What is the difference between art and advertising?

[athon]

I see it makes absolutely no difference what I do.

A start might be by providing a definition for the word 'sell' rather than whinging about how unfair the world is.

When I explain, I'm lying, dishonest and moving the goal posts.

Let's get to 'explain' first, then we'll decide whether it's a lie, dishonesty or a moving of the goal posts. Explain what you mean by 'sell'.

Why can't you do that?

When I point to previous explanations, I am evading.

We wouldn't know. You have not explained the word 'sell'. You're accused of evading when you don't provide a simple definition.

Quite whinging, Claus. It's even more pathetic than all of your evasion, lies and dishonesty put together. Even most woos at least have the balls to provide some sort of response that's better than 'poor me'.

If you are not prepared to listen to your opponent, you are not interested in changing your mind.

I'm all ears - what do you mean by the word 'sell'? Right now you're sticking your fingers in your ears and crying that nobody is listening to you. Take your fingers out, give an answer to 'what do you mean by sell' and we'll have made at least some progress.

You just want me to be wrong.

Again, it must help you sleep at night. Try 'we just want you to understand how communication works'. Words aren't as malleable as you'd like, Claus. Legs aren't all drumsticks, engagement has an understood meaning, and not all art sells something.

I might be wrong. But to be wrong, the word 'sell' would have to mean something different to 'an exchange of goods or services'.

If the definition of art is malleable and down to personal opinion, can I say 'all art drives a car'?

Oh, well.

Well, you've walked away from threads which you've messed up before. We'll add it to your own growing 'Larsen List'. It'll still be around for a laugh later.

Athon

 

[volatile]

I think you're being accused of evading because when asked to answer the question "What do you mean by 'sell'?", you evade it.

Just sayin'

 

[CFLarsen]

I think you're being accused of evading because when asked to answer the question "What do you mean by 'sell'?", you evade it.

Just sayin'

Come, now. That's not correct.

When I explain what I mean, Athon disagrees with me. Then, he says I haven't explained what I mean.

Repeat, while noisily claiming that I am a liar, dishonest and moving the goal posts, hoping that it won't be noticed what he does.

 

[athon]

When I explain what I mean, Athon disagrees with me. Then, he says I haven't explained what I mean.

More lies. CS, Tricky and I have asked what you meant by 'sell', and you consistently avoid the question. You now insinuate you've explained what you mean. Nonsense. The thread is there for all to read and see you have no explained what you mean at all.

What do you mean by 'sell'?

Can all art be milked for beer?

Why haven't you answered these questions?

Athon

 

[volatile]

Come, now. That's not correct.

When I explain what I mean, Athon disagrees with me. Then, he says I haven't explained what I mean.

Repeat, while noisily claiming that I am a liar, dishonest and moving the goal posts, hoping that it won't be noticed what he does.

I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I don't recall such an explanation. I probably missed it. Care to point me to the post, or re-state your argument for the sake of clarification?

 

[athon]

I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I don't recall such an explanation. I probably missed it. Care to point me to the post, or re-state your argument for the sake of clarification?

Prediction 1) Claus will point out a post which does not contain such an explanation, and then claim it's there, clear as day, before playing the 'I've already explained' game for another two pages.

Prediction 2) Claus will simply state he's been as clear as he can be, and if we can't understand it he can't help us.

Claus has a big problem with understanding how language works. He plays the same game woos play with words, twisting them to mean what they want them to mean and then claim it's only an opinion. I'd have no problem if he admitted he was mistaken about the meaning of a word. His arrogance, and the fact he then stalks and badgers others for committing these same behaviours is where the true obscenity lies.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Prediction 1) Claus will point out a post which does not contain such an explanation, and then claim it's there, clear as day, before playing the 'I've already explained' game for another two pages.

Prediction 2) Claus will simply state he's been as clear as he can be, and if we can't understand it he can't help us.

Claus has a big problem with understanding how language works. He plays the same game woos play with words, twisting them to mean what they want them to mean and then claim it's only an opinion. I'd have no problem if he admitted he was mistaken about the meaning of a word. His arrogance, and the fact he then stalks and badgers others for committing these same behaviours is where the true obscenity lies.

Athon

Enough of this crap.

In post #8, I pointed out the function of patrons, as a means to sell their

In post #14, I explained that graffiti is some form of advertising, selling the information of who made it.

In post #19, I explained how lots of art intend to make you do something, and gave two examples, David's paintings of Napoleon (Napoleon Crossing The Alps and Consecration), and religious art.

In post #76, I provided a link that showed how Turner advertised the idea of fin de siecle, as well as Mona Lisa, expressing not just the visual appearance of a person, but also (if successfully painted) give at least some clue as to how the person is like. The patron thingie again.

In post #76, I also pointed to the similarities of at least contemporary art and advertising. Exemplified in the Marlborough Man and Cover Girl.

