to different interpretations of colours.
Examples:
Red: Often associated with energy, passion, and urgency. It’s used in marketing to grab attention, like in sales signs or “Buy Now” buttons.
Blue: Linked to calmness, trust, and stability. Banks and tech companies often use blue in their logos to convey reliability.
Green: Commonly associated with nature, growth, and health. It’s popular in brands that focus on sustainability or wellness.
Yellow: Can evoke feelings of happiness and warmth, but too much yellow may also cause anxiety. It’s often used in children’s products or casual dining.
While these are common associations, colour perception can vary greatly based on individual experience. For example, while white is often seen as a symbol of purity in Western cultures, it is traditionally worn at funerals in some Asian cultures. Personal experiences also shape how we interpret colours—someone may associate red with danger due to past experiences, even though it’s commonly seen as a colour of excitement.
Copyright
What copywriting is and how does it work.
Copyright is a legal protection given to the creator of an original work. It ensures that the creator has exclusive rights over how their work is used, distributed, or copied. Copyright law and patent protection emerged in the UK in the 1700s under the common law to protect writers during the rise of the printing industry. In the 1800s, as industrialisation and global trade grew, nations saw the need for international protections to protect innovations and research, and it was confirmed that copyright was time-limited and not a perpetual common-law right, ensuring that, after a reasonable period, humanity reaps the collective benefits.
Importantly, copyright only protects the specific way an idea is expressed, not the idea itself. For example, while you can’t copyright the general idea of a superhero, you can copyright a particular superhero character, their backstory, costume, and artwork.
Copyright encourages creativity by giving creators a financial reason to develop new works. For instance, an author might spend years writing a novel, and copyright ensures they can control how that novel is sold or adapted into other formats, like movies or audiobooks. Without copyright, anyone could copy and sell their work, making it less attractive for creators to invest time and effort in original creations.
How Do You Get Copyright?
Copyright is automatic when you create an original work.
You don’t have to officially register it to be protected, but it’s a good idea to use a copyright notice, such as the © symbol, along with your name or logo.
Keeping records of when and how you created the work (like drafts or timestamps) can help prove ownership if needed.
Other Protections
Trademarks: These protect words, symbols, or logos that identify a product or service.
For example, Nike’s “swoosh” logo is a trademark.
Trade Dress: This refers to the overall look of a product or its packaging, which helps it stand out.
For example, Coca-Cola’s red cans and Tiffany & Co.’s distinctive blue boxes are protected as trade dress.
While copyright protects the creative content, trademarks and trade dress protect the visual or branding elements of a product or service.
Imagine you drew an awesome picture, and someone said, “Great job! You get to be the only one who can use this picture for a little while, but then it’s everyone’s to enjoy.” That’s what copyright was supposed to be, a way to reward creators for their work but also make sure everyone could use it later.
But now, it’s like someone saying, “This picture is mine forever,” and they keep it locked away so no one else can see or use it.
Large corporations are increasingly merging intellectual property with aspects of natural life, personal data, and existential elements, turning them into assets and creating a vast and intricate web of ownership. By extending copyright protections, they assert control over nearly every facet of human experience
Monsanto (now Bayer) weaponised intellectual property, patenting genetically modified seeds that force farmers into dependency, suing them for “infringement”. It’s like trying to own nature itself.
Meanwhile, GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) and AI giants engage in subreption—a legal sleight of hand—scraping human data, creative works, and even biometrics under vague “fair use” claims, then locking them behind algorithmic black boxes.
Copyright is no longer about protecting artists; it’s the new oil, with human experience, where ideas are privatised longer than ever, nature is patented, and human expression fuels corporate AI—all while the commons shrink.
Brands & Religions
People has adopted a worshiping attitudes and religeious believes toward brands that kept increasing over the years.
A brand name, logo (symbol), and character should be an endless reference point for why it exists. Because the human being has always been drawn to symbols that define his identity and morals that guide his journey. That is how and why religions have always been part of our lives, by using symbols and morals.
Some brand’s marketing has become so powerful that it has infiltrated people’s thoughts and minds, and they are no longer aware of it.
They become to the point where they market and advertise themselves throughout daily life and social media.
