English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Any for, against, or general views appreciated!

2006-10-18 00:17:23 · 21 answers · asked by Jack R 1 in Arts & Humanities Visual Arts Other - Visual Arts

21 answers

Very interesting question, which seems to hinge on one's definition of what is, and what is not, art. Does art necessarily have to express something essential about the artist's soul, or can it still be art if one gets paid to produce it, and it promotes something that one does not necessarily believe in?

Hard-line American comedian Bill Hicks summed up the idea that to get paid for advertising was to sell your soul to the devils of mediocrity - "You do a commercial, your name is off the artistic roll call forever, every word you say is suspect, you're another corporate schill at the capitalist gang-bang..."
He had a way with words, did Bill.

But on the other hand, let's take a historical perspective. What is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel if not a great big advertisement for Catholicism. Is it beautiful? Is it art? Undeniably. Was it paid for by a client who controlled the images it portrayed? Yes it was. Is there any less merit in it because of that? Arguably not.

Shakespeare wrote many of his plays on commission for his patron, and he skewed quite a large amount of history to show them in a virtuous light. Essentially that's advertising the nobility of the patron's family, selling it for more than it's worth. But are the words any less beautiful or artistic because of that? No.

The great portrait painters were usually commissioned, and always instructed to flatter the sitter - potentially the grandest cases of false advertising in our history. Did they not create works of beauty and artistic merit?

Is it, therefore, any less art to come up with words and images that achieve today's advertising goals, for which one gets paid and to which one does not need to devote one's soul? So it sells someone a diet cola, or a moblie phone, or a car, rather than a religious or historical worldview - are the skills involved any less artistic? I would argue they are not. So essentially, yes, advertising can be an art form - and just as in any other art form, there can be great talent lined up next to infinite mediocrity.

I believe it is a shame that truly artistic human beings pour their skills into developing commercial sales-tools, but the fact that some of them do it in a way that renders their creations fit to be judged works of art seems to me to be undeniable.

2006-10-18 03:13:13 · answer #1 · answered by mdfalco71 6 · 0 0

Yes - and like any art form, some is done very well and some is done very badly!

Advertising campaigns, as well as each individual ad within the campaign, are created to provoke a response - BUY! GIVE! LEARN! CHOOSE! When done very well, the response is reinforced by creating additional responses - usually emotional - through humour, sympathy, desire, etc. Most good art does the same

In the same way that engineers and architects are considered to be artists, I believe advertisers can be also. Don't forget though - just because you build it doesn't mean they will come...

2006-10-19 12:15:27 · answer #2 · answered by Jara 2 · 0 0

It can be "Pop Art".

Think of the Guiness advertisements: from the Toucan posters of the middle 20th Century (Thank Goodness, It's Guiness) to the brilliant television adverts (Good Things Come To Those Wait) in all their forms.

People think that because advertising is ubiquitous and commercially driven that there can't be a message or just a simple beauty behind them: it's not true.

There is a lot of rubbish advertising around, but every so often you'll see a real jem; something that makes you think or feel something different or that completely arrests your attention, which makes it art.

2006-10-18 07:29:37 · answer #3 · answered by Neil_R 3 · 1 0

There is a distinct connection between art and advertising. Advertising is the ability to sense, interpret . . . to put the very heart throbs of a business into type, paper and ink. But is it a form of art? Advertising is the greatest art form of the twentieth century. The beauty that results from obtaining a complete understanding of a work of art is derived from the sence of enrichment, when he realizes this beauty as a lasting and vital contribution to his life. The artist must bring out two factors in any work of art, objective facts of the subject which the artists attempts to bring out in his analysis. A photograph is distinct from art. It is a record, essentially a mirror image, of the facts of appearance and contains little if any of the timeless and characteristic quality necessary of a work of art.
Good Luck xx

2006-10-18 12:52:58 · answer #4 · answered by jessica_elizabeth_brown 1 · 0 0

Depends on the example - I think art has to communicate with th e person and provide an almost 'religious' experience of wonder and thought. Some ads do this - some ads are amazing.

Andy Warhol started out in Graphic Design & advertising, developing his ideas from that world. In fact Pop art was developed around the idea of the mass media, popular culture and advertising.

Saying that - I'm not keen on Andy Warhol's work I think his ideas are all one-liners.

2006-10-20 08:55:12 · answer #5 · answered by Philadelphia 2 · 0 0

I do, except for those annoying political campaign ads!

Personally, I really appreciate the advertisements from the early 1900's. Now that, was true art in sales mode! Two worlds merge. The Coca~Cola ads, are a great example of this.

2006-10-20 23:01:06 · answer #6 · answered by ? 2 · 0 0

No. Advertising itself is not an art form. Although advertising utilises art to get it's message across.
Advertising creates new art forms as a by-product of what it aims to achieve (for example TV ads could be seen as very short ((about 30 seconds)) films). However the aims of adverising are far too pragmatic for it to literally be the art form in itself.

2006-10-18 07:26:35 · answer #7 · answered by Sean R 3 · 0 1

Definately, or at least the strategy behind it is. Some advertising is pretty pictures, but good advertising supports, promotes and can change perception, take the M&S food campaign, it doesn't just change the way you feel about M&S it changes the way you feel about food.

2006-10-18 07:28:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Any medium for the senses can be a medium for Art. It is senseless to rule a mode of expression out, either because of the technology (like photography), or because of the commercial connotations (like advertising).

2006-10-18 07:52:19 · answer #9 · answered by PhD 3 · 0 0

http://www.la-belle-epoque.com/
Vintage advertising posters

http://solo2.abac.com/themole/tubeads.html
London Underground Art

http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dsads/index.shtml
The advertising Artwork of Dr. Seuss

2006-10-18 08:51:29 · answer #10 · answered by Thisbysghost 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers