What is the difference between art and advertising?

[CFLarsen]

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)

If it is a matter of debate, then it is not as clear-cut as you claimed.

Didn't Leonardo's factory - because that's what it was - sell anything? What didn't it sell?

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.

I'm sorry, but what it is about my explanation that you can't accept?

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?

Already explained: He gets better.

Improving your skills is not selling? Tell that to Mutter. Tell her that her many thousands of hours practicing did not sell her art.

 

[volatile]

"When I say "All art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean..."

Please.

------------

On the subject of Rembrandt, the intorduction to Alpers' book on Rembrandt and the Market is readbale on Google Books. She makes the case that his approach to the market was novel and idiosyncratic - in other words, he was the first to really approach the market in this way. I'm agreeing with you - Rembrandt's art was selling something - itself (which was markedly different to the work of his predecessors or contemporaries, whose work was intended to advertise (or "sell") civic, religious or individual patronage). Leonardo's work did not sell itself (it was not commodified) in the same way.

How is Gunther Brus' work doing this, or similar?

 

[Tricky]

Improving your skills is not selling? Tell that to Mutter.

No, Claus, Improving your skills is not selling. It may be one part of potentially selling something in the future, but it is not, by itself, selling. I'd tell that to Mutter and any other artists, and I'd bet they'd agree with me, just as other artists in this thread have agreed with me.

Spelling words is not writing a novel. It is one fairly important part of writing a novel, but it may or may not be used for that purpose. I'd tell that to William Faulkner or any other novelists, and I'd bet they'd agree with me.

Turning on the stove is not cooking. It is often one of the first steps in cooking, but by itself, it will not prepare any food. You can turn on the stove without cooking anything. I'd tell that to Julia Childs or any other chef, and I'd bet they'd agree with me.

You have taken one part (and not a required part) of art and extrapolated it to make a blanket statement about all art. You have used the word "sell" in a way that does not match any standard dictionary defintions and you have refused to give a strict definition of it yourself. Your opinion is wrong. The evidence clearly shows this.

If you would admit that your statement "all art sells something" is an incorrect statement, you might begin to regain some of the respect that you might otherwise have here.

 

[volatile]

Tricky: Further, if we take the process of performing an action to itself be an act of selling then I am selling myself cooking lessons every time I make dinner, selling myself driving lessons every time I get in my car or selling myself oration lessons every time I open my mouth.

If we reduce the meaning of the word "sell" to include not only "practice" but also "individual, non-purposive, unconscious practice", then every single action on the whole planet "sells". Which is absurd, clearly.

Calus: How can I sell myself something? How can an artist's practice be termed a sale? How can we posit a transaction when there is no "trans" and no "action"? How can an act involving a solitary agent be considered a "sale"?

In other words - please define "sale".

 

[CFLarsen]

"When I say "All art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean..."

Please.

No. "Art sells something".

On the subject of Rembrandt, the intorduction to Alpers' book on Rembrandt and the Market is readbale on Google Books. She makes the case that his approach to the market was novel and idiosyncratic - in other words, he was the first to really approach the market in this way. I'm agreeing with you - Rembrandt's art was selling something - itself (which was markedly different to the work of his predecessors or contemporaries, whose work was intended to advertise (or "sell") civic, religious or individual patronage). Leonardo's work did not sell itself (it was not commodified) in the same way.

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

No, Claus, Improving your skills is not selling. It may be one part of potentially selling something in the future, but it is not, by itself, selling. I'd tell that to Mutter and any other artists, and I'd bet they'd agree with me, just as other artists in this thread have agreed with me.

Then, please explain how studies of the great masters can sell so well.

Spelling words is not writing a novel. It is one fairly important part of writing a novel, but it may or may not be used for that purpose. I'd tell that to William Faulkner or any other novelists, and I'd bet they'd agree with me.

You think War and Peace would be a great novel if it were full of spelling errors? Someone who can't spell is a great writer?

Bollocks!

Turning on the stove is not cooking. It is often one of the first steps in cooking, but by itself, it will not prepare any food. You can turn on the stove without cooking anything. I'd tell that to Julia Childs or any other chef, and I'd bet they'd agree with me.

Can Julia Childs cook without knowing how to master a stove?

You have taken one part (and not a required part) of art and extrapolated it to make a blanket statement about all art. You have used the word "sell" in a way that does not match any standard dictionary defintions and you have refused to give a strict definition of it yourself. Your opinion is wrong. The evidence clearly shows this.

