What is the difference between art and advertising?

[Wowbagger]

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.

What if modeling advertisements as parasites affords us new, predictive insights into their existence and "behavior"?

I could be wrong in my hypothesis. But, you are NOT going to debunk it with your claims. You have to demonstrate why such a model does not work in a more scientific manner. Develop examples that counter my claim, for starters.

Meanwhile, I will have to try my best to defend it in a scientific manner. I may or may not succeed. But, claiming "discipline imperialism" is not helpful to the discussion.

What if the difference between art and advertising really does boil down to how each one clings to mental processes, one being more parasitic than the other? Especially when it comes to products that are not vital to survival?

 

[plumjam]

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.

They would have artistic value, full stop. This stuff about status as a cultural referent is extraneous and misleading. At first, for quite a few years, his paintings were scoffed at and neglected... so in those years they had no 'artistic "value" derived from status as a cultural referent', yet now they are revered. Nothing about the paintings themselves has changed, so this artistic "value" derived from opinion, status, and being a cultural referent is clearly bogus.
The paintings are of artistic value in themselves.
Would they gain in artistic value the more people saw them?
If they were flown to a planet with a population of 60 billion humans would the artistic value of the paintings themselves multiply by 10?
Of course not, your views lead to absurd conclusions.

 

[volatile]

That sounds like the same (untenable) argument that rights are inherent to the human being.

There can be no such thing as "inherent" artistic value in the same way there can be no "inherent" rights - artistic value, as rights, is a construct, and it is subjective, ephemeral and specific.

Now, a painting does have some kind of inherent 'luminosity' (as Deleze calls it) in that it produces some kind of affective content even if no-one looks at it (in other words, a painting is a painting even if only the painter sees it), but shoe-horning this into an affirmation of "value" or "merit" is misguided.

 

[Piscivore]

They would have artistic value, full stop. This stuff about status as a cultural referent is extraneous and misleading. At first, for quite a few years, his paintings were scoffed at and neglected... so in those years they had no 'artistic "value" derived from status as a cultural referent', yet now they are revered. Nothing about the paintings themselves has changed, so this artistic "value" derived from opinion, status, and being a cultural referent is clearly bogus.

No it isn't, your own post proves my point. Nothing about the painting itself changed, but yet it was once scoffed and laughed at, and now is revered. Why did that happen?

The paintings are of artistic value in themselves.

And what is that inherent artistic value? Tell me what it is.

Would they gain in artistic value the more people saw them?

If they liked it, yes.

If they were flown to a planet with a population of 60 billion humans would the artistic value of the paintings themselves multiply by 10?

Only if they valued it.

If you flew it to a planet of aliens who didn't use vision as we know it, would they value it? Would it have any artistic meaning to them?

Of course not, your views lead to absurd conclusions.

Only to the man with absurd premises.

 

[Loss Leader]

They would have artistic value, full stop. This stuff about status as a cultural referent is extraneous and misleading. At first, for quite a few years, his paintings were scoffed at and neglected... so in those years they had no 'artistic "value" derived from status as a cultural referent', yet now they are revered. Nothing about the paintings themselves has changed, so this artistic "value" derived from opinion, status, and being a cultural referent is clearly bogus.

Your argument supports the exact opposite of your conclusion. For years, Van Gogh's paintings were ignored, then they were revered. So, the consensus on whether the paintings had artistic value did change over time. The value did derive from opinion and status. You've given no reason why that is "clearly bogus." You have, in fact, given reason why it is clearly true.

The paintings are of artistic value in themselves.

Do dollar bills have monetary value in themselves? Does a corn dog have gastornomic value in itself? Do diamonds have aesthetic value in themselves?

These things only have value in the minds of the individuals who value them. When a sufficient number of people agree that something has value to them, we might say that the thing is valuable. But this is only shorthand. The thing has no objective value.

Van Gogh's "Starry Night" has an exact caloric value - an exact amount of energy that burning it would release. This number is far more an objective value than how "artistic" the painting is. This number would be the same whether humans existed to appreciate it or not. The "artistic" value would die when humans did.

