Lifestyles Sold Out

 

By Pradnya Mangutkar, SYBA

Every work of art is born from inner experiences, it is born from inner necessities, it is born of the artist in a mysterious and secret way. It must be lived by the artist as it gains life and being from him. So is the art of capturing moments. In no less than two centuries we have come a long way from painting the moments to capturing them on a negative film, from digitized photographs to hoping on trends every other instant. 

On Photography and Culture of the Image

The first successful photographic process, the Daguerreotype, was created in 1837 by Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre. Daguerre had previously worked as a professional scene painter at a theater. For this reason, he already knew the camera obscura, a small, darkened room with a tiny hole or lens that allowed an image from the outside through. Daguerre took inspiration from this process in order to create the world’s first photographic camera. From this introduction of photography to the world, we see photography being used as a tool to change the course of history. Not only did it emerge as an art but with time got seen through political, social and historical tinted lenses. Photography had a significant impact in 19th-century society and its reception within artistic circles varied. Photography, during its emergence, wasn’t seen as art but with time people accepted it as an art form and we see photography playing equally important roles in artistic movements like ‘Impressionism’. 

According to Susan Sontag; in her collection of essays ‘On Photography’, there are three key ways in which the emergence of modern photography constitutes a ‘new visual code’. The first of these, she suggests, because of photography’s convenience and ease, has resulted in an overabundance of visual material. As taking photographs is now a practice of the masses, owing to a decrease in camera size and increase of ease in developing photographs, we are left in a position where ‘just about everything has been photographed’. We no longer, Sontag tells us, as we once did, feel entitled to view only those things in our immediate presence or that affected our micro world; we now seem to feel entitled to gain access to any existing images. Sontag continues, ‘In teaching us a new visual code, photographs alter and enlarge our notion of what is worth looking at and at what we have the right to observe’.  Secondly, Sontag charts the effect of modern photography on our education, claiming that photographs ‘now provide most of the knowledge people have about the look of the past and the reach of the present’. Thirdly, Sontag also discusses the way in which photography desensitises its audience. 

Barthes, in ‘Camera Lucida’, takes a more personal and phenomenological approach. He argues that photographs always point to “what has been” ; they attest to the reality of a past moment, making the absent present. He distinguishes between the studium (the general, conventional meaning of a photograph) and the punctum (the detail that wounds or personally touches the viewer). Yet, Barthes is also critical of the proliferation and standardization of images, noting that their multiplication can lead to indifference, where images lose their singular impact and instead become ordinary, endlessly reproducible objects.

Together, Sontag and Barthes reveal how technological innovations like film and digital photography have commodified moments, transforming lived experience into images that are curated, distributed, consumed, and branded on a mass scale. The photograph is no longer only personal evidence or memory; it is also a social token, an aspirational advertisement, and a tool of aesthetic and psychological “ownership” in branded, performative cultures.

This metamorphosis in the photography industry is that of art being transformed to a commodity. 

Commodification of Art and Culture

The times we are living in has led us to be connected with everything and that has in my opinion affected our taste in art or the simple choices we make. We have a very homogenous taste profile for everything. This has been rightly explained by Benjamin in his book. Benjamin (1936) explains that mass reproduction diminishes the ritual and cult value of art, replacing it with “exhibition value”, art is now seen and consumed by huge audiences, not experienced in intimate, sacred settings. The artwork’s authority and uniqueness, the aura wither as it becomes part of capitalist exchange, easily accessible and instrumentalized for mass consumption and politics.The aesthetic experience becomes less about profound connection, and more about consumption. The cultural authority of the artwork once rooted in history, ritual, and meaning is now shaped by market forces and mass politics. In this process, art becomes instrumentalized, stripped of its deeper resonance, and utilized for commercial interests or political mobilization, as was dramatically seen in fascist propaganda and, later, consumer branding. This transformation where art loses its aura and becomes a tool for mass consumption and spectacle can empower collective experience, but also risks reducing art to a mere object of commerce, diminishing its power to provoke genuine reflection and meaning. 

Art’s exchange value (its price or popularity) outweighs the use value (its meaning or experience), and art becomes a commodity whose perceived value comes from being traded and consumed, not from its originality or capacity to provoke thought or emotion. As a result, even art forms that once emerged from resistance or marginal voices, like hip-hop, become subject to the same market forces commodified, standardized, and sold back to the masses.

Capitalism turns cultural products including art into standardized, mass-distributed commodities. The culture industry turns creative works into predictable, consumable goods, suppressing individuality and authentic artistic value. In this system, the mass-produced commodity replaces the aura and creativity of art, and audiences buy experiences crafted for maximum profit rather than genuine connection. 