What is it about these companies that makes people act in such a cultic manner toward them?
Foremost, we need to understand the basics of branding.
Brand’s visual identity:
•Logo — A logo is the anchor of your brand.
•Graphics & Imagery — Can include icons, animations, illustrations…
•Typography — The style and shape of the text.
•Colour palette — Use a colour scheme to make your brand identifiable.
Brand’s personality:
•Audience — The type of clients and customers.
•Purpose — As Simon Sinek said, “People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it.”
•Values — What you stand for.
•Personal trait — A brand needs a personality, character and Attributes also morals to stand for.
In other words:
Logos, Graphics, imageries, and typographies are symbols that represent ideas, quality, or movement.
Purpose values and personal traits are morals that have the standards of good or bad behaviour, fairness, honesty, etc…
Ying & Yang
“Opposites are not enemies but complementary forces.”
A common motif in many cultures and philosophies is the notion that everything has its opposite. This phenomenon can be interpreted in several ways, from a materialistic perspective, for example, darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, and static is the absence of movement.
However, things become more complex when discussing ideological and philosophical concepts and creations such as good and evil, yin and yang, or female and male.
• Duality: The view that opposites are inherent and fundamental aspects of reality. Each “thing” is defined by its opposite, creating a complementary relationship.
• Balance: Opposites can be seen as forces within a system that maintain a state of equilibrium.
• Dynamic: The extension of Opposites can also create a dynamic tension that drives change and evolution.
• Symbolic: Many cultural symbols, like yin and yang, represent the interconnectedness of opposites.
To grasp why everything can be gendered as we see it in various languages, we need to look beyond the biological aspect of female and male conceptions, which is only classified for the genital view. The left and right hemispheres of the human brain offer yet another fascinating illustration.
It’s important to keep in mind that this is an oversimplified image and that both hemispheres have to collaborate extensively, even though there are some general characteristics linked with each hemisphere. Knowing the difference between the left and right hemispheres emphasises how complicated “opposites” may be within one system, such as the brain. This intricacy carries over to other ideas covered in the text, serving as a warning against reading things too literally.
Concepts of male and female energy are deep and complex, frequently connected to concepts such as yin and yang. It’s critical to address them nuancedly and take into account different viewpoints:
According to traditional conceptions, “female” energy is associated with receptive, attractive, attention-grabbing, and nurturing qualities (yin), whereas “male” energy is associated with assertive, productive, force-generating, and action-oriented qualities (yang).
is believed that these energies are complementary and essential to equilibrium.
Any creative sector must, however, be aware of both extremes—the feminine energy for the attractive and appealing aspects and the male energy for the doing and action parts.
Consumerism
pleasure vs happness
Throughout history, the pursuit of pleasure has often been the privilege of the wealthy.
From the lavish banquets of the Roman elite to the indulgences of the European bourgeoisie, life built around pleasure was a marker of status and exclusivity.
Epicurean philosophy, which emphasised the pursuit of refined and moderate pleasures to achieve tranquillity (ataraxia), was once a guiding principle for a select few.
However, with the rise of consumerism in the 1960s, pleasure-seeking was no longer reserved for the upper classes—it was democratised.
Mass production, aggressive advertising, and the expansion of credit transformed desire into an economic engine, making luxury and indulgence accessible to the many rather than the few.
But as pleasure became a commodity, did it bring true happiness? Or did the modern world blur the lines between fulfilment and excess, turning consumption into a habit and an addiction?
Let us recall that in the 1960s, we were in an era of high production. Most people in the Western world were actively participating in the creation, innovation, and production of goods and technologies.
Consumption was closely tied to labour and expertise; people largely consumed what they helped create. In other words, the products being developed reflected the skills, knowledge, and efforts of the working population.
This alignment between production and consumption fostered a sense of purpose, as innovation was driven by necessity and progress rather than sheer desire.
As time progressed into the 2000s, globalisation fundamentally reshaped the economic system, and the Japanese crisis in the 90’s was the starting point. To maximise profits, most Western companies outsourced production to developing countries, where labour was significantly cheaper. Industries that once thrived in the West, such as textiles, electronics, and even food manufacturing, were relocated overseas. Meanwhile, only highly specialised sectors, like pharmaceuticals, aerospace, and advanced scientific research, remained rooted in Western economies.
