What is the difference between art and advertising?

[athon]

Well, I don't want to go into a derailing history of formalist debates on what is and isn't art. Suffice to say, the formalist defence of advertising as art would be that advertising uses the same forms as visual art does. In other words, advertising is art because it looks like art. Simplistic, but there you have it.

I wouldn't at all say it's a derail. Seems quite within the bounds of what we're discussing.

Given the definition you've provided and the terms, I can't disagree with that. If it looks artistic, it is. Cool. But then it still doesn't mean all advertising is art and all art is advertising. I might question whether somebody who looks at all forms of communication as art is broadening their definition of art to the point of it being useless. Case in point - I would think a person who feels a grocery docket is art has lost the plot.

Take for example this quote (from '"Form" in Art' by Reuben Abel (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, (Mar., 1972), pp. 371-376)):

"Analysis of the term "work of art" indicates that the object must be formed: that is, that materials must be arranged, or composed, or organized, or manipulated intentionally, by a person, who does so for the sake of doing so (regardless of whatever other motives he may also have), and with the objective of evoking a response from some other person to him."

I like the definition, although wonder just what is meant by 'response'. I would contend that in order for the art to be successful, the response evoked should be the same as intended by the artist. If I want you to feel shock and instead I simply get anger, I'm not sure if that could be successful as art.

Advertising clearly fulfils this (formalist) definition.

I'm not beyond feeling that all advertising could be considered art. However, I do question the reverse; that all art is advertising.

A quick browse of academic sources also dug up this quote, from 'Uneasy Courtship: Modern Art and Modern Advertising' by Jackson Lears (American Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, Special Issue: Modernist Culture in America (Spring, 1987), pp. 133-154), which illustrates less the formal defence but a more political and practical defence:

"And nearly all critics agree that the conflict between modernist art and modern advertising has disappeared - if it ever existed. The cruder version of this argument asserts that modernist art has always reflected the cultural style of capitalist modernization: the restless experimentation, the unrelenting contempt for established forms and values."

This is perhaps what Claus is getting at - contemporary art, existing, as it does, within the art market, has similar if not precisely parallel concerns to advertising.

To be honest, I don't think Claus knows himself what he is getting at. He argues for the sake of it.

From what I gather, he is suggesting all art is a form of advertisement, with the closest he's come to a definition for 'advertise' is to agree with me that an advertisement aims to persuade you into behaving in a specific manner, such as purchasing an item, attending an event, or seeking information. Art, on the other hand, aims to make you feel something, which can lead to a whole range of consequences (of which behaving in a specific manner could well be one).

This book looks interesting, and relevant: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...KQNMX&sig=ghn6sWKREXu8aPR306eYP16hR7o#PPR5,M1

[/quote]

I'd check it out if it wasn't half twelve in the morning.

Athon

 

[Wowbagger]

This was a very good example of advertising that is not, under most definitions, art. It could even be a "fill-in-the-blank" form. And classified ads are quite numerous. Some include some "eye-catching" graphic, but many are just information.

That is why I said most, not all.

Second of all, you could say that there is an art to writing classified ads. Though, I admit that's stretching things a bit.

 

[Piscivore]

It sure is. If I saw it in a museum, without any connection to Benneton, I would say "Wow, that's interesting. Is there any glimmer of hope, or beauty or morality to be found in the artist's work, so that I don't have to just feel awful? Something to justify the shock?"

Why would that be neccessary? Are you saying art is supposed to make you feel good?

Now, for all I know, Benneton has used every penny they've earned, somehow, to treat AIDS patients, or something. I don't know.

Would that make a difference to you? Should it?

In general, media is too aggressive. It's an arms race against the increasing dullness of the viewer's sensitivity and perhaps intelligence. Or maybe just against their increasing hardness. That's too bad in itself.

I won't dispute that.

Everywhere, it's pump up the volume, punch up the picture.

Well, maybe I'll dispute just the word "everywhere".

 

[Tricky]

That is why I said most, not all.

I know you did, but the point was to show that there is a great body of advertising that is arguably not art.

Second of all, you could say that there is an art to writing classified ads. Though, I admit that's stretching things a bit.

That's why I put the disclaimer in the OP that I was excluding things that "could be called art". This would also mean that radio advertising does not contain art, by my restricted definition.

I didn't want this to turn into a discussion of "what is art", or I'm going to have to brag about my creative farting again.

 

[plumjam]

Let me guess, no broad agreement will be reached on this.. and 4 pages later we'll be none the wiser.

 

[Tricky]

Maybe kittnh or someone can comment here--something's wrong. Either the color seriously faded or changed on the paintings or the picture's weird.

His stuff was all about color harmonies, so if it wasn't right, it was nothing.

But I don't see it--I don't have a trained eye. I don't know whether these images, for example, are right:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rothko+pics&btnG=Google+Search

eta: every other source I checked looked the same. The panels are described as "black but colored"...

If you got really close, you could see little splotches of other very dark colors, but even then, they were barely distinguishable. I just had to say, "I don't get Mark Rothko" and move on.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Let me guess, no broad agreement will be reached on this.. and 4 pages later we'll be none the wiser.

Replace "4" with "24" and we're good.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If you got really close, you could see little splotches of other very dark colors, but even then, they were barely distinguishable. I just had to say, "I don't get Mark Rothko" and move on.

It sounds more interesting than the enormous brown paper sheets each decorated with a $0.32 stamp that the local Museum of Modern Art bought a while back.

I don't care who made them, it might have been UPS for all I know.

 

[Tricky]

Let me guess, no broad agreement will be reached on this.. and 4 pages later we'll be none the wiser.

I predict we will reach the general agreement that not all art is advertising but that Claus will never concede this point.

 

[volatile]

Given the definition you've provided and the terms, I can't disagree with that. If it looks artistic, it is. Cool. But then it still doesn't mean all advertising is art and all art is advertising. I might question whether somebody who looks at all forms of communication as art is broadening their definition of art to the point of it being useless. Case in point - I would think a person who feels a grocery docket is art has lost the plot.

I think advertising is designed to be displayed, looked at and contemplated, as paintings are. Grocery dockets don't quite fulfil these criteria. I'd also think you'd have trouble arguing that grocery dockets are "designed to produce a response" in the way the quote above is implying.

I like the definition, although wonder just what is meant by 'response'. I would contend that in order for the art to be successful, the response evoked should be the same as intended by the artist.

Hmmm... two things wrong here that I can see. The first is that I wouldn't necessarily argue that advertising was necessarily good or successful art, just that it satisfies the formal criteria to be called art in the first place. Whether ads are successful (in artistic terms) is a whole other debate.

The second is about artistic intentionality and reception. Nearly all art critics and art historians have moved away from trying to categorise 'success' in terms of the coherency of the affect. Authors cannot control the affective potential of their works, no matter how hard they try.

If I want you to feel shock and instead I simply get anger, I'm not sure if that could be successful as art.

I would argue (with people like Deleuze) that genuinely successful art is art that produces reactions. Simon O'Sullivan has called this art you can "encounter". The types of reactions produced might not be those intended by the artist, but that's almost by the by. Indeed, a lot of art work has affective content beyond its narrative content - Gustav Klimt's Kiss, for example, is a narrative painting of a couple embracing, but it's affect (for me), an overwhelming sense of passionate warmth, is something subtly different. Klimt set out to paint a picture of a couple kissing. What that painting does, whilst a function of the work, was not necessarily consciously conceived as the original intention in the way you're implying, I think.

Of course, if you set out to create something profound that induces ridicule, then your art is unsuccessful. But that's slightly different, I think.

I'm not beyond feeling that all advertising could be considered art. However, I do question the reverse; that all art is advertising.

I question that too, although I think a case could be made.

 

[calebprime]

It sure is. If I saw it in a museum, without any connection to Benneton, I would say "Wow, that's interesting. Is there any glimmer of hope, or beauty or morality to be found in the artist's work, so that I don't have to just feel awful? Something to justify the shock?"

Why would that be neccessary? Are you saying art is supposed to make you feel good?

Heh, you ask a good question. First, no, I don't demand that art makes me feel good. The rougher the experience of receiving it, the more it should have something to say, and if it is a full view of the world, it will include a range of feelings.

The cynicism of the Simpsons includes also the intelligence of Lisa. The cynicism of South Park includes the innocence of the characters and the sophistication of the humor, and the important issues they sometimes address, and good music. Steely Dan's lyrics often have cynical outlaw characters, but this is in the context of craft and a range of lyrics that prevents any one song from being the simple opinion of the band. So irony is possible. Can't say that about Motley Crue. In Beckett, bleakness is balanced by lyricism...

Would that make a difference to you? Should it?

Morally, yes, in the sense that the purpose of the ad was to raise money to end suffering, not to make profit that would go for the CEO's lavish lifestyle, or something.

In a weaker, more aesthetic sense, but also to do with morality, it would justify the objectionable use of shock tactics to make a point. The problem with the Benneton ads is that they showed car crashes, if I recall, just slices of suffering life. It was as if God looked down at his creation and said, "This is the world. The world includes suffering. Buy Benneton." It was, therefore, a way of speaking that would be presumptuous for anyone but God, and since it was just a goddam advertisement, it didn't really have a purpose distinct enough from overcoming our resistence to being sold to. It was a deliberate grab at our attention, another pity ploy, designed to fool our critical intelligence. It was dazzle camouflage of a particularly odious kind. The effect is not to raise our awareness, but to turn AIDS (or other suffering) into just another image that we learn to ignore. maybe. possibly. i'm not sure. sorry for the derail, tricky. also, i think we're getting slightly wiser by mulling this stuff over. ultimately, of course, we can't take our brains with us when we die. life causes brain-damage, so we're ultimately none the wiser.

 

[plumjam]

I predict we will reach the general agreement that not all art is advertising but that Claus will never concede this point.

Yeah, I'd agree that not all art is advertising. I mean, I could (and often do) paint a masterpiece alone in a room, and when it's finished burn it, without anyone else having seen it. It would still be a masterpiece of art. And its creation would have been its own reason; an act of supreme value in itself. Would Van Gogh's works have been any the less if he had been the only one ever to see them? No.

Even a masterfully artistic piece of advertising couldn't count as advertising, in any meaningful sense, until it was communicated to at least one other consciousness.

I reckon that's the difference. And I reckon everyone including Claus should agree with me. And then we could get on with other stuff.

 

[Wowbagger]

This would also mean that radio advertising does not contain art, by my restricted definition.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I just wish to briefly remind everyone that art does not need to be visual. We have all heard the term "music artist" before, right?

Back on Topic:
I am curious to see if there is any further feedback of my "parasite" idea? Do people like it or not? Once again, in summary: Not all art is parasitic. However, advertising tends to use parasitic forms of art.

To expand on it, a little:
Perhaps the more leisurely, and less vital to life, the product is, the MORE parasitic its advertisting tends to be, in order to be effective. Think Coca-Cola.
The more vital the product, the less parasitic it would need to be.

However, the noise of the parasites might be effecting more vital products in certain ways, that they now need to utilize some forms of parasitism, to get noticed. Think about drug commercials.

Art could be mimetic. But, not all memes are so parasitic. (Though, you might argue that, in general, they all usurp various aspects of our felxible minds, in order to exist. But, the intended context is a higher level than that.)

I'm going to have to brag about my creative farting again.

Let us all hope and pray this line never gets pulled out of context.

 

[Piscivore]

Heh, you ask a good question. First, no, I don't demand that art makes me feel good. The rougher the experience of receiving it, the more it should have something to say,

What if "life is brutal" is all it is meant to say? Isn't criticising the work because there is no "hope" in it censuring (and that's censure, not censor ) the artist that wanted to share dispair?

As the old saying goes: if you don't like the art you see, maybe it's time to make your own.

and if it is a full view of the world, it will include a range of feelings.

The cynicism of the Simpsons includes also the intelligence of Lisa. The cynicism of South Park includes the innocence of the characters and the sophistication of the humor, and the important issues they sometimes address, and good music. Steely Dan's lyrics often have cynical outlaw characters, but this is in the context of craft and a range of lyrics that prevents any one song from being the simple opinion of the band. So irony is possible. Can't say that about Motley Crue. In Beckett, bleakness is balanced by lyricism...

Those were their creator's artistic choices. It doesn't necessitate that anyone else make the same ones.

Morally, yes, in the sense that the purpose of the ad was to raise money to end suffering, not to make profit that would go for the CEO's lavish lifestyle, or something.

What on earth has morals to do with art?

Are you familiar with John Ruskin?

In a weaker, more aesthetic sense, but also to do with morality, it would justify the objectionable use of shock tactics to make a point.

You say that like justification is necessary.

The problem with the Benneton ads is that they showed car crashes, if I recall, just slices of suffering life. It was as if God looked down at his creation and said, "This is the world. The world includes suffering. Buy Benneton." It was, therefore, a way of speaking that would be presumptuous for anyone but God, and since it was just a goddam advertisement,

I think the message was rather more "Look how deep we are. Buy Benneton."

it didn't really have a purpose distinct enough from overcoming our resistence to being sold to. It was a deliberate grab at our attention, another pity ploy, designed to fool our critical intelligence.

