saul, i don’t doubt your sincerity. but, let’s be honest, you’re arguing with a straw man (i.e. the reactionary that cries ‘sell-out’ while pointing to an image of sweat-shop babies: nike=sweatshops, therefore nike commercial=bad).

‘saul does a nike commercial’ / ‘nike does a saul commercial.’ it’s a clever reversal. but, all the same, the fact remains– A COMMERCIAL WAS MADE. and, please dear saul, please tell me that you agree with us on this: it’s precisely ‘the commercial’ (as a category) that’s the problem– i.e. that thing/beast which convinces people to buy shit they don’t need, so that they have to work at jobs they don’t like, and in the process provide tax money to governments who wage wars that none of us (in our right minds) support.

what if wendy’s sold veggie burgers? with biodegradable wrappers? really?? is that what we’re after? is that what tops our list of demands? what about, instead, we think about time. time to spend with family and friends. with local farmers. time to spend the day preparing a feast. to experience joy. rather than running from work to the local fast-food shop to scarf down some nutrition packaged as food. who cares if a veggie burger has vitamins (seriously, what were you talking about)? ask yourself instead: how are the calories going to get burned? in joy, in love– or under pressure to perform? who’s making the decision on that score?

fair enough. we need the prophets of cynicism just as much as we need the profits of capital. that is, not at all. but here’s where you make (in my opinion) your crucial error. in positing an either/or. it’s not a choice between working from within or without. it’s possible for art to avoid this problem altogether. how? by giving voice to that future which lies in the present. to sing that future, that possibility, to help it reverberate.

by trying to reach as many people as possible, you tried to turn the commercial into a political venue. in the process, however, no matter how successful you were, no matter how many people looked up your lyrics after seeing the commercial, you stole something from us. you dragged your art down into the muck of the everyday. you fused it with commerce. and, as a result, took away that sountrack from elsewhere which gives us the inspiration, the strength, the courage, to work at changing this muck.

i can understand why you did it. but i just wish that you would acknowledge why it was an impossible, desperate move. the political dimension of art takes place outside of politics. in your impatience, you transgressed that taboo (one which has been recognized within political-aesthetic debates since the 1920s). and you’re now tasting the backlash– even if most people can’t articulate it much better than crying ‘sell-out.’

By any memes necessary, necessarily we can hack the matrix however we please

The awareness participates in degrees.

Personally, I agree with what he’s doing. Going against the prevailing system of power is great and can bring about lots of change. But it certainly has its limitations. To bring change in this world, we all need to work together; not against each other.

PS: I don’t know why I used the word “change” four times just now

This is not to say, that they have not done well to at least be willing to present their conscious directives on the site nikeresponsibility.com.

The point I’m trying to make is that for the risk to your clout as a truly progressive renaissance emcee; is that they should at least have had the song correspond with their sustainable marketing push.

Nothing in the commercial leads me to believe that Nike is doing anything other than what they always have which is to sex up athletic competition and appeal to man’s base desires to dominate in sport ritual.

I was hoping that they would make that preeminent if they were to feature one of your songs and jeopardize your standing as an uncompromising artist.

Now did you feel that you caused them to reach this epiphany, or were you merely a figure who represented the ideals of the LOHAS (lifestyles of health and sustainability) market?
Are you a social meme who they are employing to convey that they are hip to evolutionary ideals?

And if so why? Did you have any control over the message of the commercial?
How is it that your grand awareness is being presented to the public at large
other than by suggestion? A suggestion that would only be understood by those who
are familiar with your work and activism. And yet at first glance most likely
cause them to cringe upon seeing your beautiful song used in such a hollow manner. (in my humble opinion, saul I can’t watch the damn commercial, it makes me sad)

As a long time fan I am only being honest with you as to how viewing
the commercial made me feel.

I and many of your fans,I imagine would like to know;
Is nike willing to submit to independent oversight in regards to the
maintenance of their own stated eco-conscious agenda?

How will they express this in future commercials rather than in
an online pdf.

