What is the difference between art and advertising?

[volatile]

It's not about the definition of art; it's about the defintion of sell.

You haven't said what you think Brus is "selling", other than 'ideas', but given that Zereissprobe was a free-to-attend, one-off, unrepeatable piece of performance art. Yes, Brus is presenting ideas (in the same way Manet was), but you haven't really explained why this is selling, by any conventional defintion. The same goes for Naumann - how can an unrepeatable, nebulous, free-to-attend piece of performance art which earned the artist no money be "selling" anything at all?

I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that Naumann performed Fountain to sell postcards. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that Manet intended to sell Zola's reputation. But that's what you seem to be claiming, and will continue to be seen as claiming as long as you fail to define exactly what you mean by 'sell'.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's not about the definition of art; it's about the defintion of sell.

You haven't said what you think Brus is "selling", other than 'ideas', but given that Zereissprobe was a free-to-attend, one-off, unrepeatable piece of performance art. Yes, Brus is presenting ideas (in the same way Manet was), but you haven't really explained why this is selling, by any conventional defintion. The same goes for Naumann - how can an unrepeatable, nebulous, free-to-attend piece of performance art which earned the artist no money be "selling" anything at all?

I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that Naumann performed Fountain to sell postcards. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that Manet intended to sell Zola's reputation. But that's what you seem to be claiming, and will continue to be seen as claiming as long as you fail to define exactly what you mean by 'sell'.

It's about the definition of what art does.

Does it sell? Yes, it does.

Does all art sell? Yes, I think it does. And I have explained why. One major function - purpose, if you like - of art is to sell new ideas, the same way anyone sells ideas. We want to see our ideas promoted, explained, interpreted, and - hopefully - accepted.

Disagree all you like. That's fine, because that's how we get a better understanding of what art is - and what it does.

But I get really worried when people try to force their own ideas of what art is and what it does onto other people. I really do.

 

[athon]

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

Their what? Nonetheless, I don't see a definition here. Just that patrons sell something.

What do you mean by 'sell'?

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

Selling information? What do you mean by the word 'selling'? I understand that's how you're defining advertising - that's not what we're asking.

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.

So 'sell' means 'make you do something'? Besides you, who the hell else defines 'sell' like that?

It's the closest we can come to a definition, in which case. So, are we in agreement now that you're defining sell as 'makes you do something'? Because now you need to show that this is a definition of the term that goes beyond your own private usage.

Woos invent words, remember.

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.

No definition here. I'm assuming you're throwing these in just to swamp the table with unnecessary information?

In post #76, I also pointed to the similarities of at least contemporary art and advertising. Exemplified in the Marlborough Man and Cover Girl. *snip rest as there is nothing on defining what you mean by 'sell'*

Pathetic. Truly pathetic. You still can't simply say 'by 'sell' I mean...'. We have to get this vague indication, which obviously will give you wiggle room now to say 'that's not what I mean'.

So, we'll assume until you state later that by 'sell', you are using the reference in post #19 that sell means 'make you do something'.

In addition to this meaning of 'sell' being an invention of yours, it only serves as circular defining of the term 'advertise'. It was stated long ago in the thread that advertising is any form of display that which influences an intended behaviour from its target audience.

You state that 'all art is advertising'. We ask 'what is advertising', and you suggest it is 'that which sells something'. Now, when asked what you mean by 'sell', the closest we can get is 'it makes you do something'. In other words, it advertises. So...advertising is selling something, and selling something is advertising.

If you disagree, then you must have a better, clearer, definition.

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.

Bahaha. You seriously think you've been 'elaborate'? Man, I'd hate to ask what definition you have for that, then.

Mate, you seriously live in a fairy-land with a population of one. I'm even starting to wonder just how well you understand Danish, if your confidence in English produces this sort of arrogance.

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 never defined it, Claus. You used the term over and over and then referred back to each reference, leaving people to glean what meaning that they can scavenge from your rambling nonsense. To then claim you're being clear is laughable.

And you again turn to 'it's just your opinion'. Again, can all art be milked for beer? I know it's a ridiculous statement, but if you say 'of course not', then the definition of art isn't completely open to whatever we want. The term becomes meaningless.