In performative consumer cultures driven by social media and branding, a sense of ownership fuels loyalty, satisfaction, and repeated engagement. Consumers “perform” their identities through branded goods, which become extensions of the self and tools to communicate status, values, or group membership. Marketers tap into psychological ownership by encouraging physical interaction with products, storytelling, customization, and exclusive experiences, further strengthening consumers’ emotional ties and investment.

Once a work's uniqueness, aura was grounded in its authenticity, physical presence, and tradition, mechanical reproduction made it possible to endlessly duplicate images, stripping original artworks of their singular authority. Technological innovation and capitalism has led art away from being unique, ritualistic creation, transforming it into reproducible, marketable commodities for mass consumption.

Curating Taste: Consumerism and Branding

Nothing really has been untouched by ‘consumerism’ and ‘commodification of culture’ and you as a member of the human race cannot really escape from this all so humane propaganda. This capitalist economy has ended us up in not buying commodities but buying lifestyles; the nicely plastic packaged, bubble wrapped, cardboard boxes that you and I bring home have certainly become our identities. We have this notion of good taste, underrated taste or curated feed that we all constantly want to be a part of which is not really shaped by individualistic preferences but by social class expectations and the accumulation of “cultural capital.” These patterns of consumption, whether it’s the latest digital device, fashionable clothes, or artisanal foods become ways in which social groups distinguish themselves from one another. Taste, then, is a social strategy: by choosing certain brands or styles, individuals perform and signal their class position and identity.

Naomi Klein (2000), in No Logo, exposes how modern branding goes beyond marking goods for sale. Instead, brands carefully build up emotional, cultural, and aspirational values around themselves. Brands sell ideas of rebellion, community, or creativity (as seen in Apple’s advertising, for instance), inviting consumers to buy not only a product, but a “lifestyle” and identity. This is how brands become cultural signifiers: Apple, for example, isn’t just a tech company; it stands for innovation and thinking differently, values that consumers aspire to embody through their purchases. 

The paradox of modern consumer culture lies in the contradiction between the desire for individuality and dissent, and the actual outcome of becoming participants in a system that exploits these desires for profit.

Modern capitalism encourages people to express their uniqueness and rebellious spirit through consumer choices; buying specific brands or adopting lifestyles that claim to defy norms or mainstream culture. This cultivation of individuality is central to identity building, where personal taste, style, and consumption signal who one is or aspires to be.

However, capitalist systems have perfected the art of commodifying dissent and identity. What appears as self-expression is frequently pre-packaged, mass-produced, and marketed to create new trends that consumers are invited to “buy into.” Brands sell rebellion, nonconformity, and counterculture as products and lifestyles, enabling consumers to perform dissent safely within the consumer marketplace.

Thus, while consumers believe they are asserting independence and standing apart from conformity, they are in fact drawn into a cycle of consumption dictated by market forces. This paradox means the pursuit of individuality results in deeper conformity because the choices available are shaped by corporate interests aiming to maximize profit by manufacturing the appearance of uniqueness. The pursuit of being unique or different often leads people to adopt similar behaviors, styles, and identities, thus reinforcing conformity rather than resisting it. 

This dynamic also applies to subcultures and countercultures: groups that form to break away from mainstream norms often develop their own conventions and styles, which eventually become standardized and commodified. For example, the “dark academia” aesthetic started as an intellectual niche but became a widely recognizable and adopted style, losing some of its original distinctiveness.

Brands as Lifestyle Producers

Brands as lifestyle producers go beyond selling mere products they create and market an identity, ethos, and community that embody a particular lifestyle their consumers aspire to. These brands carefully craft a persona, narrative, and set of values that resonate emotionally with their target audience, aiming to shape how consumers see themselves and their place in the world. Essentially, they sell not just goods but a sense of belonging, aspiration, and self-expression. 

Brands align their products, services, messaging, and imagery with the interests, attitudes, and values of a distinct cultural or social group. It aims to inspire and motivate people by offering a coherent vision of life that customers want to be part of. For example, Nicobar is a home-grown lifestyle and luxury brand that does more than offer fashion and home décor products; it promotes a lifestyle deeply rooted in mindfulness, sustainability, and a blend of traditional Indian aesthetics with modern sensibilities. Consumers buy into that identity as much as (or more than) the actual product.

By embodying a lifestyle, these brands create social communities or subcultures. Fans gather around shared ideals and experiences, often interacting both online and offline. These communities enhance the brand’s cultural cachet and deepen consumer commitment. Example, The Souled Store - starting as a pop culture merchandise brand, it evolved into a hub for fans of superheroes and TV shows by hosting exclusive events like movie screenings with cosplay, games, and fan interactions. This leveraged existing fandoms and transformed casual customers into a passionate brand community. By building these communities brands create cult-like followings that drive loyalty, advocacy, and sustained growth. They transform consumers into brand evangelists who identify with the brand’s mission and lifestyle, not just its products.