This shift led to a dramatic transformation: Western societies became predominantly service-oriented, focusing on finance, technology management, and political administration rather than tangible production. As a result, a growing disconnect emerged between creation and consumption; people no longer produced what they consumed, but instead relied on imported goods manufactured under conditions they neither witnessed nor controlled.
This growing disconnection between goods and the mental and physical participation in their creation has had profound consequences.
In modern consumer culture, creation is no longer the driving force of progress; instead, consumption itself has become the primary goal, fueling economic growth and propelling large corporations to unprecedented levels of power. People are encouraged to consume more and more, with short-term satisfaction replacing meaningful engagement.
This cycle of consumption feeds into a constant need for new desires to be fulfilled, leading to overconsumption. The rise of the internet and social media has further intensified this pattern, accelerating the demand for instant gratification.
At the heart of this issue is the widespread misunderstanding between pleasure and happiness. Consumerism thrives on the promise of pleasure, quick, fleeting rewards that stimulate desire but never provide lasting fulfilment. Buying a new gadget, indulging in fast food, or engaging in social media validation triggers the brain’s dopamine-driven reward system, creating a short-lived sense of enjoyment. However, true happiness is not found in these momentary highs; it is a deeper, more sustainable state of well-being that comes from meaningful connections, purpose, and self-growth. The distinction between these two concepts is critical to understanding why consumerism, despite providing pleasure, often fails to deliver happiness.
This contrast highlights how consumerism, built on the pursuit of pleasure, often leads to dissatisfaction rather than true happiness. In a society where buying more is equated with living better, the real problem remains that consumption, offering only fleeting pleasure, has been closely linked to depression, emptiness, and a constant sense of lack. The only solution that has been normalised is to work more to buy more, perpetuating the cycle. Even spiritual and mental development has been commodified, with people purchasing courses and online training sessions in search of a sense of fulfilment, further reinforcing the idea that happiness can be bought rather than cultivated.
Consumerism has become an addiction—one that is never truly satisfied. Even those with limited financial means continue to consume as if they are not in need, driven by an insatiable urge for more.
Today, buying has become a reflex rather than a necessity, with fast-fashion giants like Shein and Temu capitalising on this compulsive behaviour. Much like addiction to alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes, consumerism creates a cycle where people, regardless of their financial situation, always find a way to fund their next purchase in pursuit of fleeting pleasure.
This endless cycle is not about necessity but about chasing dopamine-fueled gratification. The act of buying provides a temporary high, but once it fades, the craving returns, leading to more consumption, more waste, and ultimately, more dissatisfaction. As long as consumer culture equates material goods with happiness, the cycle will persist. The question we must ask ourselves is: how do we break free from this addiction and rediscover a more meaningful way to live?
Thinking and developing thoughts have always been at the core of human existence. From the earliest times, philosophers have wrestled with the nature of thinking itself.
Descartes famously captured this in his statement, “Cogito, ergo sum” — “I think, therefore I am”, suggesting that the act of thinking is proof of our existence.
Beyond this foundational idea, Aristotle defined thinking as “the activity of the soul concerned with the possible”, linking thought to our capacity to imagine and create.
Thinking
Human life is inherently complex, requiring us to make sense of our existence and seek meaning in our experiences. Thinking often emerges as a response to these challenges, whether they are tangible and real or products of our imagination.
Worrying, struggling, and grappling with problems are what activate our minds, pushing us to reflect and find solutions.
For example, the invention of tools and technology throughout history has been driven by the need to overcome obstacles and improve our living conditions. However, this constant mental activity can also lead to overthinking, where the mind becomes trapped in endless cycles of reflection without resolution.
The inability to quiet the mind can prevent us from finding clarity, highlighting how deeply intertwined thinking is with our struggles and search for meaning. It is difficult to imagine human existence without problems to solve — they are the catalysts that spark our creativity and drive for innovation.
To be able to think, we need a problem to solve. Problems act as the fuel for our minds, giving us purpose and direction. The quality of our thoughts is directly linked to the quality of the problems we face.
As the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.”
This means that meaningful problems lead to profound thinking, while trivial problems yield shallow reflections. For example, solving a complex mathematical equation requires structured and logical thinking, while trivial gossip or minor inconveniences produce superficial thoughts. The kind of problems we choose to engage with determines the depth and growth of our minds.
Therefore, those who seek out challenging questions often develop higher forms of thinking, while those preoccupied with petty issues and addiction to pleasure may remain confined to limited perspectives.
By choosing to confront significant problems, we not only enhance our intellectual abilities but also enrich our understanding of life itself.
Even when life appears free of problems, humans tend to create challenges to give meaning to their existence. Without problems to solve, the mind remains idle, and purpose begins to fade.
This self-created struggle helps us maintain an active and dynamic way of thinking. As Albert Einstein once said, “Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death.” The nature of the problems we create defines our intellectual status.
People who engage with profound philosophical or scientific questions develop deeper, more complex ways of thinking. Conversely, those who focus on trivial issues often limit their minds to superficial thoughts. History shows that a small minority of thinkers—scientists, philosophers, and educators—have always guided the majority by offering knowledge and wisdom.
The difference in intellectual quality between these groups highlights the diverse ways humans define thinking. Understanding that the quality of our thoughts stems from the problems we choose allows us to cultivate more meaningful and enriching lives.
From this perspective, creativity emerges as a natural extension of thinking. Being creative means being a good thinker — someone who engages with problems in original and meaningful ways. However, in a world where distractions and entertainment often dominate, creativity is increasingly linked to material and financial pursuits rather than intellectual exploration.
By reclaiming the connection between thinking and creativity, we can unlock our full intellectual potential and find a deeper purpose in life. Cultivating thoughtful reflection, engaging with significant questions, and seeking wisdom allows us to rise above superficial concerns and contribute to a greater understanding of humanity.
The End of Exclusivity and How to Build Authenticity
The Curated Illusion
We live in an age of universal access. With just a few clicks, you can procure, buy, and access anything from your phone. This democratisation, fuelled by digital platforms and voracious marketing, promises a utopia of taste: a world where everyone can partake in everything. But a creeping emptiness follows this feast. When we notice, this isn’t liberation, it’s a sophisticated trap that trades genuine cultural capital for the anxious performance of belonging.
This performance is what the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre termed mauvaise foi—bad faith. It is the act of clinging to a ready-made identity to escape the terrifying freedom of defining oneself. Chasing the latest ‘must-have’ accessory or queueing for hours at an overhyped pop-up isn’t a pursuit of genuine value; it’s a flight from the question of who we are when the logos and titles are removed. We adopt the signifiers of a superficiality to mask our insecurities, hoping the shine of purchased exclusivity will convince others, and ultimately ourselves, that we possess an essence we have not built.
In opposition to this stands a more Nietzschean ideal: the call to create one’s own values. True exclusivity, in a world saturated with the counterfeit, becomes a contrarian act. It is found not in consuming what is presented as rare, but in the deliberate, often solitary, curation of one’s world. It is the individual who seeks out the artisanal, not because it is trending, but because they value the story of its craft—the visible trace of human effort and intention. This is an act of self-overcoming, a rejection of the herd’s hunger for validation in favour of a personal, aesthetic justification for one’s life.
This friction is the engine of modern marketing, which operates perfectly within what sociologist Zygmunt Bauman called ‘liquid modernity’. In this fluid social order, solid, long-term identities have melted away. Status is no longer a fixed state but a constant, anxious performance maintained through consumption and performances. Marketing, the high priests of this liquidity, have become masters of creating false scarcity, limited editions, drop culture, VIP access, creating the illusion of exclusivity while its sole barrier remains financial, not intellectual or cultural. To maximise reach, they inevitably lower standards, diluting complexity to appease the widest possible denominator.
Perhaps most cynically, marketing has learned to weaponise the language of inclusivity and identity. Barriers are lowered not on principle, but for profit, appeasing fragile egos willing to spend money for some prestige. The result is a shallow, ‘accessible conformity’ where the meaning of both exclusivity and inclusivity is drained for commercial gain.
To navigate this, we might look East, to the Japanese concept of Ichi-go ichi-e. Literally “one time, one meeting,” it speaks to a profound, cultural exclusivity born of transience and mindfulness. It is the moment—a tea ceremony, a conversation, an experience—that can never be replicated. Its value is not in its price tag or its broad recognition, but in its unique, fleeting context and the sincere, undivided attention paid to it. This stands in stark contrast to the Western, marketed version of exclusivity, which is about mass-produced rarity and permanent possession. Ichi-go ichi-e is exclusive by its very nature, not by design; its value is unlocked by the participant’s depth of engagement, not their wealth.
This path of depth over breadth, of craft over hype, is not without its cost. It aligns with what the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer termed “the loneliness of the genius among the crowd.” To reject the common taste, to find satisfaction in niches unknown to the mass, is to opt out of the communal rituals that bind society. It is a solitary road. One may find profound authenticity in a hand-thrown ceramic cup, but will lack the shared camaraderie of those who waited in line for the latest branded tumbler.
Yet, this loneliness may be the necessary price of a self-authored life. In a world intent on selling us prefabricated identities, the most radical and truly exclusive act is to retreat, to refine our taste away from the spotlight, and to build a personal culture based on effort, understanding, and a mindful appreciation for the unique. It is to understand that the most valuable things in life, true knowledge, authentic experience, and personal style, cannot be bought. They can only be built, one deliberate, unboxed choice at a time. And that is an exclusivity that endures.
Lust & Desire
The Pinnacle of Modern Society
Contemporary life isn’t just about utility; it’s about sensation and experience. To captivate attention, generate envy, and confer perceived value upon anything, like a product, a service, or an idea, design, marketing, branding, advertisement… must harness the apex forces of the human psyche: lust and desire. These are the alchemical agents that transmute passing interest into profound obsession. From fashion and technology to gastronomy and governance, every domain now strategically employs these primal emotions to seduce the subconscious and command allegiance.
Lust is the raw, the quick hook, is described as an intense, primative immediate craving that’s often sensory and impulsive, focused on instant gratification like hunger, sexual attraction. Think fast-food ads or limited-edition product drops – these tap into that feeling of needing something now. Brands trigger lust through sensory and visual stimulation, like provocative imagery, luxurious textures and sounds, and mouth-watering food photography. They also use scarcity and exclusivity to play on the fear of missing out (FOMO), like limited editions.
Desire is deeper, long-term, The Cult of “BECOMING”, longing for identity and status, or emotional fulfillment, like wanting a luxury car for its prestige. it focuses on cultivating aspiration, storytelling, and emotional engagement, as seen Apple isn’t selling phones but a revolution. Brands fuel desire by telling narratives that make consumers feel part of something bigger, using social proof and status through influencer endorsements and luxury branding to make people desire what others admire.
Desire Trap: How Admiration Turns to Envy (And Why Nike Owns It)
René Girard’s revolutionary insight reveals that we don’t desire objects; we desire through others. Desire is mimetic (imitative), forming a triangle:
- Subject (You) – The desirer
- Mediator (The Influencer) – Who shapes what you want
- Object (The Status Symbol) – Merely a trophy proving you’ve “won”
External Mediators (distant idols like Michael Jordan in Nike ads) inspire harmless aspiration. But Internal Mediators (your gym buddy wearing fresh Air Jordans) spark visceral competition—that itch to outdo them. The object (sneakers) becomes a battleground for validation.
Nike exploits this perfectly: Their gear isn’t footwear—it’s proof you belong to the tribe of winners. The moment you crave Jordans because they have them, mimetic desire has you. Girard’s warning? What begins as admiration curdles into envy, and brands profit from that tension.
This connects with the marketing idea of desire being tied to identity and status.
Identity and Status are only mimetic; we want a type of identity and status only because it’s desired, admired or envied by someone.
