What is the difference between art and advertising?

[Tricky]

You may disagree with me - but you can't say I'm wrong. There is no objective way to determine it. You think it isn't, I think it is.

No, one cannot say you're "wrong" so long as we accept a new meaning of "selling" to be "doing something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

Then you'd be right.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, but that still doesn't say what behaviour you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire' either.

I didn't ask what Turner wanted to express, I asked where in the link you provided was the answer to the question "what behaviour do you think Turner wanted the target to perform through his painting 'The Fighting Temeraire'?"

I gave it. I happen to agree with the description.

No, one cannot say you're "wrong" so long as we accept a new meaning of "selling" to be "doing something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

Then you'd be right.

It isn't a question of the meaning of "selling". It's a question of whether art sells or not. That is a matter of opinion.

 

[Piscivore]

I gave it. I happen to agree with the description.

That's a "no", then.

 

[CFLarsen]

You gave a link, and that link does not, that I can see, say anything about the behaviour Turner wished to elict from his audience with the painting. Can you be more specific about where in the link is the answer?

Can you make up your mind about what you want?

First, you want to know what I think Turner meant with his painting. I gave you my opinion.

Now, you want to know what Turner meant. You'll have to ask him. I don't speak for him.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's a "no", then.

No, it's not a "no". You asked for my opinion, and I gave it.

 

[Piscivore]

First, you want to know what I think Turner meant with his painting. I gave you my opinion.

Now, you want to know what Turner meant. You'll have to ask him. I don't speak for him.

That's not what I asked you. Ever. You don't have an answer, I get it.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's not what I asked you. Ever.

Did I not quote you correctly in post #104?

That you change the content of your post while I am responding is not my problem.

You don't have an answer, I get it.

For what? I can't speak for Turner. I can give you what you first asked for, my opinion. And I did.

 

[Piscivore]

Did I not quote you correctly in post #104?

Yes, but you cannot understand it. "The behaviour Turner wished to elict " =/= "what Turner meant"

It's okay Claus, I don't want you to have one of your little episodes. Just forget it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I hold that advertising has the goal of portraying a product favorably, usually for monetary, but sometimes for ego reasons. It may and usually does contain art, but that is not its purpose. Art needs no purpose.

This is an excellent analysis.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, but you cannot understand it.

So, you lied when you said:

That's not what I asked you. Ever.

Thanks for acknowledging, once again, that you are a compulsory liar.

"The behaviour Turner wished to elict " =/= "what Turner meant"

It's okay Claus, I don't want you to have one of your little episodes. Just forget it.

How on Earth can you expect anyone to tell you what Turner really wished for?

You realized that you made a big blunder, so, yes, let's just "forget it".

Do not personalize the argument. If you cannot stick to the topic at hand please find another thread to post in.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[martu]

You may disagree with me - but you can't say I'm wrong. There is no objective way to determine it. You think it isn't, I think it is.

Sure I can, just did.

Two blokes sitting in a presentation case eating baked beans for two days with toothpicks. Considered art by my college, art by me too. What do you think they are selling?

 

[Tricky]

It isn't a question of the meaning of "selling". It's a question of whether art sells or not. That is a matter of opinion.

Art may or may not sell, for standard definitions of the word "sell".

To insist that all art sells requires that one use a very bizarre meaning of "sells", such as "does something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

But just so I don't make a strawman, why don't you give us your definition of the word "sells" as used in this context.

 

[Tricky]

Two blokes sitting in a presentation case eating baked beans for two days with toothpicks. Considered art by my college, art by me too. What do you think they are selling?

Rock and roll?

 

[martu]

No, one cannot say you're "wrong" so long as we accept a new meaning of "selling" to be "doing something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

Then you'd be right.

But that would be dishonest.

 

[martu]

How on Earth can you expect anyone to tell you what Turner really wished for?

What do you think art historians do?

 

[martu]

Rock and roll?

Heh is nothing original?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do not personalize the argument. If you cannot stick to the topic at hand please find another thread to post in.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

I did not personalize the argument. I stated a fact. That is not against the rules.

Sure I can, just did.

You think that there is an objective way to determine whether art is always selling something or not?

Two blokes sitting in a presentation case eating baked beans for two days with toothpicks. Considered art by my college, art by me too. What do you think they are selling?

I can't tell.

Art may or may not sell, for standard definitions of the word "sell".

To insist that all art sells requires that one use a very bizarre meaning of "sells", such as "does something for a reason, even if that reason is known only to the person doing it".

But just so I don't make a strawman, why don't you give us your definition of the word "sells" as used in this context.

It is not bizarre at all. Propaganda is art too, and it certainly sells something: Ideas.

What do you think art historians do?

They give their opinion of what they think Turner meant.

What do you think they do?

 

[Tricky]

It is not bizarre at all. Propaganda is art too, and it certainly sells something: Ideas.

But some art is neither for monetary exchange, or propaganda. So thats why I'm asking (again) how you are defining the word "sell" in this context (that all art is "selling" something), because for the life of me I can't match it to any standard definition.

 

[martu]

You think that there is an objective way to determine whether art is always selling something or not?

That isn't what I said so no.

I can't tell.

How do you know they are selling something then?

They give their opinion of what they think Turner meant.

What do you think they do?

Just that.

I have re read your post regarding this and I see you're being very precise with the terms used. Like Piscivore I will also bow out of this, you can claim your victory based on semantics but you have missed Piscivore's point in my opinion.

 

[Piscivore]

Scott McCloud, in Understanding Comics, chapter Seven, offers his (admittedly broad) definition of Art:

Art, as I see it, is any human activity which doesn't grow out of either of our species' two basic instincs: survival and reproduction.

He subsequently makes a pretty interesting case for it too.