Would they gain in artistic value the more people saw them? If they were flown to a planet with a population of 60 billion humans would the artistic value of the paintings themselves multiply by 10?

One can argue that "artistic" value is a ratio of people who think the painting has meaning to total people who've heard of it. Or one can argue that "artistic" value is just the number of total people who appreciate a painting as art. In one case, the answer to your question is No. In the other, it is Yes. In any case, artistic value is entirely subjective.

Of course not, your views lead to absurd conclusions.

Quite the opposite.

 

[martu]

The paintings are of artistic value in themselves.

This doesn't make any sense.

 

[Prometheus]

I would say that both art and advertising are forms of communication, but that advertising must create a one-to-many relationship between advertiser and audience, because it is striving to alter behaviour of others (note the plural) in some specific way. Art may exhibit a one-to-any relationship, in that it doesn't need to be reaching out to a number of people. Art may be created solely to reach a single intended person, or may even be only for the artist's own enjoyment.

Of course the two overlap somewhat. And an object or image may start out in one category and later be shifted to the other.

 

[plumjam]

What if modeling advertisements as parasites affords us new, predictive insights into their existence and "behavior"?
I could be wrong in my hypothesis. But, you are NOT going to debunk it with your claims. You have to demonstrate why such a model does not work in a more scientific manner. Develop examples that counter my claim, for starters.
Meanwhile, I will have to try my best to defend it in a scientific manner. I may or may not succeed. But, claiming "discipline imperialism" is not helpful to the discussion.
What if the difference between art and advertising really does boil down to how each one clings to mental processes, one being more parasitic than the other? Especially when it comes to products that are not vital to survival?

I read the previous post of yours again, and I didn't feel like it explained very well whatever is the theory you're trying to propose.
Do you really think that a theory that models advertisements as parasites could possibly give us 'predictive insights', or even add in any meaningful way to our understanding (little as it is) of the advertising industry?
It really doesn't need to be complicated, involving parasites, memes, 'vital to life', and such life. Just look at your own experience of advertising. All it is is people using ideas to sell stuff. Moreover the 'creatives' in advertising endeavour to be as unpredictable as possible. They don't know themselves from one day to the next what they're going to produce, so it's even less likely that a Dawkins-driven theory from biology which is attempting to explain life the universe and everything using a palette of just a few concepts from biology is going to cast any light on the whole matter.
Anyway, I can see you're sincere in the way you go about things, and you do it in the right spirit, so good on you for that, it's admirable.

 

[Wowbagger]

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.

"Parasitic" is a statement of behavior, not a reflection of morality nor nobility nor anything else. Advertisements sway humans to behave differently, for the benefit of the advertisers and their products. Sometimes this is symbiotic: Sometimes both the advertisers and the people mutually benefit. Often, (as is the case with some non-vital products and services) it is to the detriment of the humans.

you have this assumption that "art" should be somehow noble and above such petty things as commerce.

Parasitism was not meant to be a statement about nobility in context like that.

No, I do not have such arrogant notions that art should be noble and above anything.

Yes, I acknowledge that not all advertisements are "evil". The accusation of "parasitic" was not meant to imply evilness, it was merely a statement of behavior model.

I can see why my statements were easy to misunderstand, though.

It's not art or not because of what it depicts, or does not depict.

The difference between art and advertisement could boil down to how it impacts your mind. Who is benefiting, and by how much?

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

Acknowledged.

 

[Piscivore]

Advertisements sway humans to behave differently, for the benefit of the advertisers and their products.

Can't you say the same about most art, though? The artists that doesn't want to have some sort of effect on his audience is rare, yes?

Or is it jsut the "benefit the artist" part with which you are taking issue?

Sometimes this is symbiotic: Sometimes both the advertisers and the people mutually benefit. Often, (as is the case with some non-vital products and services) it is to the detriment of the humans.

Without getting into a tangent about non-vital products harming, why does "who benefits" matter in what makes art?

Parasitism was not meant to be a statement about nobility in context like that.