The definition might be hazy, but you've erased all boundaries and allowed it to be whatever somebody wants.

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.

More dishonesty. Man, it just doesn't stop with you, does it?

Nobody was contending what art was. It was your statement that 'all art sells something'. The word 'sell' was under the microscope, not your view of what is and is not art.

So, by italicising 'art' instead of 'selling', you're insinuating that we are accusing you of having the word 'art' be defined broadly. No, no, no, my little Danish friend. It is 'selling' you should have accented. But you knew that, and once again tried to dishonestly twist the debate away from that.

And yes, your use of the word 'sell' is ridiculously broad that nobody other than you uses it in such a fashion. You then hide behind the 'you don't have to agree' silliness. Words, Claus, aren't malleable to mean whatever the hell you want. Unlike most facts, their definitions are formed by popular opinion. They'd be a fairly useless means of communication if, like you seem to believe, they mean whatever we want them to.

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.

Nobody's contending what is and is not art. The contention is that all art - whatever it might be to an individual - sells something.

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

Would Rembrandt have thought through his painting he was setting up for an exchange of goods or services? I think not.

Athon

 

[athon]

But I get really worried when people try to force their own ideas of what art is and what it does onto other people. I really do.

Wake up to yourself, Claus. You bloody well know nobody is arguing what art is and is not. You'd do well to listen to Volatile, given it's more or less what the guy does. His understanding of art in all its definitions puts our amateur ideas to shame.

I couldn't care if somebody wanted to call my coffee cup art. If they suggest then that my coffee cup is selling something, I'd be asking what it is it wants me to buy.

By again turning this into a 'you can't define art' conversation, you've tried to avoid the point that this is about whatever definition one chooses and applying it to the term 'sell'.

This hole you've dug is just about through to China now, mate. I don't think your digging will get you much further unless you want to start back down again.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Athon,

You have not paid any attention to anything I have said.

And you clearly don't want to.

 

[athon]

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.

Yup. Which is why I guess I keep arguing here, even though it's useless. Claus stalks, badgers and annoys any woo who happens to come through here proclaiming their silliness. Should they dare evade, obfuscate, avoid answering questions, make up their own definitions etc., Claus is on them like a rat on a corpse, teasing out their responses, attacking their use of words, demanding dictionary meanings etc.

Here, he feels inclined to do the very same thing. It turns skepticism into a game rather than a way of thinking. People then associate skepticism with badgering, arrogance and dishonesty as Claus crows about being a skeptic.

It might be futile, but I've got more sympathy for a woo who honestly doesn't know how to think than a self-proclaimed skeptic who knows he's being dishonest yet is too arrogant to back down from an argument.

Athon

 

[athon]

Athon,

You have not paid any attention to anything I have said.

And you clearly don't want to.

That's not a response, Claus. That's a cop-out akin to your last little whinge.

Try again; is my understanding of how you've defined 'sell' correct?

Athon

 

[volatile]

Would Rembrandt have thought through his painting he was setting up for an exchange of goods or services?

Great post until this last sentence. Rembrandt was basically the first commercial artist - he definitely was selling something. He set up a system of workshops and apprentices to produce commercial pieces. Rembrandt was producing art for a commercial market, so in that sense the art was selling itself, as a product.

I think Claus seems to think all art does this - that is, 'advertises' its own inherent 'worth' as an art-work (or, by proxy, 'advertises' the artist lui-meme) - and that this particular self-contained sense of production can be termed "selling". I think this fails most obviously when we think about, as I mentioned, performance pieces, or gifted works not intended for sale or public display, or ephemeral pieces, or digital art. The formal and conceptual styles of these types of pieces seem, to me, to preclude the use of the term "sell" in any conventional sense.

Of course, Claus might not mean sell in a conventional sense, but we just don't know.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's not a response, Claus. That's a cop-out akin to your last little whinge.

Try again; is my understanding of how you've defined 'sell' correct?

Athon

I have explained what I meant. Not much more I can do.

You don't like my stance on what art is and what it does. Exemplified by whether all art sells or not. And it makes me such a woo.

What are you going to do about it? Apart from bitching about it on an Internet forum?

