What is the difference between art and advertising?

[Tricky]

Over in Religion and philosophy, CFLarsen posed this question:

What is the difference between art and advertising, then?

I replied

Art does not try to sell something external to the art. Obviously, advertising can contain art.

Claus responded:

Patrons of the arts never demanded that they be portrayed favorably?

You don't want to go down that road, do you?

My answer:

Demanding that a product be presented favorably would make it advertising, wouldn't it? It is not the patron creating the art. And I said advertising could (and usually does) contain art.

Obviously this is a derail from the topic of the thread, so I'm bringing it here.

Now let me say in advance that I am aware that the word "art" is fraught with meaning. You can talk about "The art of the deal" or "The art of war" or even "The art of the fart", so to avoid going down that road, I'm going to ask that this be restricted to visual arts, not written, not musical, not performing, not cinema, not farting. In other words, mostly pictures and sculpture, though you can argue for other forms if you like.

I hold that advertising has the goal of portraying a product favorably, usually for monetary, but sometimes for ego reasons. It may and usually does contain art, but that is not its purpose. Art needs no purpose.

 

[Piscivore]

Art does not try to sell something external to the art. Obviously, advertising can contain art.

I think you have it backwards. Advertising is art that doesn't attempt to carry much more meaning beyond "the product this represents would be good to have". In the case of Claus' patrons, yes they did (usually) want to be portrayed favourably, but the artists were often free to- and often did- express much more than just "Lorenzo d'Medici is a really great guy" or "How about that Pope?"

ETA:

Art needs no purpose.

True, but sometimes it has one, nonetheless.

 

[Tricky]

I think you have it backwards. Advertising is art that doesn't attempt to carry much more meaning beyond "the product this represents would be good to have". In the case of Claus' patrons, yes they did (usually) want to be portrayed favourably, but the artists were often free to- and often did- express much more than just "Lorenzo d'Medici is a really great guy" or "How about that Pope?"

No, I think I have it forwards. Their commisioned artwork was done at the request of their patrons and if a patron did not like the result, they could order it changed. The final version might not be the same as what the artist wanted. It was what the advertiser wanted.

But yes, the art that is within advertising can, and often does stand on its own irrespective of the product it was pushing.

True, but sometimes it has one, nonetheless.

Sometimes. Sometimes that meaning has to do with presenting something in a favorable light. If that is the purpose, then the combination of that purpose and the art is advertising. Obviously there can be other purposes besides advertising. Propaganda is one example, which may be negative or positive.

 

[Hokulele]

Advertising is constructed such that all viewers must experience the same message.

Art can be constructed this way, but does not have to be.

 

[Piscivore]

No, I think I have it forwards. Their commisioned artwork was done at the request of their patrons and if a patron did not like the result, they could order it changed. The final version might not be the same as what the artist wanted. It was what the advertiser wanted.

But not all commisioned artwork was advertising. Granted, the bulk of it was, but even so, didn't Michaelangelo use the Sistine Chapel to show of the anatomy work he'd been doing, the love of humanity beyond just as servants of Jeebus? As long as he got across the message the Pope wanted, he was free to do so. I don't think you'll see a lot of that in advertising.

But yes, the art that is within advertising can, and often does stand on its own irrespective of the product it was pushing.

Wasn't the point of Pop Art, Warhol and Lichtenstein(I'm not Googling for spelling), that even the most crass commercial message had aesthetic value, regardless of intent?

Propaganda is one example, which may be negative or positive.

Isn't that itself a form of advertising?

 

[ksbluesfan]

There is nothing artistic about the classified section of your local newspaper. "For sale, 1979 Chrysler, 98,000 miles, runs, best offer". Ads can contain art. Art must contain artistic expression.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sometimes. Sometimes that meaning has to do with presenting something in a favorable light. If that is the purpose, then the combination of that purpose and the art is advertising. Obviously there can be other purposes besides advertising. Propaganda is one example, which may be negative or positive.

But how do you separate the art from the favorable message?

This is unquestionably an ad.

Is this?

Is this?

 

[CFLarsen]

Why, the same difference between sharing and selling! Although today an appreciation of these differences typically don't exist.

It has never been like that with art. Art has always been commissioned by patrons, right from the earliest examples right up to modern times, where it became fashionable to be independent.

It was rare for an artist to be able to work without his patrons.

 

[Walter Wayne]

It has never been like that with art. Art has always been commissioned by patrons, right from the earliest examples right up to modern times, where it became fashionable to be independent.

It was rare for an artist to be able to work without his patrons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_paintings ?

 

[athon]

I don't see what is confusing. Art is merely a form of communication, where media is used to convey a feeling or emotion. If I want you to feel or sympathise with a concept, I use art to communicate it. This means choosing stimuli which hopefully will connect with the target and illicit an emotional response. Of course, this means knowing your target and what makes them tick.

Advertising uses art to illicit a response, ultimately with a purpose - for the target to act in some way in response to the emotion. Art is merely making you feel something, while advertising uses this in order to encourage you to behave in some specific way.

Advertising can obviously rely heavily on art, yet art can exist which isn't a form of advertising.

Athon

 

[SirPhilip]

It has never been like that with art. Art has always been commissioned by patrons, right from the earliest examples right up to modern times, where it became fashionable to be independent. It was rare for an artist to be able to work without his patrons.

(Brother Philip is suddenly holding a cash register..)

So, anyone want to be on the cutting edge of fashion at TAM this year. Only $59.95 and t-shirts sizes are limited.

 

[SirPhilip]

Jesus Christ and a choir of f[Radio Edit] angels, 39,000 posts. My work already is so last month.

 

[Vanda]

The argument about “art” is difficult for me even when other forms are removed from the discussion. Everyone feels differently about exactly what art is.

So when you say that “art needs no purpose,” are you saying that the way you define whether something is art is by determining what its purpose is, or did I misunderstand?

I’m assuming you mean that the artist can create art for no obvious “reason,” like making a political statement or promoting a product or service, or even to sell it to make a living, and that art can be created purely for aesthetic reasons or as a source of pure expression by the artist (or did I just find another way to misrepresent your statement?)

In either case, art must have a purpose, even if it’s purely aesthetic or solely a means of expression by the artist, right? It’s a pointless discussion if art serves no purpose whatsoever. So if art must have a purpose, then the range of purpose might probably include things like aesthetic quality (“high” to “low”), meaning/expression (“ambiguous” to “precise”), and definition (having a purpose that varies between “lofty” or “mundane”).

So, to me, under that “definition,” advertising as a whole is an art form that has a specific purpose of mundane character and is of generally low aesthetic quality compared to other visual art forms. Specifically, individual “pieces,” when compared to other examples of advertising, can range from high quality (an example for some people might be the Escher-inspired car ads) to low quality (an example for probably all people might be local used car ads).

I think I’m coming to see it like this: The purpose of all advertising is to sell something. The technique used to sell is to create desire in the intended audience. In order to create desire, a low form of art, either skillfully or poorly rendered, is used (as opposed to knocking on doors and just describing the product, etc.)

Also, can the idea of the patron forcing the artist to change the product be related to the practice of studios forcing directors to edit their product for non-artistic reasons? To me, even the studio-edited theatrical version of Blade Runner is still a piece of art.

 

[CFLarsen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_paintings ?

We don't know enough of the social structure to know if they were commissioned or not. It is likely, though, that Grok-Who-Paints-Well got assigned by Throg-Who-Is-20-And-Therefore-Tribe-Elder.

I don't see what is confusing. Art is merely a form of communication, where media is used to convey a feeling or emotion. If I want you to feel or sympathise with a concept, I use art to communicate it. This means choosing stimuli which hopefully will connect with the target and illicit an emotional response. Of course, this means knowing your target and what makes them tick.

Advertising uses art to illicit a response, ultimately with a purpose - for the target to act in some way in response to the emotion. Art is merely making you feel something, while advertising uses this in order to encourage you to behave in some specific way.

Advertising can obviously rely heavily on art, yet art can exist which isn't a form of advertising.

It's a good question if the latter is even possible. What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

Even graffiti is some form of advertising: The elaborate graffiti of the NY subway was very much about "advertising": Who had made it.

 

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost.

 

[SirPhilip]

Claus, everyone knows what art is. Art is bought because they relate to it or find it personally relevant, interesting, ironic, humorous, or conversationally fun. Art itself is simply a more very advanced, abstract form of communication to varying psychological depth. Typically associations which require volumes of words are summed up instantly through imagery. Imagery, sound and motion being however ideal.

Try for example, to summarize the force of nature that is Claus Larson, the destroyer of keyboards, into colorless shapeless words. Pages would be required to fully frame - even among an audience of strong atheists, the gravity of the futility. You have to be there with a migraine headache and a sense self-idiocy, catching yourself staring at five pages of failed exchange over common sense, and what instead of a man could very be Curious George hunched over his desk with his nose buried in a mountain of cocaine with an advocacy of evolution and a look of resentment of the saying about a million monkeys typing in his eyes.

 

[SirPhilip]

What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

Well, the masterpiece I did of you for one thing...

 

[athon]

It's a good question if the latter is even possible. What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

Even graffiti is some form of advertising: The elaborate graffiti of the NY subway was very much about "advertising": Who had made it.

What behaviour does the artwork provoke? Emotions, for sure. But advertising intends to make you do something as a result of the feelings provoked by an art work.

What definition of 'advertise' are you using if you think graffiti is advertising?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

What behaviour does the artwork provoke? Emotions, for sure. But advertising intends to make you do something as a result of the feelings provoked by an art work.

And lots of art intend to make you do something. E.g., David's paintings of Napoleon (Napoleon Crossing The Alps and Consecration) were painted purely to make people accept Napoleon's power. Any religious art is designed to make you realize the glory and might of God and act accordingly.

What definition of 'advertise' are you using if you think graffiti is advertising?

The same as yours: To advertise who made it. What group is behind it. "Look, we kick ass because we can paint where we want."

Graffiti

What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

 

[athon]

And lots of art intend to make you do something. E.g., David's paintings of Napoleon (Napoleon Crossing The Alps and Consecration) were painted purely to make people accept Napoleon's power. Any religious art is designed to make you realize the glory and might of God and act accordingly.

I'm not suggesting that some art does not have the ability to advertise. I'd argue that some propaganda pieces could be intended to advertise, as could some religious works.

I'm saying that not all art is necessarily advertising. Advertising requires the intention of inciting a behaviour, not just elliciting an emotion.

The same as yours: To advertise who made it.

That's not the definition I used. Stating 'who made it' is not the same as inciting a behaviour in the target.

Now, what is your definition of 'advertise'?

What group is behind it. "Look, we kick ass because we can paint where we want."

That's not advertising.

Graffiti

So? I didn't ask for a definition for graffiti.

What work of art exists which isn't a form of advertising?

Whoa cowboy. Let's start with what you think 'advertise' means first. If you think it's any form of art that says anything at all, then show where you get that definition.

Athon