What is the difference between art and advertising?

[Spung]

Ok, so it's been generally agreed in this thread that things that do not attempt to sell something are not advertisement? So, for example, a government-sponsored pro-condom poster, or a placard for a lecture at the local public library? Not advertisement.

Didn't Warhol in a way show that advertising could be art? And I think to exempt Warhol from market pressure is a bit weird. Of COURSE he was selling something. Art in the modern market is its own advertisement(art on the market, that is, not private studies and such), while (maybe this is the crux of a distinction) 'advertising' is art that sells something outside itself, perhaps. (Maybe that's something I missed arriving late to the thread: can any advertising be art? Or is some art advertising? Or are they mutually exclusive? If I've read correctly the claim under attack is that All Art is advertising, right? What does the Venn diagram look like at this point in the thread? )

(sorry, I haven't been in the thread long enough to be exasperated and I'm just enjoying talking about art. IMHO the topic isn't exhausted yet, but I'm not ardent enough to really get passionate about this discussion if everyone else feels it's flogged to death)

What would the Frankfurt School say?

 

[volatile]

Ok, so it's been generally agreed in this thread that things that do not attempt to sell something are not advertisement? So, for example, a government-sponsored pro-condom poster, or a placard for a lecture at the local public library? Not advertisement.

A placard for a lecture is selling the lecture. Pro-condom posters aren't really "selling" anything at all, are they? If you'll accept that not even all advertising sells something (and I agree with that), then you can easily accept that not all art sells something.

Didn't Warhol in a way show that advertising could be art? And I think to exempt Warhol from market pressure is a bit weird. Of COURSE he was selling something. Art in the modern market is its own advertisement

What were Warhol's Brillo boxes selling?

The whole point of pop art was to abstract the visual syntax of advertising from the process of selling. Pop art wasn't selling anything - that was the whole point.

If you want to make a counter-argument you (as Claus failed to) need to define what you mean by "sell", and in what way it is appropriate to describe the work of all art works in these terms. Over to you. Be precise.

(art on the market, that is, not private studies and such)

Back to Manet's portrait of Zola. This was not intended to be produced for the market. It was a gift to Zola himself, though it subsequently was sold, of course. So is it your argument that at some point after the piece was produced, it became an advert for itself, because it was marketised? By that definition, anything that is ever exchanged for money is advertising or selling itself, which renders any use of those terms practically meaningless. Which is precisely what Tricky had been trying to explain earlier in the thread. Does that make sense?

 

[JohnG]

Hi Everyone,

I joined the forum yesterday and despite years of lurking I'm still finding my way around. I saw this thread and it was the final impetus I needed to stop lurking and join the party.

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any reference to Joseph Campbell's (inspired by James Joyce) view on the difference between Art and Advertising. Have you already discussed this? Here's the thumbnail version:

There are two kinds of Art; proper and improper. Improper Art can be further divided into two categories; Didacticism (loathing the object being represented) and Pornography (desiring the object being represented).

Campbell claimed that all Advertising is pornography (and therefore 'improper' art) in that it moves the viewer to want to possess whatever is being advertised.

'Proper' art, on the other hand holds the viewer in 'aesthetic arrest' where they neither desire (to possess) the object nor loathe/reject (didactic art) the subject of the work.

There's more to it, but that's what I can recall off the top of my head. Please let me know if you're interested in hearing more and I'll see if I can dig up the lecture in question.

In the meantime I'll read through all the posts in detail to get up to speed with the rest of you.

JohnG

 

[beeksc1]

Art... has essence, is creative expression, is aesthetically beautiful, is created for the sake for creating, often times has intrinsic meaning and purpose, etc.

Advertising... has a specific goal: to motivate the consumer to buy, buy, buy; really does not have an essence, is a creative outlet, but it is not created for the sheer sake of creativity, etc.

There is much overlap between advertising and art; but, the core of them distinguishes them. Advertising is basically design to cleverly catch the eye of the observer and is meant to convey the message within one or two seconds. Art is essentially created to fulfill an intrinsic aspiration that resonates within all of us and often is meant to be pondered upon.

It is like comparing grass to astroturf.

 

[Hooloovoo]

Will everybody just shut up about those damn turtles? I'm the biggest, blooest superhero.

Dude, I didn't mention any turtles! I'll take large blue arachnids over pizza eating, sewer dwelling turtles any day of the week.

 

[Hooloovoo]

Not one of the advertising art/illustration/design instructors I've known have said that advertising is art. They pretty much said the opposite. Since advertising has a narrow agenda to change minds in a specific direction (not necessarily to sell, sell sell) and pure art doesn't have to do that, they're not the same. Advertising can take art and use it toward its goals, but it isn't art. That doesn't make it any less creative or valid than pure art. Advertising must be specific; art can be ambiguous.

Being highly creative within limitations is tough work that requires an especially nimble brain. Great advertising can be downright brilliant and worthy of more far more respect than a trendy painting. I generally hold more admiration for those working in commercial art than I do those working in fine art. I look up to plenty of fine artists, but the amount of work that goes into good advertising is enormous, and very stressful. Many fine artists couldn't cook up an effective ad to save their lives.

So I'll repeat myself. I think art is the stuff artists make, and advertising is a service whose goal is to change minds. Each can take advantage of the other, but they're not one in the same.

 

[Aitch]

Isn't one of the differences that advertising is, generally, fairly ephemeral* whereas art tends to last?

* try saying that three times after a couple of beers

 

[volatile]

Not one of the advertising art/illustration/design instructors I've known have said that advertising is art. They pretty much said the opposite. Since advertising has a narrow agenda to change minds in a specific direction (not necessarily to sell, sell sell) and pure art doesn't have to do that, they're not the same. Advertising can take art and use it toward its goals, but it isn't art. That doesn't make it any less creative or valid than pure art. Advertising must be specific; art can be ambiguous.

Being highly creative within limitations is tough work that requires an especially nimble brain. Great advertising can be downright brilliant and worthy of more far more respect than a trendy painting. I generally hold more admiration for those working in commercial art than I do those working in fine art. I look up to plenty of fine artists, but the amount of work that goes into good advertising is enormous, and very stressful. Many fine artists couldn't cook up an effective ad to save their lives.

So I'll repeat myself. I think art is the stuff artists make, and advertising is a service whose goal is to change minds. Each can take advantage of the other, but they're not one in the same.

I'm an art history lecturer, and I am firmly of the opinion (as, I can assure you, are most of my colleagues) that some art resolutely does have as its purpose the desire to change minds. Advertising is a sub-set of art. It is a type of art. It uses the formal and conceptual tropes of other art disciplines. Advertising and other visual culture ephemera are studied in great detail by art historians, and I think you'd actually have a hard time finding an art historian who'd say that advertising wasn't art.

Not all art is advertising. All advertising is art.

 

[Hooloovoo]

Yes, plenty of art is made with the intended purpose of changing minds. It might advertise. It is conducting the service of advertising. Advertising isn't what that art is. People can utilize a piece of art to advertise. My mouth can shout. Shouting isn't what my mouth is, it's what my mouth does.