The Mimetic Mechanics of Lust: Why We Crave What Others Can’t Have
Girard’s theory exposes lust as mimetic desire on fast-forward, a primal echo chamber where we don’t just want, we want because others want first. Here’s the breakdown:
- The Provocation Loop
Lust isn’t about the object; it’s about watching others lust. When Calvin Klein places a half-dressed model in Times Square, the real trigger isn’t the body, it’s the crowd’s gaze that validates the desire. Your brain reads collective attention as biological urgency: “If they want it, it must be valuable.” - Scarcity as Social Proof
“Only 3 left!” works because it mimics tribal competition. Girard called this snob effect the paradox, where wanting to be unique (owning a limited edition) is itself an imitation of elite behaviour. Apple’s midnight launches exploit this: The line outside the store isn’t a queue; it’s a mimetic beacon screaming, “You should want this too.” - The Thief of Desire Lust starts as envy, but Girard exposes its endgame: you don’t just want the object, you want to steal the mediator’s throne. That manager; First you crave their position, then you resent them for having it, until finally, you’re not exchanging with him, you’re waging war for their status..
Even rebellion is mimetic: Kanye West’s “anti-Everything” only works because others recognise its rebellion as cool.
The Dark Insight
Mimetic desire’s final form? Becoming what you once envied—and erasing the original.
Modern society runs on mimetic desire – we don’t crave objects, but the status they show and the identity they represent.
Trapped in algorithmic feedback loops, we’ve become copies of copies: our wants aren’t ours, but programmed cravings.
The proof? Our ‘unique’ lifestyles are mass-produced fantasies—same cravings, same poses, different filters...
Dystopia
The Great Human Obsolescence.
We were promised a future of leisure, robots doing the work, and minds freed to create and explore. Instead, we got a dystopia of endless toil, digital distraction, and a system rotting from the inside out.
In the 1970s, economists whispered about the “end of work.” By the 1990s, the internet and automation began erasing careers overnight. Yet the elites, profiting from the grind, kept the charade alive. They invented bullshit jobs, pumped us full of consumerist dopamine, and turned education into a debt trap. All to delay one truth and the rise of AI: Humanity is becoming obsolete on its own planet.
This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s capitalism’s death rattle. Planned obsolescence wasn’t just for gadgets, it was for us as human beings as well. Now, as AI eats the last “skilled” jobs and birth rates collapse under the weight of modern futility, the question isn’t if the system crashes. It’s who—or what—will be left standing after it does.
Welcome to the great filter. The clock’s ticking.
Before the Industrial Revolution, life was a brutal filter. The weak, the slow, and the stupid died early, starved in droughts, fell to disease, or were crushed by rivals. Natural selection worked. Then, steam engines and antibiotics arrived, and humanity declared war on natural selection. By the 20th century, the system no longer needed competence, just warm bodies to consume and obey. Useless people weren’t just allowed to survive; they became essential.
By the late 60s, Consumerism demanded endless buyers. Factories needed replaceable workers. Governments wanted docile taxpayers. The elites, terrified of collapse, engineered a world where mediocrity wasn’t just tolerated, it was profitable.
Now, AI is becoming the new filter. The internet could’ve been a golden age of knowledge, but most of us have chosen the paycheck mentality: Why think when you can scroll? Why learn when you can outsource? The machines, hungry and efficient, are taking over the last domains of human value, not just labour, but creativity, judgment, even intimacy. The Industrial Revolution broke natural selection. AI won’t just inherit the pieces, it will decide if humanity deserves to keep playing the game.
For decades, the elites have delayed collapse with controlled crises, financial bubbles, wars, and pandemics, all to keep the system running. But their time is running out. Birth rates are plummeting; people aren’t just refusing to reproduce, many can’t afford to (mentally and financially). The system, built on infinite growth, is hitting a wall of sterility and disengagement. AI won’t need us to run the future, and nature has a way of correcting excess.
The result? A world where the population shrinks back to pre-industrial levels, not by plague or famine, but by silent rejection.
The change was always coming, but the elites delayed it. Biology and technology will finish it.
We stand at the end of an unnatural era. The industrial age defied natural evolution, but evolution always wins. Whether through AI supremacy, demographic collapse, or a revolt against meaninglessness, humanity is trending toward a brutal correction.
The only question left is whether what emerges will be a wasteland or a chance to rebuild, smaller and smarter, under a new paradigm.
One thing’s certain: the age of useless billions is over. The future belongs to those who adapt or those bring about change and add value and improvement.