I give Saul kudos for wanting to invoke a new paradigm by whatever means necessary.
I hope in the future he will when working with tainted corporations; who seek
to redeem their image in order to insure their continued place (dominance) in the market, take
steps to insure that they maintain their agreements.

Also I should hope he would express the details of his contract and what his plans were to spend the money earned in exchange for the use of his image. Transparency engenders trust and shows courage and openness. It is these traits that nike is seeking to emulate no?

I hope his signal remains strong as he desires
to pull others up aware or not.

I believe this is possible and am optimistic.
In the spirit of Ray Anderson I too desire to see all industries become more conscious and aware in their practices. Saul is right, cynicism is debilitating when a bridge cannot be made between opposing viewpoints.

Dr. King was expert in ensuring that both sides of the debate’s opinions were heard and that a
compromise could be born between them. He truly understood the maxim
“The only true way to rid yourself of an enemy is to make them a friend.”

Nike has the power and the influence to help steer all in the apparel industry towards a more sustainable path. I applaud there effort, the argument could be made that their advertising is already working being that I am taking the time to pen this response. But I must say they shouldn’t pat themselves on the back too soon as they have a large karmic debt to pay in regard to their companies psychic impact on humanity. They reap a massive profit from every shoe that is constructed and similar to old money from slavery owe the debt of reparations rather than only enhanced working conditions for their still enslaved work force. Saul I know what you are trying to do, but you have to be careful and also take pains to hold them accountable.
I know you wish what is best for all mankind, this is a risky strategy and one that Im not sure is in line with your previous infrastructure hacking. But then again I could very well be wrong,
if you can inspire Nas to realize and ponder more deeply his effect on young minds, hopefully you can do the same with multi-national corporations. Not that I’m comparing the two.

Ray Anderson’s company Interface was able to achieve this result and has proven the power of an idea whose time has come when it is employed with positive intention.

The Revolutionary predilection towards a “Scorched Earth” policy is likened to Chemotherapy. Yes we may survive the treatment, but the time of recovery could be extensive and in the end prove unnecessarily costly; and in light of Dr. Bruce Lipton’s Epi-genetic research; just unnecessary.

Saul I again commend you for at least presenting this issue for comment and consideration.

Congratulations on your marriage and to your continued success as an avatar of soul.

Love always

-NOW (Camron)
http://www.weareallone.tv

We consume wayyyy too much as americans, and NIKE should be boycotted. Period.

Unless, Saul Williams has donated his salary from Nike to this kids in a third world country getting paid jack to build the shoes, then I’m not buying it.

1. Advocate a boycott on Nike and other products FIRST.
2. The idea of getting paid to put a song in conjunction with a company that has a horrible history of exploitation is ominous and egregious at best. Not to mention, that an artist’s music and integrity immediately gets watered down as a result. No one with taste appreciates an artist they dig, when the start getting in bed with advertisers.
3. Why not use your song for a company that has great, eco-friendly, beneficial products for consumers? Oh right — they don’t *quite* have the same bankroll of paying people to use one of their tunes.
4. There is nothing wrong with putting a song in a commercial, if the product is a GOOD product, ESPECIALLY if that corporation doesn’t have a history of such gross andblatant exploitation. What – I’m supposed to think Saul Williams is cool/thoughtful/conscious because he has a discussion with the head of Gobal marketing about slave labor? Big deal? The point is it is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW and no artist with a shred of diginity or integrity should get in bed with any corporation/advertisement, while that CURRENTLY EXISTS.

Look, I’ve seen ‘Slam’ — it changed my life — I loved it — I’ve seen the guy online and all of his AMAZING poetry, he is one talented dude. I wish hi nothing but love and respect, and I like his idea of saying yes to more than less….but c’mon man….make a commercial about what they are doing and what NIKE and Saul are trying to do to change it. That would be a GREAT way to use the song, and the change in ONE…instead of getting paid a fat salary for what? Some bullshit company that continues to exploit people as we speak?

The material world is a guise with a guise, and the extra money one could make from such disingenuous practices is gross. I only wish more artists I looked up to, like Saul, felt the same.

Don’t think we would’ve seen Chuck D do one of these ads a few years back.