In post #91, I pointed to propaganda as another way art sells: Ideas.

In post #93, I elaborated on the Turner example.

In post #95, I gave the example of how an ad turned into art, with the clear intention of selling a war.

In post #130 and #135, I pointed to Gericault and his study of The Raft as an example of how even practicing art is advertising - selling.

In post #140, I explained that it takes not only talent, but also skill to make your art worthwhile.

In post #159, I again pointed out why Gericault's study is worth something, even though it isn't even a finished piece. I also included Picasso and Leonardo.

In post #173, I use the quip about how to get to Carnegie Hall - practice, practice, practice. Each time you practice your art, it becomes more valuable.

In post #175, I pointed to van Gogh and his whole new way of painting. Today, his art sells for millions.

In post #175, I also point to Mutter, Stern and Zukerman as examples of how practice improves the value of of your art.


You may disagree with what I am saying.

But don't claim that I have evaded the question of how I define "sell". I have not only been elaborate, but also very consistent. So no moving of goal posts. No evading.

 

[volatile]

Posting examples of some art that sells things (maybe even "most"?) is not the same as explaining how all art sells things. I think Tricky pointed that out to you. No-one here disagrees that some art sells something (and indeed, I argued earlier on that whilst not all art is advertsing, the inverse propostion, that all advertsing is art, is true).

The only way you can make the case that all art sells something is with a very particular and peculiar definition of the word 'sell', which you still haven't provided, as far as I can see.

 

[CFLarsen]

Posting examples of some art that sells things (maybe even "most"?) is not the same as explaining how all art sells things. I think Tricky pointed that out to you. No-one here disagrees that some art sells something (and indeed, I argued earlier on that whilst not all art is advertsing, the inverse propostion, that all advertsing is art, is true).

The only way you can make the case that all art sells something is with a very particular and peculiar definition of the word 'sell', which you still haven't provided, as far as I can see.

Then, provide a work of art, and I'll tell you what it sells.

I'll even accept if you say it is art, even if I don't agree that it is. You'll have to explain why you think it is art, of course.

 

[volatile]

Then, provide a work of art, and I'll tell you what it sells.

I'll even accept if you say it is art, even if I don't agree that it is. You'll have to explain why you think it is art, of course.

OK... how about Manet's gifted portrait of Emile Zola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Edouard_Manet_049.jpg)? Uncontraversially, it's art. What is it "selling"? It was painted for Zola in gratitude for his support of Manet in the press, and given to him for free. There's no political motive, no commercial exchange, no attempt by the artist to increase his status, wealth or accomplishment. It has lots of interesting sections, sure (note the copy of Olympia in the background; note the unconentional framing; etc.), and lots of connotations, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to shoe-horn these into a usual definition of the word "sell". It presents Zola in a specific way, but not one of his own request, and not one intended by the artist to have any wider affect of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature.

In your reply, it'd be great if you could define your usage of the word "sell", for this very reason.

 

[volatile]

Or, how about some performance art? Self-portrait as a Fountain by Bruce Naumann, or Zereissprobe by Gunther Brus. What are they "selling"?

These are non-commercial works, by their very nature. They cannot be exchanged for money; they (especially in the case of Brus) are spontaneous and unplanned, contextually-specific, unrepeatable and untradable, non-commodifiable performances.

If you have art without intention (as Brus was trying to create), what's that selling?

 

[CFLarsen]

no attempt by the artist to increase his status, wealth or accomplishment.

I covered that in post #140, 173 and 175: Even with practice, you get better as an artist.

Painting Zola certainly didn't hurt Manet's status as an artist, did it?

It presents Zola in a specific way, but not one of his own request, and not one intended by the artist to have any wider affect of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature.

It presents Zola in a positive way, doesn't it? It sells the idea of Zola the educated (books), culturally hip (the japanese art). Famous enough to get painted by Manet.

 

[volatile]

I covered that in post #140, 173 and 175: Even with practice, you get better as an artist.

Painting Zola certainly didn't hurt Manet's status as an artist, did it?


It presents Zola in a positive way, doesn't it? It sells the idea of Zola the educated (books), culturally hip (the japanese art). Famous enough to get painted by Manet.

There was no monetary exchnage, no patronage, no public exhbition of the portrait to 'advertise' Zola to the wider world. It was a private gift, for Zola to display in his home. It might "present" him in a positive way (it certainly does; as I said, it was a gift in gratitude for Zola writing positive things about Manet), but what does it sell?

You really need to define "sell".

 

[CFLarsen]

Or, how about some performance art? Self-portrait as a Fountain by Bruce Naumann,

It's a portrait. Already covered in post #76.

or Zereissprobe by Gunther Brus. What are they "selling"?