No, I do not have such arrogant notions that art should be noble and above anything.

Yes, I acknowledge that not all advertisements are "evil". The accusation of "parasitic" was not meant to imply evilness, it was merely a statement of behavior model.

I can see why my statements were easy to misunderstand, though.

And I have done so, my apologies.

The difference between art and advertisement could boil down to how it impacts your mind. Who is benefiting, and by how much?

If someone sells a painting that isn't an advertisement to someone wo can ill afford it, is it still art?

 

[plumjam]

No it isn't, your own post proves my point. Nothing about the painting itself changed, but yet it was once scoffed and laughed at, and now is revered. Why did that happen?

So the logical consequence to this is that if the Van Gogh paintings were in the next 20 years, say, to fall out of fashion and favour then the paintings themselves would somehow become worse paintings. That the paintings would change.
This is an Alice in Wonderland scenario. In such a world if you could convince 99.9% of the population that the painting made by a baby baboon were the greatest painting ever made then that painting would indeed be the greatest painting ever made.
(Until of course the fashion changed once more)

And what is that inherent artistic value? Tell me what it is.

That is the particular arrangement of paint on the canvas. That is where the value of the painting lies. If the arrangement of the paint were altered by flood or fire then the painting would lose its aesthetic value.
You know... it isn't that difficult; what it looks like.

If they liked it, yes.

Lol.. this is getting hilarious.

If you flew it to a planet of aliens who didn't use vision as we know it, would they value it? Would it have any artistic meaning to them?

I have no idea, they might or they might not. But the fact that those aliens perceived the painting a different way in no way changes the painting itself. Plus it was made by a human being with human sight, FOR humans with human sight.
Just because one man in the audience is deaf does not mean that the music being played loses its objective value as a piece of music.

Your problem is this: you are holding to a democratic view of aesthetics. In other words you believe that the more people there are that like something then the better that thing is.
You are a fan of modern visual art. The majority of people dislike it. So of your two views: democratic aesthetics, and the high quality of modern art .. both can't be right at the same time.
You are either wrong about democratic aesthetics, or wrong about modern art being good. You may be right about one.
I think you're wrong about both.

 

[plumjam]

This doesn't make any sense.

what doesn't make sense to you?
the value of the painting lies in the painting itself.
the value of a banana lies in the banana itself.
the value of water lies in water itself
etc..

all these things are valuable arrangements of matter/energy/information

when they come into contact with human consciousness what occurs is appreciation of that inherent value

 

[Piscivore]

So the logical consequence to this is that if the Van Gogh paintings were in the next 20 years, say, to fall out of fashion and favour then the paintings themselves would somehow become worse paintings. That the paintings would change.

No, this is one of those absurd conclusions that result from your absurd premise that the work has intrisic value bound up it its paints and brushstrokes.

Why do you think the value of the painting changed- which you already acknowledged has done so once before?

This is an Alice in Wonderland scenario. In such a world if you could convince 99.9% of the population that the painting made by a baby baboon were the greatest painting ever made then that painting would indeed be the greatest painting ever made.
(Until of course the fashion changed once more)

Instead of retreating to hyperbole, please just explain why you think the value of Van Gogh's work changed if the value is inherent in the painting.

That is the particular arrangement of paint on the canvas. That is where the value of the painting lies.

I get that you think that's where it is, but what is the aesthetic value?

If the arrangement of the paint were altered by flood or fire then the painting would lose its aesthetic value.
You know... it isn't that difficult; what it looks like.

If it is just its appearance than what makes one image more aesthetically valuable than another? And why do people disagree about that value?

I have no idea, they might or they might not. But the fact that those aliens perceived the painting a different way in no way changes the painting itself.

No, but it does affect how much they value it. Would you enjoy a painting that was done in a wavelength of light you could not see? Would the work still have "objective" value?

Just because one man in the audience is deaf does not mean that the music being played loses its objective value as a piece of music.

So you keep saying. What is the "objective" value of "Starry Night". Don't tell me where it lies, tell me what it is.

