What is the difference between art and advertising?

[volatile]

Another one: What was Michael Landy's Destruction selling? The guy pulped everything he owned except the clothes he was standing up in.

What was he selling?

 

[volatile]

Do you understand what I am saying or not?

Not a word. You know what would help, though? If you defined what you mean by "sell".

ETA: Further, it would also help our understanding you answered those questions intended to help us understand your position more clearly, that is to say those beginning "How" and "What" which you keep leaving unanswered, as in the post this quote is from - How was Zereissprobe selling, and what was it selling?

This doesn't need to be a game. It could be a discussion. But you need to engage. Honestly, I'd love to get your point, but you're not being clear enough. If you'd take a second to answer the "How" and "What" questions, I'd be much more likely to agree with you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes you are.

It serves no purpose continuing a debate when you insist on making my arguments for me.

 

[volatile]

It serves no purpose continuing a debate when you insist on making my arguments for me.

You're right, of course. So to save me having to interpret an argument from your posts, wouldn't it be easier if you made one yourself?

* A starting point might be, if our premise is "All art sells something", then what do you mean by sell?

* After that, you could explain what Zereissprobe is selling, and how it is doing so.

That'd be great. I'd actually like to continue this discussion, so you need to provide some input.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You just want me to be wrong.

It's not a matter of want. You are wrong***.



***Assuming that you are using the common definition of "sell". Which, as far as we can tell, you aren't. You see, you could clear this whole thing up in an instant, if you would just give us your definition of "sell". But you won't, because it would be admitting that you are wrong. And you'd rather twist yourself into a pretzel for 20 pages than to just admit that you were wrong.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

There go those goal posts again.

We're looking for your definition of "sell", not of "art".

 

[Tricky]

Who has given an example of art that didn't sell anything?

Me, Volatile, Athon, several others.

Want another example? Without looking at the information on this painting (which of course, is not part of the art), tell me what this art is selling?

 

[CFLarsen]

Me, Volatile, Athon, several others.

Want another example? Without looking at the information on this painting (which of course, is not part of the art), tell me what this art is selling?

[qimg]http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/a000151brd.jpg[/qimg]

Rothko, yes. No, I didn't have to look.

Why do you think that is art?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I didn't ask if Leonardo's work sold the same way as Rembrandt's. I asked if it sold. Did it?

Using who's definition of "sell"? Yours or everyone elses? And we can't really use yours, since we don't know what it is.

 

[Tricky]

Rothko, yes. No, I didn't have to look.

Why do you think that is art?

Oh, is that your new tack? We show or tell you about some art that is not selling something and you question whether or not it is art?

That's okay. We'll just chalk this up as yet another example of art that doesn't sell anything that you have been unable to refute. The list is growing long.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Rothko, yes. No, I didn't have to look.

Why do you think that is art?

We need an emoticon for moving goal posts.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, is that your new tack? We show or tell you about some art that is not selling something and you question whether or not it is art?

No, it's not my "new tack". I asked volatile the exact same question in post #249.

Do try to keep up. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, it's impossible to debate with you.

That's okay. We'll just chalk this up as yet another example of art that doesn't sell anything that you have been unable to refute. The list is growing long.

"Refute"? You are actually arguing that art and what it does is not a matter of opinion but of fact?

I would love to see you argue that in any art gallery.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, it's not my "new tack". I asked volatile the exact same question in post #249.

Do try to keep up. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, it's impossible to debate with you.



"Refute"? You are actually arguing that art and what it does is not a matter of opinion but of fact?

I would love to see you argue that in any art gallery.

Push them (goal posts) to the left!
Push them (goal posts) to the right!
Stand up, Sit down!
Fight, fight, fight!

Yeah team!

 

[volatile]

What was Michael Landy's Destruction selling?

 

[Tricky]

No, it's not my "new tack". I asked volatile the exact same question in post #249.

Yes, and it was off-topic and evasive then too.

Do try to keep up. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, it's impossible to debate with you.

LOL. Yes, I have noticed you find debate impossible. I think we've all noticed that.

"Refute"? You are actually arguing that art and what it does is not a matter of opinion but of fact?

No, that would be you. I gave you an example of art that does not sell anything, and you asked me to defend it as art, clumsily avoiding the question of what it "sells", as is your wont.

I would love to see you argue that in any art gallery.

I would love to see you walk up to a famous artist and tell them that their art is "advertising". At best, you would be called an idiot. At worst, you would be beaten senseless. I think I have that order right.

 

[athon]

No, you do not get to define what I argue. I argue that all art sells something.