These are non-commercial works, by their very nature. They cannot be exchanged for money; they (especially in the case of Brus) are spontaneous and unplanned, contextually-specific, unrepeatable and untradable, non-commodifiable performances.

You think I can't buy a photo of Naumann's work?

If you have art without intention (as Brus was trying to create), what's that selling?

Then, the intention is to create art without intention. Dadaism is an idea in itself.

Are you sure you want to restrict what art is and does?

 

[CFLarsen]

There was no monetary exchnage, no patronage, no public exhbition of the portrait to 'advertise' Zola to the wider world. It was a private gift, for Zola to display in his home. It might "present" him in a positive way (it certainly does; as I said, it was a gift in gratitude for Zola writing positive things about Manet), but what does it sell?

You really need to define "sell".

I told you: That it presents Zola in a positive way, as the cultural hip, learned person.

If you don't agree that that is selling, fine. But don't say I haven't defined it.

 

[volatile]

It's a portrait. Already covered in post #76.

No it isn't a portrait. It was a performance piece (and a very clever one). The work is not "selling" anything by any conventional use of the word sell (as far as I can tell), has no intrinsic or inherent value, cannot be bought or sold, and does not present or advertise something else that can be bought or sold.

What is Naumann selling?

You think I can't buy a photo of Naumann's work?

That you can by photographic reproductions of a work of art does not imply that the work itself is selling something, unless you want to argue that Naumann performed Fountain in order to sell postcards!

Then, the intention is to create art without intention. Dadaism is an idea in itself.

Exactly. So what's Brus selling?

 

[volatile]

I told you: That it presents Zola in a positive way, as the cultural hip, learned person.

If you don't agree that that is selling, fine. But don't say I haven't defined it.

Right. Now we're getting somewhere.

So even though there's no market, no capital exchange and no intended audience (is Manet selling Zola to himself for free?), you still maintain that this type of exchange can be called "selling"? I think you're so far out on a linguistic limb that the bough is about to break.

 

[CFLarsen]

No it isn't a portrait. It was a performance piece (and a very clever one).

Why isn't it a portrait? I think it is.

The work is not "selling" anything by any conventional use of the word sell (as far as I can tell), has no intrinsic or inherent value, cannot be bought or sold, and does not present or advertise something else that can be bought or sold.

And I have given you my explanation. You may disagree or not - but don't say that I haven't done it.

What is Naumann selling?

I told you. You may disagree or not - but don't say that I haven't done it.

That you can by photographic reproductions of a work of art does not imply that the work itself is selling something, unless you want to argue that Naumann performed Fountain in order to sell postcards!

Do you want to argue that he didn't try to sell his ideas?

Exactly. So what's Brus selling?

I told you. You may disagree or not - but don't say that I haven't done it.

Right. Now we're getting somewhere.

So even though there's no market, no capital exchange and no intended audience (is Manet selling Zola to himself for free?), you still maintain that this type of exchange can be called "selling"? I think you're so far out on a linguistic limb that the bough is about to break.

One thing I have learned about art is that, whenever you try to restrict what art is and what it does, you always run into trouble.

Had you lived in Rembrandt's days, would you have said that Naumann's work was a work of art?

 

[HarryKeogh]

I told you: That it presents Zola in a positive way, as the cultural hip, learned person.

If you don't agree that that is selling, fine. But don't say I haven't defined it.

You're stuck so to wriggle out of the mess you simply have to say "well, that's how I define it".

Your definition of sell is as broad, vague and all-encompassing (and useless as most people don't define "sell" that way) as those fundamentalists who claim that science or evolution is a religion or the new-ager who claims God is energy or nature.

I just don't understand all the pages of people trying to get more information from you. They wouldn't debate Ken Hovind for five days. I wonder why they feel compelled to debate you for so long when, presenting your argument, you can behave as dishonestly or as silly as the most ardent creationist.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're stuck so to wriggle out of the mess you simply have to say "well, that's how I define it".

But then, I have defined it. Don't say otherwise.

Your definition of sell is as broad, vague and all-encompassing (and useless as most people don't define "sell" that way) as those fundamentalists who claim that science or evolution is a religion or the new-ager who claims God is energy or nature.

I just don't understand all the pages of people trying to get more information from you. They wouldn't debate Ken Hovind for five days. I wonder why they feel compelled to debate you for so long when, presenting your argument, you can behave as dishonestly or as silly as the most ardent creationist.

My definition of art selling is broad, I quite agree with that. But, as I said before, whenever you try to restrict what art is and does, you get into trouble. I don't like Cubism very much, but I recognize that it is art. I don't consider a fish in a blender art, but some do - peace with them. I certainly isn't going to tell them that they can't think it is art - and what it does.

Science, energy, religion, on the other hand, are pretty well defined. Art is not. Art is what you make it. And what you make of it.

Argue otherwise, fine. But would Rembrandt have thought abstract art was art? I think not.