 

[CFLarsen]

Great post until this last sentence. Rembrandt was basically the first commercial artist - he definitely was selling something. He set up a system of workshops and apprentices to produce commercial pieces. Rembrandt was producing art for a commercial market, so in that sense the art was selling itself, as a product.

Leonardo wasn't?

 

[athon]

I have explained what I meant. Not much more I can do.

Another lie. It might be easier for you to dust your hands and feel like you've actually succeeded in arguing your case...but it doesn't do a great deal when the thread stands a testimony to your dishonesty.

You don't like my stance on what art is and what it does. Exemplified by whether all art sells or not.

And again, an obvious, blatant display of dishonesty.

I specifically articulated above that this was not about what art is and is not, but rather than whatever it is, it sells something.

And it makes me such a woo.

Your lying and dishonesty makes you a woo, Claus. Your hypocritcal behaviour makes you a woo. Your fantasy approach to language makes you a woo.

But all of this is like water off a duck's back for you, because you'll simply change all of this criticism into something different in order to feel better.

What are you going to do about it? Apart from bitching about it on an Internet forum?

WTF?? Are you eleven? Grow the hell up. This isn't the playground, Claus. You've been called out on your dishonest behaviour, and your response is now 'so what are you going to do about it?'.

Mate, you've gone off the deep end. Seriously, like I've said before - leave the keyboard and go see what the world is like outside your front door. Get some perspective. You need it.

Athon

 

[athon]

Great post until this last sentence. Rembrandt was basically the first commercial artist - he definitely was selling something. He set up a system of workshops and apprentices to produce commercial pieces. Rembrandt was producing art for a commercial market, so in that sense the art was selling itself, as a product.

Hm, ok. Point taken.

I think Claus seems to think all art does this - that is, 'advertises' its own inherent 'worth' as an art-work (or, by proxy, 'advertises' the artist lui-meme) - and that this particular self-contained sense of production can be termed "selling".

I wish I could agree, but to be honest I still have no idea what he means by 'sell'. I'd like to think he means that all art conveys a feeling, message or an idea from the artist to the audience...but that's stretching the word 'sell' into being meaningless, and 'advertise' to the point of absurdity. Nonetheless, if he said that's precisely what he meant, the most I might say is for him to buy himself a better dictionary.

That said, I still don't know what he means with any certainty.

Claus starts with a premise and then tries to argue it, even if it isn't well thought out or if he really understands the words. That in itself is no great crime, but the fact he continues the charade is what is truly sad.

Of course, Claus might not mean sell in a conventional sense, but we just don't know.

Either he doesn't know either, or he knows he's in a corner and if he gives the definition now, he'll have to admit his definition is unique to his mind.

But this is his usual tactic - there's a score of threads he's engaged in where he's shown he doesn't have any idea of how most people use a word. I've speculated before that it might have to do with having most of his communication only being online, rather than actually engaging with a diversity of people in real life. Of course, it is only speculation, but I'm stuck as to how somebody who seems to have such a good grasp of English can display such naivity on how language works.

Athon

 

[volatile]

Leonardo wasn't?

Not to the same extent. Leonardo was very much a product of his patronage, as far as I am aware (not really my period of expertise). From what I've read, Rembrandt is considered really the first slavishly commercial artist, given that works were produced to sell, rather than painted on commission.

Would you mind addressing the second part of that post, because I think it cuts to where we disagree. You seem to think art is always already selling either itself (as a product) or, by proxy, some 'essence' of the artist, right?

Where I and Athon would disagree with you is that the term "sell" is not appropriate for this context without some serious linguistic bastardisation. Performance art such as the Vienna Actionists were producing did not sell anything, unless by 'sell' you mean something contrary to customary usage. Hence us asking for a defintion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Another lie. It might be easier for you to dust your hands and feel like you've actually succeeded in arguing your case...but it doesn't do a great deal when the thread stands a testimony to your dishonesty.

"Another lie"? A lie, Athon?

I have done my best to explain what I mean.

OK, you don't agree. Fine with me.

But don't call it a lie.

You do not decide whether I have explained it to the best of my ability or not.

Who do you think you are? God?

And again, an obvious, blatant display of dishonesty.

I specifically articulated above that this was not about what art is and is not, but rather than whatever it is, it sells something.

But you are not making my case. I am. Go with what I say the claim is - not what you want me to say the claim is.

Your lying and dishonesty makes you a woo, Claus. Your hypocritcal behaviour makes you a woo. Your fantasy approach to language makes you a woo.

But all of this is like water off a duck's back for you, because you'll simply change all of this criticism into something different in order to feel better.

Criticize me for what I say. Not what you want me to say.

WTF?? Are you eleven? Grow the hell up. This isn't the playground, Claus. You've been called out on your dishonest behaviour, and your response is now 'so what are you going to do about it?'.

Mate, you've gone off the deep end. Seriously, like I've said before - leave the keyboard and go see what the world is like outside your front door. Get some perspective. You need it.

Take your own advice. Leave your keyboard. Take your criticism outside this forum.

Or are you just words and no action?

I am such a woo. Oh, my! I have a different opinion of what art is and what it can do, than you have!

What are you going to do about it?

 

[CFLarsen]

Not to the same extent.

But he was. At least to some extent.

So, Manet isn't the first commercial artist.

Right?

Or, are you going to argue the meaning of "basically the first commercial artist"?

You are not going to do that, are you?

I mean....why should you be allowed to argue your point - if I am not?

Why don't you just acknowledge that I have a right to my opinion about art - as I acknowledge that you have a right to yours?

 

[volatile]

I wish I could agree, but to be honest I still have no idea what he means by 'sell'. I'd like to think he means that all art conveys a feeling, message or an idea from the artist to the audience...but that's stretching the word 'sell' into being meaningless, and 'advertise' to the point of absurdity. Nonetheless, if he said that's precisely what he meant, the most I might say is for him to buy himself a better dictionary.

I'm inclined to agree. The use of the word "sell" in this way is certainly not what was meant when this thread began. It's just about within the bounds of syntactical sense (as in, I think I now understand where Claus is coming from, somewhat), but it's certainly not meaningful in light of the original premise of the discussion.

I'd like to hear him explain what Brus was selling when performing Zereissprobe in 1970. That'd clarfiy things a great deal.

 

[athon]

"Another lie"? A lie, Athon?

I have done my best to explain what I mean.

OK, you don't agree. Fine with me.

But don't call it a lie.

You do not decide whether I have explained it to the best of my ability or not.

Who do you think you are? God?

I don't have to be God to see your dishonesty, Claus.

So now it's you've 'explained it to the best of your ability'. You're not a complete linguistic cripple, so I don't think you can claim that you're incapable of providing a simple sentence explaining what you mean by 'sell'. To state you've explained to the best of your ability, as if your ability is that of a five year old's and you can't do any better, is really scrambling.

You've got five people asking now what you mean by 'sell'; all you need to do now is agree with my interpretation or disagree. Nod or shake the head. Is that beyond your capability?

But you are not making my case. I am. Go with what I say the claim is - not what you want me to say the claim is.

I'm asking for clarification of the claim. You know that.

Criticize me for what I say. Not what you want me to say.

I'm asking for clarification of what you're saying. What do you mean by the word 'sell'? A simple sentence is all that is needed.

Take your own advice. Leave your keyboard. Take your criticism outside this forum.

Or are you just words and no action?

You have one serious problem with reading, Claus. I suggest you go out and learn how the world works, and you reflect that back to me as 'why don't you go out and take the criticism outside this forum?'

Actually, I do just that Claus, for what it matters. I do far more for science communication than just sit on this forum, and my criticism of self-proclaimed skeptics who don't turn skeptical thinking onto themselves has been taken outside here on a number of occasions.

Nice try, though.

I am such a woo. Oh, my! I have a different opinion of what art is and what it can do, than you have!

*sigh* I'll say it again, just because I like the echo it makes when it bounces through your head - this is not about differing opinions of art. It is about trying to get you to tell us what you mean by the word 'sell'.

Why can't you just provide a sentence that states it? Simple as, and it'd move this conversation on.

What are you going to do about it?