If you would admit that your statement "all art sells something" is an incorrect statement, you might begin to regain some of the respect that you might otherwise have here.

You do not decide how I make my argument.

Calus: How can I sell myself something? How can an artist's practice be termed a sale? How can we posit a transaction when there is no "trans" and no "action"? How can an act involving a solitary agent be considered a "sale"?

In other words - please define "sale".

Now you are trying to determine how I use "sell".

 

[volatile]

No. "Art sells something".

Some art does. Not all. What did Zeriessprobe sell?

Please define "sell". Or:

"When I say "Art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean..."

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

Why make an argument here? To distract from the main point? I already agreed that Leonardo's work "sold" or, indeed, "advertised" his patrons. But that doesn't make him a commercial artist in the way Rembrandt was. I can't believe you're arguing with me even when I agree with you!

Now you are trying to determine how I use "sell".

That is how you use "sell". You said, and I quote:

Improving your skills is not selling? Tell that to Mutter.

If "improving your skills [at painting]" is equivalent to your painting engaging in an act of selling, and if all acts of painting are "improving [one's] skills" at art, then all acts of x are equivalent to improving one's skills at x, ergo all acts of x are engaging in an act of selling. That means, Claus, that everyone on the planet is selling (and has been selling, and will be selling for evermore) all the time, in every act they perform! Absurd!

I honestly don't understand (which is why I asked). How can an artist's practice inherently produce works that sell? How can a solitary agent (whose work, by your assertion, "sells" the artist his own self-improvement) engage in a sale?

If you intend to suggest you use "sell" different to the way I have indicated, then please define "sell".

 

[volatile]

One question. Please answer.

What did Gunther Brus' Zereissprobe sell?

 

[CFLarsen]

Some art does. Not all. What did Zeriessprobe sell?

Answered in post #254.

Please define "sell". Or:

"When I say "Art sells something", I define the term "sell" to mean..."

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

Why make an argument here? To distract from the main point? I already agreed that Leonardo's work "sold" or, indeed, "advertised" his patrons. But that doesn't make him a commercial artist in the way Rembrandt was. I can't believe you're arguing with me even when I agree with you!

That is how you use "sell". You said, and I quote:



If "improving your skills [at painting]" is equivalent to your painting engaging in an act of selling, and if all acts of painting are "improving [one's] skills" at art, then all acts of x are equivalent to improving one's skills at x, ergo all acts of x are engaging in an act of selling. That means, Claus, that everyone on the planet is selling (and has been selling, and will be selling for evermore) all the time, in every act they perform! Absurd!

It is one way to sell art.

I honestly don't understand (which is why I asked). How can an artist's practice inherently produce works that sell? How can a solitary agent (whose work, by your assertion, "sells" the artist his own self-improvement) engage in a sale?

If you intend to suggest you use "sell" different to the way I have indicated, then please define "sell".

I have explained what I mean. What is it you don't understand about that?

Did Leonardo's work sell, yes or no?

How can studies of the great masters can sell so well?

Do you really think tht War and Peace would be a great novel if it were full of spelling errors? Someone who can't spell is a great writer?

Can Julia Childs cook without knowing how to master a stove?

 

[Tricky]

Then, please explain how studies of the great masters can sell so well.

People want to buy them. So what? As we have pointed out to you virtually from the first post in the thread, the argument you need to defend is not that some art sells, but that all art is selling something. This misdirection didn't work the first time you used it, and it is still not working.

You think War and Peace would be a great novel if it were full of spelling errors? Someone who can't spell is a great writer?

Yeah, it probably would be. In fact, it might have been. Editors fix spelling. In any case, spelling is a small part of novel-writing. It is not a synonym for novel-writing. People can spell without writing a novel. People can create art without selling something. We have given you numerous examples.

Can Julia Childs cook without knowing how to master a stove?

Probably. There are other ways to cook besides using a stove. Also, in most recipes, the biggest part of takes place outside of a stove. Like selling is to art, a stove is something that is used in SOME cooking.

Now you are trying to determine how I use "sell".

We are merely pointing out that you are using it incorrectly. This has been what we have been pointing out since early in the thread. Your incorrectness has been shown by evidence and numerous examples. You can use "sell" to mean "spelunking" if you like, but you will be using it incorrectly. If it were your opinion that they meant the same thing, then your opinion would be wrong.

 

[volatile]

Answered in post #254.

You posted a single question - "Do you think I can't buy pictures of Naumann's work?".

This has nothing to do with what the work Zereissprobe was or might have been selling, unless you think Brus carried out his performance art in order to sell postcards. Do you think he did?

Or, in other words: please explain, in clear sentences and without resort to further questions, what Zereissprobe was selling in and of itself. Then, define "sell".

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

Howdoes all art sell, and what does all art sell. You still haven't explained why this is the case - as such you're hardly "arguing" it at all. You're just stating it.

It is one way to sell art.

How? How does improving your skills at a given task imply that that task is selling?! It's absurd, as I've tried to show you.

I have explained what I mean. What is it you don't understand about that?

Did Leonardo's work sell, yes or no?

Yes. I already said that, at least twice. That's quite different from him being a commercial artist, but never mind. I agree with you on this point. Always have done. Indeed, I interjected in Athon's post to show that he was wrong and you were right. Why would you argue with me when we agree, unless you were deliberately trolling?

How can studies of the great masters can sell so well?

Because people buy them. How is that related to their inherent selling?

How does craftsmanship or ability mean that something is, inherently, "selling"? I don't understand.

Please define "sell". Please?

 

[CFLarsen]

People want to buy them. So what?

Precisely. So an increase in skills will sell what you do. (You didn't acknowledge this earlier, but thanks for conceding this point)

As we have pointed out to you virtually from the first post in the thread, the argument you need to defend is not that some art sells, but that all art is selling something. This misdirection didn't work the first time you used it, and it is still not working.

Where have I said that one way fits all art?

Yeah, it probably would be. In fact, it might have been. Editors fix spelling. In any case, spelling is a small part of novel-writing. It is not a synonym for novel-writing.

You know nothing of writing. If you can't command the language, you cannot write.

People can spell without writing a novel.

I didn't say otherwise.

People can create art without selling something. We have given you numerous examples.

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

Probably. There are other ways to cook besides using a stove. Also, in most recipes, the biggest part of takes place outside of a stove. Like selling is to art, a stove is something that is used in SOME cooking.

Exactly. But mastering your stove makes you a better cook, thereby selling your skills.

We are merely pointing out that you are using it incorrectly. This has been what we have been pointing out since early in the thread. Your incorrectness has been shown by evidence and numerous examples. You can use "sell" to mean "spelunking" if you like, but you will be using it incorrectly. If it were your opinion that they meant the same thing, then your opinion would be wrong.

You do not decide how I argue my point.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

If you intend to suggest you use "sell" different to the way I have indicated, then please define "sell".

When you get that definition, could you also find out his definition of "unenforceable"?


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51706&highlight=unenforceable

I tried for a while, but was never quite able to get a definition . . . .


I think you'll get a kind of deja vu feel around pages 11-12.


But my favorite comes around page 16 (post 639):

I am saying that, judging from the actual court cases, and especially the cases that never got to court, the law is unenforceable.

Could it [enforcement] happen? I don't think it is impossible . . . .

followed by page 17 (post 643):

I am saying that the law is unenforceable. . . .

But I am not certain that the law could not lead to a conviction.

And then, of course, it really gets fun.




So if you have the stamina, I'll still take the over on 20 pages. But (at the risk of ruining my winning chances on that bet, but of saving the next few weeks of your lives) you may want to skim portions of the above before continuing much further.

 

[volatile]

Also: as I said in another post, "You seem to think art is always already selling either itself (as a product) or, by proxy, some 'essence' of the artist, right?"

If you could clarify if this is indeed your position, I think we can better pinpoint where you're going wrong. I think I kinda see what you're trying to claim, but it really doesn't hold much water...

 

[volatile]

Precisely. So an increase in skills will sell what you do.

Unless, of course, you don't sell your work (like the other poster's father), or you're increasing your skills at something with no inherent commercial value (like driving, eating or talking), or your work is not intended for public display, or the work was an ephemeral and conceptual performance piece. Not all art sells something. Some art just is. Or, to put it another way, all art does something, but that action is not always selling.

Your argument here, as I showed you earlier on, is reducible to "Every act anyone ever performs is selling something (undefined)". It's a nonsense argument.

 

[CFLarsen]

You posted a single question - "Do you think I can't buy pictures of Naumann's work?".

This has nothing to do with what the work Zereissprobe was or might have been selling, unless you think Brus carried out his performance art in order to sell postcards. Do you think he did?