Man, this is the part I got to when I realised that Claus is not just the crazy uncle off his medication; he is not just the forum pet clown; he is certifiably of his rocker.

How the hell do you get 'No, you don't get to define what I argue...' from 'Please define the word 'sell'? I'm imagining this as an actual verbal conversation and busting a gut laughing - it is so pythonesque it's hilarous. Cleese couldn't do as good a job as Claus!

The argument is obvious to all but Claus - not a single person is arguing what is and is not art here. Nobody. Not a single person. Art is whatever you want.

Now, when we have a piece that we all agree is art...we are now asking whether it sells something. By our definition of sell (the exchange of goods or services) not all art does that.

Maybe he'll play multiple choice. Claus, does sell mean

a) the exchange of goods or services
b) to improve your skill
c) to promote an idea or a message
d) a combination of the above
e) something else
f) chicken, because motorcycles have no doors

Pick one. Or several. Or just finish this sentence for us:

'In the phrase 'all art sells something', sell can be defined as doing...'

Athon

 

[Prometheus]

....
Pick one. Or several. Or just finish this sentence for us:

'In the phrase 'all art sells something', sell can be defined as doing...'

Athon

Ooh, can I try?:

In the phrase "all art sells something", sell can be defined as doing...art.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, that would be you. I gave you an example of art that does not sell anything, and you asked me to defend it as art, clumsily avoiding the question of what it "sells", as is your wont.

It's a black square - you could also show me a black wall. How would that be art?

You'll have to explain why you think it is art, before I can tell you how it sells. If you can't - or won't - then I can't do it.

I would love to see you walk up to a famous artist and tell them that their art is "advertising". At best, you would be called an idiot. At worst, you would be beaten senseless. I think I have that order right.

You clearly haven't met many artists.

Man, this is the part I got to when I realised that Claus is not just the crazy uncle off his medication; he is not just the forum pet clown; he is certifiably of his rocker.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Claus, does sell mean

You seem to have missed post #247.

 

[athon]

You seem to have missed post #247.

Same old crap, Claus. Nobody falls for it.

It's your usual misdirection, and fumbled like a man who just doesn't care whether he's making sense or not. Post 247 has a collection of examples, with one post which vaguely provides some hint at what you might mean.

So, again; why can't you provide a clear, single sentence in definition of what you mean by 'sell'? Why can't you answer one question? Why do you evade it when you would chase a woo down through the months, resurrecting threads just to badger them when they do what you are doing now?

Answer the question Claus.

Athon

 

[athon]

Ok, since you're going to keep harping on this post, I might as well address it now.

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

Incomplete sentence. Doesn't make sense, let alone tell us what sell means.

Fail.

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

Advertising 'sells' information? Doesn't say what 'sell means, other than it has something to do with information. By traditional usage of the term, it suggests graffitti requests money, goods or services in exchange for information. Bollocks.

One possible definition - sell means promoting information.

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.

Nobody is arguing that some art does not inspire the audience to behave in a particular manner, just as nobody is arguing that some art does not act as advertising.

Moving goal posts.

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.

Again, nobody is arguing that some art does not inspire the audience to behave in a particular manner, just as nobody is arguing that some art does not act as advertising.

Moving goal posts.

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

Another example. Again, nobody is arguing that some art does not inspire the audience to behave in a particular manner, just as nobody is arguing that some art does not act as advertising.

Moving goal posts.

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

Propaganda art does promote ideas. But it does not require any goods, money or services in exchange for those ideas. So again, you must mean something else by 'sell'.

What is it?

More evidence for Claus thinks sell means promoting information.

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

So? You still don't provide a defintion on what you mean by 'sell'.

Fail.

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

How does one 'sell' a war? What do you mean here by 'sell'?

Fail.

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.

This sentence makes no sense when you just tack 'selling' on the end, when one does not understand your use of the word.

Are you suggesting that practicing art is equivalent to selling?

Ok, so we might have one definition here.

'By 'sell', Claus means practicing art'. This is an invention you came up with, though. So, your opinion is wrong.

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

This does not address selling in any way.

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.

This has nothing to do with selling.

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.

More about 'selling is the same as practicing'? So, is this seriously your definition?

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

Ok, so by 'sell' you mean 'exchange of the art piece for goods or services'? Not all art does this. So if this is your definition, it again does not support your opinion.

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

Practice = selling again.

You may disagree with what I am saying.

Yes. You are wrong. Words are not opinions. Selling is not the same as practicing.

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.

You move the goal posts to insinuate we are discussing whether something is art or not, rather than whether all art sells. You evade our straight forward question 'what does sell mean'.

You lie and are dishonest. Your hypocracy grows by the post.

Athon