Consumers increasingly seek lifestyle brands rather than one-time product purchases because these brands promise a more meaningful connection. Owning the brand’s products is seen as living the lifestyle they represent, offering a pathway to an idealized self or community. Such brands impact consumption by transforming buying into a symbolic act of identity formation, social communication, and value expression, beyond simply owning products. These brands meet consumers’ psychological and cultural needs, creating durable market relevance and consumer loyalty.

The Sold Out Board

Brands are no longer just selling products but actively shaping and mass-producing cultures and lifestyles  and these curated lifestyles become scarce, exclusive, and commodified. In a world of accelerated cultural change, brands act like cultural factories, attaching symbolic value to objects that once served purely utilitarian purposes. Clothing, gadgets, food, even experiences, are marketed not as individual items but as gateways into identities signifiers of taste, aspiration, or belonging. When these branded lifestyles go “sold out”, it signals both the artificial scarcity engineered through marketing and the frenzy with which consumers adopt and discard cultural markers.

Social media reshapes cultural norms by exposing people to new perspectives, ideas, fashions, language styles, and social movements at a pace never before possible. Social media reshapes cultural norms by exposing people to new perspectives, ideas, fashions, language styles, and social movements at a pace never before possible. Polarization through algorithm-driven echo chambers occurs because social media platforms largely use algorithms designed to show users content that aligns with their past preferences and beliefs. This fosters the creation of bubbles or “echo chambers” that reinforce existing views, fragment societies, and intensify social or political polarization. Instead of exposing users to diverse perspectives that might foster understanding, these algorithmic filters often deepen divisions and hostility between different groups.

The erosion of deep-rooted cultural traditions happens as rapid cultural change and digital media exposure expose communities to dominant global cultural norms and values. Local, traditional practices may be abandoned by younger generations in favor of more globally popular or trendy alternatives. Intergenerational conflicts can emerge as older cultural frameworks are challenged. This erosion is partly due to the appeal of modern lifestyles commodified by brands and popular media, which can overshadow and marginalize longstanding, localized cultural heritage.However, cultural change is not unidirectional; hybridization also occurs as local cultures adapt and blend global influences creatively. This aspect of cultural change is used by brands as a marketing tool where they profess manufactured scarcity. 

Manufactured scarcity is a deliberate marketing strategy where brands create an artificial sense of limited availability or exclusivity to boost consumer desire and urgency to purchase. This tactic leverages psychological principles linked to scarcity that people value things more when they perceive them as rare or fleeting. Brands frequently use “sold out” to signal that a product is so valued and in demand it is no longer available, creating a sense of urgency and exclusivity. This manufactured scarcity serves both as a powerful marketing tool and a cultural symbol, heightening consumer desire by implying that acquiring the product offers access to a coveted lifestyle or social status.

When a product is “sold out”, it signals not just a missing item but an intangible cultural capital, a prized access point into a particular social identity or community. “Sold out” signs reflect social competition, where consumers compete for limited goods that confer symbolic value. This competition intensifies in “drop culture”, where limited releases amplify the perception of rarity and desirability. Owning a sold-out item can elevate one’s perceived social standing and act as a badge of social distinction.

Though many lifestyles and cultural symbols are mass-produced by brands, the “sold out” status paradoxically enforces a sense of scarcity and exclusivity. This tension reflects how culture is simultaneously industrialized and fetishized, with scarcity driving cultural urgency in an age of abundance.  It marks a pivotal cultural flashpoint where consumer desire, identity formation, marketing strategies, and social competition converge. It is emblematic of how modern consumerism manufactures meaning and belonging through controlled access to branded cultural symbols.

Conclusion

Brands increasingly collaborate with artists or appropriate art styles to embed cultural depth and authenticity into products, enhancing appeal. This merges art and commerce: artistic expression becomes a component of lifestyle branding. The commodification of art within branding means art gets used as a cultural asset within consumer markets, reinforcing brand identities while contributing to cultural homogenization and mass consumption.

Thus, commodified art fuels lifestyle branding by providing visual and cultural capital, while lifestyle brands drive widespread dissemination and reinterpretation of artistic traditions. Together, they reflect how culture is packaged, marketed, and consumed in contemporary economies, balancing economic opportunity with challenges around cultural integrity.

References

Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction (A. Blunden, Trans.).

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1979)
Sontag, S. (1977). On photography. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Barthes, R. (1981). Camera lucida: Reflections on photography (R. Howard, Trans.). Hill and Wang.
Frank, T., & Weiland, M. (Eds.) (1997). Commodify your dissent: Salvos from The Baffler. W. W. Norton & Company.
Klein, N. (2000). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. Picador.

Illustrations 

(“I shop therefore I am” (1987) by Barbara Kruger. Image courtesy of the artist)