He sold his art in exactly the same way Naumann did.

Howdoes all art sell, and what does all art sell. You still haven't explained why this is the case - as such you're hardly "arguing" it at all. You're just stating it.

That is simply not correct. I have given ample examples. And asked for examples that didn't - so far, no luck.

How? How does improving your skills at a given task imply that that task is selling?! It's absurd, as I've tried to show you.

See my response to Tricky (and also previous answers): The same way Mutter practicing.

What part about this do you refuse to accept? Practicing doesn't improve your skills? Improving your skills doesn't improve your art? Improving your art doesn't make it sell?

Yes. I already said that, at least twice. That's quite different from him being a commercial artist, but never mind. I agree with you on this point. Always have done. Indeed, I interjected in Athon's post to show that he was wrong and you were right. Why would you argue with me when we agree, unless you were deliberately trolling?

You dismissed the example of Leonardo because he didn't sell the same way as Rembrandt.

Because people buy them. How is that related to their inherent selling?

...because people buy them?

How does craftsmanship or ability mean that something is, inherently, "selling"? I don't understand.

You really don't understand how better craftmanship can sell something?

Where am I losing you?

Do you really think tht War and Peace would be a great novel if it were full of spelling errors? Someone who can't spell is a great writer?

Can Julia Childs cook without knowing how to master a stove?

 

[volatile]

I am currently drinking a cup of tea. Is my imbibing selling?

 

[CFLarsen]

Also: as I said in another post, "You seem to think art is always already selling either itself (as a product) or, by proxy, some 'essence' of the artist, right?"

If you could clarify if this is indeed your position, I think we can better pinpoint where you're going wrong. I think I kinda see what you're trying to claim, but it really doesn't hold much water...

Wait a second.

Now you are doing the same as Athon: You tell me I am wrong, but you don't understand what I am saying - so how can you say I am wrong?

Make up your mind:

Do you understand what I am saying or not?

Unless, of course, you don't sell your work (like the other poster's father), or you're increasing your skills at something with no inherent commercial value (like driving, eating or talking), or your work is not intended for public display, or the work was an ephemeral and conceptual performance piece. Not all art sells something. Some art just is. Or, to put it another way, all art does something, but that action is not always selling.

Show me an example of such a work of art.

Your argument here, as I showed you earlier on, is reducible to "Every act anyone ever performs is selling something (undefined)". It's a nonsense argument.

I am not arguing that.

 

[volatile]

He sold his art in exactly the same way Naumann did.

Which was? Seriously, I don't understand.

How was Zereissprobe selling, and what was it selling?

That is simply not correct. I have given ample examples. And asked for examples that didn't - so far, no luck.

See my response to Tricky (and also previous answers): The same way Mutter practicing.

What part about this do you refuse to accept? Practicing doesn't improve your skills? Improving your skills doesn't improve your art? Improving your art doesn't make it sell?

Not if you're not selling it, no.

If you do not sell your art, and if it has no pretensions or intentions to sale, then it is not selling.

Are you instilling all art with inherent commodity value? That seems to be the line of reasoning? That I could sell my painting should I choose to, and thus it is inherently "selling" itself?

You really don't understand how better craftmanship can sell something?

Where am I losing you?

I think it's how you're using the word "sell". Could you define it, please?

 

[volatile]

Make up your mind:

Do you understand what I am saying or not?

No, because what you're saying is nonsense. You can hardly blame me for not quite grasping your argument under these circumstances...

Show me an example of such a work of art.

Manet's portrait of Zola. Bruce Naumann's Self-Portrait as a Fountain. Gunther Brus' Zereissprobe.

Much internet art doesn't seem, to me, to be selling anything. Take "Biennale.py", for example (http://www.0100101110101101.org/home/biennale_py/index.html), or "Life Sharing" (http://www.0100101110101101.org/home/life_sharing/index.html).

These types of work cannot be bought, sold or transacted, can often not be displayed in galleries, are produced by anonymous individuals and distributed for free. What are they selling?If you think they sell, please explain what you mean by sell.

I am not arguing that.

Yes you are. You're saying that the very act of painting improves your skills at painting, thus painting is selling something. You are arguing that doing something means the same thing as that something selling. At least, that's how I read it.

Unless you have a different definition to the word "sell" than I do? Care to state your definition, for clarity's sake?

 

[CFLarsen]

I think it's how you're using the word "sell". Could you define it, please?

Do you understand what I am saying or not?