And? You seem to be revealing again and unstated expectaion that "art" be somehow "noble" or "good" or "embiggening". That's just not the case.

It was dazzle camouflage of a particularly odious kind.

To you. That's not flip, it is an important point.

The effect is not to raise our awareness, but to turn AIDS (or other suffering) into just another image that we learn to ignore.

That may or may not be so, but it does not lessen the fact it is art.

 

[plumjam]

Wowbagger,
it's a discussion about art/advertising.. both high(ish) level human activities.
What you're doing is trying to make every darned thing just a branch of biology.. spreading these notions about "memes" and parasites. It doesn't work. It's trying to apply the terminology of one particular branch of learning, which exists at its own particular level, into areas it doesn't belong.
It's a kind of discipline imperialism.

 

[Piscivore]

Yeah, I'd agree that not all art is advertising. I mean, I could (and often do) paint a masterpiece alone in a room, and when it's finished burn it, without anyone else having seen it. It would still be a masterpiece of art.

Only to you.

And its creation would have been its own reason; an act of supreme value in itself.

Only to you.

Would Van Gogh's works have been any the less if he had been the only one ever to see them? No.

Fixed that for you. The way you had it was ludicrous. No one can value what they've never seen.

Even a masterfully artistic piece of advertising couldn't count as advertising, in any meaningful sense, until it was communicated to at least one other consciousness.

It can't count as art, either.

I reckon that's the difference.

your difference is no difference.

 

[plumjam]

Fixed that for you. The way you had it was ludicrous. No one can value what they've never seen.


It can't count as art, either.

I reckon that's the difference.
your difference is no difference.

So what is this magic whereby the finished paintings of Van Gogh only acquire artistic value once someone other than Van Gogh gets to see them?
Do the eyes of this second person emit a kind of value-emitting laser light?
I think you're radically philosophically confused.

 

[fuelair]

If you want a professional opinion (I'm an art historian) - all advertising is art; not all art is advertising. That's the formalist model, anyway.

This argument becomes semantic and uninteresting pretty quickly.

Yes it has, not referring to your comment as such, just the posts.

 

[Piscivore]

At the risk of derailing the thread, I just wish to briefly remind everyone that art does not need to be visual.

Correct, but Tricky did stipulate at the beginning he wished to keep the converstaion to that medium.

Back on Topic:
I am curious to see if there is any further feedback of my "parasite" idea? Do people like it or not? Once again, in summary: Not all art is parasitic. However, advertising tends to use parasitic forms of art.

Honestly, not really. What you are calling "parasitic" is the primary message of art intended for advertisment. It is to me a little like saying eating and pooping is parasitic to my body.

I think you're having the same trouble Caleb is, that you have this assumption that "art" should be somehow noble and above such petty things as commerce. That was an idea that had currency in the century before last, but it is seen as outdated and a bit naive today. I should add that a large part of the modern art movement was geared to resisting that idea, including and particularly the Dadaists.

To expand on it, a little:
Perhaps the more leisurely, and less vital to life, the product is, the MORE parasitic its advertisting tends to be, in order to be effective. Think Coca-Cola.
The more vital the product, the less parasitic it would need to be.

However, the noise of the parasites might be effecting more vital products in certain ways, that they now need to utilize some forms of parasitism, to get noticed. Think about drug commercials.

This whole bit is based on the assumption that the content of the art is primary in determining the value of the artistic expression. While that's true faor a large number of people, it's a bit naive. If you saw someone in a gallery staring at Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" and you asked him his opinion, and his response was "Dude, it's great, you can totally see her tits!", what would you think?

That's what I see you doing here, in reverse. It's not art or not because of what it depicts, or does not depict.

By the way, if that ever happens, warn me if you see my wife coming, okay?

 

[Piscivore]

So what is this magic whereby the finished paintings of Van Gogh only acquire artistic value once someone other than Van Gogh gets to see them?

Ah, but I didn't say "only acquire artistic value", did I? They would have artistic value- to him. And him alone. But you said "Would Van Gogh's works have been any the less"- yes, because a lot of the artistic value in Van Gogh's work lies in their status as a cultural referent. In the fact that two different people can talk about and share the image and the experience if they've both see the work without the work being present.