Your problem is this: you are holding to a democratic view of aesthetics. In other words you believe that the more people there are that like something then the better it is.

Nope. I said the more valuable it is, in general. There are several pieces I like that aren't popular, they are "better" to me than something else that more people may like. And other people have their own opinions. That's why value is subjective.

You are a fan of modern visual art. The majority of people dislike it. So of your two views: democratic aesthetics, and the high quality of modern art .. both can't be right at the same time.

Neither are correct, neither are my view, and that's a false dichotomy. I've rejected your incorrect notion of "democratic aesthetics" just above, "Modern art" is not a monolithic entity with a single value- some of it is good, some bad, some explicit, some obtuse- and the two incorrect ideas, even if they were correct, are not mutually exclusive. You don't just get things wrong, you go for the epic fail.

You are either wrong about democratic aesthetics, or wrong about modern art being good. You may be right about one.
I think you're wrong about both.

I think you're wrong, because you are wrong about what you think I am wrong about.

 

[Wowbagger]

Do you really think that a theory that models advertisements as parasites could possibly give us 'predictive insights', or even add in any meaningful way to our understanding (little as it is) of the advertising industry?

Host migration could be one possible aspect. When one host of a parasite "dries up", the parasite will try to move onto another one.

For example: Mosquitoes, who once fed off of birds, that were trapped in the London Underground, moved onto rats, instead.

In fact, such migration could be a key characteristic, as some parasites often go unnoticed until they are witnessed attempting to move onto different hosts.

Predicting how, when and where advertisers will change target audiences and advertising strategies could be enhanced if we model them as parasites with host-seeking behaviors.

That is a hypothesis, anyway. You could help develop evidence for or against this idea. But, arguments about "applying biology where it does not belong" will not contribute to either effort.

It really doesn't need to be complicated, involving parasites, memes, 'vital to life', and such life.

Complicated?! What could be more simple than an analogy to a fairly well understood biological phenomenon?!

Just look at your own experience of advertising. All it is is people using ideas to sell stuff.

Science is not satisfied with what is obvious. Science investigates.

Moreover the 'creatives' in advertising endeavour to be as unpredictable as possible. They don't know themselves from one day to the next what they're going to produce, so it's even less likely that a Dawkins-driven theory from biology which is attempting to explain life the universe and everything using a palette of just a few concepts from biology is going to cast any light on the whole matter.

Ironically, what you are saying seems to fit fairly well into Dawkins' framework (perhaps with light modifications, here and there). There is no grand plan, only the emergent properties of entities acting on their instincts. Some ideas work, others will not. How is that not Darwinian/Memetic/Dawkinsy/etc.?

There could be one difference in survival strategies, you bring up, though: Biological parasites more often develop creative and unpredictable strategies, in order to avoid detection by potential hosts. Advertisers, on the other hand, try to develop creative and unpredictable strategies to gain notice by its hosts.
This is interesting to think about, but certainly does NOT disprove the hypothesis. In fact, it could actually enlighten us on various aspects of the fitness landspace, in each case.

Anyway, I can see you're sincere in the way you go about things, and you do it in the right spirit, so good on you for that, it's admirable.

Thanks.

 

[Loss Leader]

the value of a banana lies in the banana itself.

What the hell is the value of a banana?

when they come into contact with human consciousness what occurs is appreciation of that inherent value

How is "value" different from "the appreciation" of value?

 

[CFLarsen]

Another example of your fetish of turning everything into an argument. Fine, all propaganda could be considered advertising, by way of it inciting the target to behave in an intended fashion.

Precisely.

Yes. Not all all emotions make you behave in an intended way. What behaviour do you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire'?

This: The Fighting Temeraire

Or Da Vinci through the Mona Lisa?

The Mona Lisa is a classic example of probably the most common type of commissioned art, the portrait. It is meant to express 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.

Portraits were also very much a signal of power: He, who could afford to pay for one, clearly showed that he was richer than the one who couldn't. The better/more famous the artist, the more gloating value.

So all graffiti is painted with that as an implicit challenge? Evidence? Or is this more of your naive assumptions?

You're yet to show that it is. Burden of proof is on you, sunshine. You're stating that graffiti is advertising - you need to a) provide a definition of advertising which isn't just your make-believe interpretation, and b) show that graffiti is commonly accepted as subscribing to this accepted definition. Going on your track record of 'engagement' and 'drum-sticks', I won't hold my breath that you have a clue of either point.


Please quote where in that wiki article that it said graffiti is advertising. Simply because 'it is competitive' does not mean it is always painted with the intention of inciting a behaviour in the observer.



You don't have any evidence? I guess once again, you lose then. Sorry, it's your claim. 'All art is a form of advertising'. I'm asking you to define advertising and then show how all art does this. You haven't done that.

Notice a pattern in your arguments, Claus? You claim to understand a word, embarrass yourself by misunderstanding it, then fail to show where it is used in the manner you believe. I'm asking for evidence, which I'm sure you'll fumble to provide some nonsense links and then later point to some post in defence of your claim which fails to support anything you've said. If you can't support your claim in the next post, we might just skip to the part where it's accepted by the majority that you're once again stirring the pot and speaking through your arse.

This is simple - back up your claim, Claus, without trying to spin this around. Where is your evidence? I'm calling you out, squire.

Who claimed evidence? I'm giving you my opinion. We are talking about art, which is inherently about opinion - not something that can be decided objectively.

Since you think otherwise, I would love to hear why.

Very true - so do you think it is art?

Not more than a population graph is.

Peristalsis isn't art for one.

Why not?

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.

Yes, that's pretty close. Advertising can definitely in some cases be considered art - especially after the ad achieves historical value.

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

Then, give an example of art that is not advertising.

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

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

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).

Advertising is also very much about making you feel something - e.g., the desire to be like the ad itself: You want to be the Marlborough Man, or a Cover Girl, to live the life they do. And you get that by buying the product.

 

[Tricky]

I'm not sure what the "value" of art has to do with anything. To me, it is art if it was created to be art. Envision the sketchbook that the geeky guy in high school keeps where he draws all the pictures of his sci-fi fantasies. Nobody hase ever seen it but him. Then one day, he drops it on the floor and other students see the drawings and say, "Wow, Cuthbert, you really are a great artist!" Was Cuthbert not an artist until that point? Is it something like a collapsing wave function that requires observation to convert his drawings into art?

Advertising, on the other hand, has the express purpose of communication. You could have a scrapbook of drawings which had the express purpose of some day merchandising something, but until somebody elses sees them, they haven't actually advertised anything. They would just be art.

 

[JFrankA]

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

Is it "not art" or is it really "bad art"?

(I hope that this isn't a thread derail, if it is, I'm sorry but that question popped into my head when I read the above quote.....)

 

[Tricky]

Is it "not art" or is it really "bad art"?

(I hope that this isn't a thread derail, if it is, I'm sorry but that question popped into my head when I read the above quote.....)

Recall that, for the purposes of this thread, I'm restricting the kinds of art to visual things like paintings and sculpture. While classified ads are technically visual, I don't think that they were created for visual effect (other than being legible) so I'd have to say they are not art.

Obviously, a person could be skilled at writing ads and you might call him as "classified ad artist", but let's not be going off the rails on that crazy train.

 

[Piscivore]

I'm not sure what the "value" of art has to do with anything. To me, it is art if it was created to be art. Envision the sketchbook that the geeky guy in high school keeps where he draws all the pictures of his sci-fi fantasies. Nobody hase ever seen it but him. Then one day, he drops it on the floor and other students see the drawings and say, "Wow, Cuthbert, you really are a great artist!" Was Cuthbert not an artist until that point? Is it something like a collapsing wave function that requires observation to convert his drawings into art?

Well, the Berkeley answer (or should that be Knox?) is that the artist is an observer.

But no, the idea isn't that the sketchbook isn't "art" until someone sees it, but that the aestheic value, or quality is a subjective judgement by the perciever.