I don't see the relevance of this statement at all. It's another one of your distraction comments - if we criticise you, you feel the need to tell us to take up a crusade against you which involves speaking to the public. Why would I entertain your delusions of grandeur?

Once again Claus, the world is bigger than this forum, believe it or not. I know that comes as a surprise to you.

Athon

 

[volatile]

But he was. At least to some extent.

So, Manet isn't the first commercial artist.

Right?

Or, are you going to argue the meaning of "basically the first commercial artist"?

You are not going to do that, are you?

I mean....why should you be allowed to argue your point - if I am not?

Why don't you just acknowledge that I have a right to my opinion about art - as I acknowledge that you have a right to yours?

Rembrandt, not Manet. The suggestion that Rembrandt was essentially the first commercial artist has been made by more eloquent and informed people than me, but it's an interesting debate for another time. Interestingly, I just found an article claiming Hogarth was the "first commercial artist", but anyway. I'm agreeing with you - a large proportion of art work "sells" itself; it is commodified. Rembrant's work definitely sold something. (http://books.google.com/books?id=sJ...prise&sig=awsjCcpAB-BTHYzYJ2E8-BWX_mE#PPA6,M1, http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507(198812)48:4<949:RETSAT>2.0.CO;2-G)

But this is in no way to say that all art does this. To argue this, you need a very strange defintion of the word "sell". This is what we're trying to explain. The argument here is not about pure opinions. It's about, as Athon has tried to explain, substantiating uses of words and justifying those opinions. You still haven't given a full definition of "sell", and it'd help us all if you woudn't mind producing one. Please.

Start your post, "When I say "All art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean...". That'll really help us all.

 

[Morrigan]

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

My father-in-law is retired and paints watercolour sceneries, animals, flowers, etc. as a hobby. He receives no money and no prestige from his painting. He just likes painting.

What is he selling?

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't have to be God to see your dishonesty, Claus.

So now it's you've 'explained it to the best of your ability'. You're not a complete linguistic cripple, so I don't think you can claim that you're incapable of providing a simple sentence explaining what you mean by 'sell'. To state you've explained to the best of your ability, as if your ability is that of a five year old's and you can't do any better, is really scrambling.

You may think it is - but how it is lying?

You've got five people asking now what you mean by 'sell'; all you need to do now is agree with my interpretation or disagree. Nod or shake the head. Is that beyond your capability?

I had a feeling you would end up there.

Either I would have to agree with your interpretation, or I wouldn't. It had nothing to do with me providing my definition of "sell", after which we could discuss whether it was true or not.

I'm asking for clarification of the claim. You know that.
...
I'm asking for clarification of what you're saying. What do you mean by the word 'sell'? A simple sentence is all that is needed.

And I have given you that.

What is it about my many explanations that you don't understand?

You have one serious problem with reading, Claus. I suggest you go out and learn how the world works, and you reflect that back to me as 'why don't you go out and take the criticism outside this forum?'

Actually, I do just that Claus, for what it matters. I do far more for science communication than just sit on this forum, and my criticism of self-proclaimed skeptics who don't turn skeptical thinking onto themselves has been taken outside here on a number of occasions.

Nice try, though.

I didn't ask if you went out into the world, promoting science communication.

I asked what you would do about my claim about what art is and what it does.

*sigh* I'll say it again, just because I like the echo it makes when it bounces through your head - this is not about differing opinions of art. It is about trying to get you to tell us what you mean by the word 'sell'.

Why can't you just provide a sentence that states it? Simple as, and it'd move this conversation on.

About what art sells. Which is what I have given.

Do you really deny that I have?

I don't see the relevance of this statement at all. It's another one of your distraction comments - if we criticise you, you feel the need to tell us to take up a crusade against you which involves speaking to the public. Why would I entertain your delusions of grandeur?

Once again Claus, the world is bigger than this forum, believe it or not. I know that comes as a surprise to you.

Yes, the world is bigger than this forum. According to you, I am such a woo, because I happen to disagree what art is and what it does. That makes me such a problem for skepticism.

This isn't about what you call my "delusions of grandeur". It's about putting your mouth where your argument is.

What will you do about this? Aside from bitch, moan and whine about what goes on an Internet forum?

Nothing?