• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What is the difference between art and advertising?

As I have said numerous times, I think a person's creation is art if any person thinks it is. The unusual scenario you have presented is one in which there is no information on whether or not anyone elses thinks it is art. In that situation, I'd judge based only on my own opinion, but willing to alter my judgment if another opinion were given.

No, no, no. You also said:

Tricky said:
I am happy to accept your contention that any piece of creation is "art".

A black square on a wall is a piece that was created. Therefore, you think it is art. You do not need anyone else to call it art.

You clearly can't make heads or tails of your own argument.

I have answered your question directly and honestly.

No you have not.

No I have not. I have asked you to give us your "checklist" for what is art, but I have never said that you define art too broadly. I doubt that anyone could define art more broadly than I do.

Nice evasion. You "forgot" the part about what art does.

Not only are you unable to follow your own argument, you cherry-pick from mine.

You are restricting art because you set a condition for what all art must do, i.e. "sell something".

I am doing the opposite: I am broadening what art is and what it does.

I have answered another question for you directly and honestly.

No you have not.
 
Thanks for ignoring my post #329, Claus.

Don't be too upset. You just went about it all wrong and presented something which if he responded to, it would show he's being dishonest and evasive.

Watch: Claus, please finish this sentence: 'By sell I mean...'

There's no way he will do it. He can't provide a clear definition. He'll say he's already done it (which, when I showed he had not, he avoided my response), or he'll focus on some other part of your post which has less relevance.

If you want Claus to respond, give him something he can use to obfuscate or misrepresent. Make sure the straw you give Claus for his strawman is fresh, though. The old, mouldy sort gives me headache.

Athon
 
You clearly can't make heads or tails of your own argument.
Well, ONE of us can't.

No you have not.
That is a lie. I have answered the question you asked and done it directly. You may not care for the answer, but you cannot honestly deny that I have answered it.

Nice evasion. You "forgot" the part about what art does.
I have never claimed that art "does" anything. That would be you who makes this claim. In fact, why don't you look at my opening post in this thread.
Art needs no purpose.
I notice, though, you still haven't given us your checklist. What is that word for someone who asks you to do something he won't do? Starts with an "H".

I am doing the opposite: I am broadening what art is and what it does.
You think that limiting art to only things which sell something is "broadening" what art is and what it does? You're a funny guy.


I have answered another question for you directly and honestly.

No you have not.
You gave me a question with two options. I picked one of them and explained my reasoning. This is one of your more blatant lies.
 
Last edited:
IMO, Advertising is art. To stick with the visual arts, I am thinking of billboards, magazine ads, signage. Advertising of this sort is primarily made up of photography; costuming, lighting, makeup, digital graphics, special effects, printing. This is why a lot of fashion ads don't have much at all to do with the actual product; it's all about the model or the colors or hairless teen boys or something. Do you really look at the Gucci bag in the photo? No, you look at the model's face or boobs or whatever she's showing. You don't look at the jeans, you look at the butt inside those jeans. You look at the dress twirling around a model that seems to be having a lot of fun, not the actual dress. Sometimes there are color contrasts or details or something in the background that are eyecatching, no matter what the product is. And then, if you compare ads to each other you can see the competiton that takes place, not between the products, but between the artists. And the photos that result from the competition are beautiful.

Advertising is competitive photography, and photography is art. Therefore advertising is art. It's also collaborative; one single person doesn't make the entire ad. Someone does the makeup, someone else shoots, someone else lights, another team does the graphics, etc.
 
Advertising is competitive photography, and photography is art. Therefore advertising is art. It's also collaborative; one single person doesn't make the entire ad. Someone does the makeup, someone else shoots, someone else lights, another team does the graphics, etc.


Minor quibble, although most ads are collaborative, they do not have to be. My husband owns a lovely Peter Max poster advertising the Laconia Shoe Company (Cloud Walking Shoes). Other than the reprographics, I believe the entire composition and execution was his alone.
 
IMO, Advertising is art. To stick with the visual arts, I am thinking of billboards, magazine ads, signage. Advertising of this sort is primarily made up of photography; costuming, lighting, makeup, digital graphics, special effects, printing. This is why a lot of fashion ads don't have much at all to do with the actual product; it's all about the model or the colors or hairless teen boys or something. Do you really look at the Gucci bag in the photo? No, you look at the model's face or boobs or whatever she's showing. You don't look at the jeans, you look at the butt inside those jeans. You look at the dress twirling around a model that seems to be having a lot of fun, not the actual dress. Sometimes there are color contrasts or details or something in the background that are eyecatching, no matter what the product is. And then, if you compare ads to each other you can see the competiton that takes place, not between the products, but between the artists. And the photos that result from the competition are beautiful.

Advertising is competitive photography, and photography is art. Therefore advertising is art. It's also collaborative; one single person doesn't make the entire ad. Someone does the makeup, someone else shoots, someone else lights, another team does the graphics, etc.
What about the Classified Ads? I've written a number of them with no collaboration. If you want to call one "art", well, I won't say you're wrong.
 
Why are we still derailed by considering "sell", when the OP mentioned "advertising" and "art"?

Advertising is that which attempts to draw attention to something, often with the intention of inducing a purchase.
Merriam-Webster Online
Wiktionary

Art is a bit more slippery :

(Perhaps I'm impaired, yet neither of the above otherwise trustworthy references for English language consensus could yield a direct link to a definition for the word "art", as it was used by the OP.)

In this context, I believe the OP means "art" to be the aesthetically graphical representation of an idea.

The formal expression of a conceived image or imagined conception in terms of a given medium.
Link1

Right, then, carry on!

(Oh no! Now we'll need to define "aesthetic"! What have I done?)
 
Last edited:
Why are we still derailed by considering "sell", when the OP mentioned "advertising" and "art"?

Advertising is that which attempts to draw attention to something, often with the intention of inducing a purchase.
Merriam-Webster Online
Wiktionary

Art is a bit more slippery :

(Perhaps I'm impaired, yet neither of the above otherwise trustworthy references for English language consensus could yield a direct link to a definition for the word "art", as it was used by the OP.)

In this context, I believe the OP means "art" to be the aesthetically graphical representation of an idea.


Link1

Right, then, carry on!

(Oh no! Now we'll need to define "aesthetic"! What have I done?)
You've distilled the basic problem. "Selling" and "Advertising" have fairly strict definitions, but "art" is so broad as to be nearly all-encompassing. That's why I don't even try to restrict it, but say, "If you think it's are, then it's art". That's also why it is so ludicrous to pick anything and say , "all art does this". All you have to do is find one example of art that doesn't do that, and the statement is disproved. In the case of either advertising or selling, examples are abundant.
 
You've distilled the basic problem. "Selling" and "Advertising" have fairly strict definitions, but "art" is so broad as to be nearly all-encompassing. That's why I don't even try to restrict it, but say, "If you think it's are, then it's art". That's also why it is so ludicrous to pick anything and say , "all art does this". All you have to do is find one example of art that doesn't do that, and the statement is disproved. In the case of either advertising or selling, examples are abundant.

Which is why Claus is so desperate to evade our questions and try to represent our arguments as attacking his view of 'art' rather than pin down his defining of 'sell'. It's also why he's fled this thread just as he fled the 'drumsticks' fiasco. He finds he's mistaken in his misunderstanding of a word, tries to twist the argument away from the blatant error he's made, all the while pulling the same tricks woos do when they've obviously misused a word or a term.

I wonder if he'll one day get tired of only ever being ignored or laughed at.

Athon
 
I wonder if he'll one day get tired of only ever being ignored or laughed at.
I'm guessing "no". 40,000 posts and he's still at it. You almost have to respect the guy's tenacity in defending his obvious errors.

Still, we never really have tried "ignoring". Even if an ever-growing percentage of the people here begin to disregard everything he says, there are always a few suckers, like me, who cannot help but call him on his ludicrous statements.

But I don't begrudge him his spotlight. Though he has done little himself to advance skepticism, he has inspired great creativity in those who craft responses to his irrevocable pronouncements, and we learn a lot from each other. Such is the proper and valid function of trolls.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom