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 agree. I guess I was getting at the fact that some things that advertise, such as a classified in a newspaper (which, like a docket, hardly looks like art), according to that definition is an advertisement that is not an art piece. Of course, it's just one definition where that conflict arises.
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.
Interesting, though. I would think that in order to evoke a response - such as 'buy this' or 'visit here' - the art involved would need to be successful in getting you to feel a relevant emotion. Otherwise, what would be the point in using it?
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.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I can't help but see that (mind you, from a naive viewpoint) as a rather weak point of the artist. As somebody who himself draws and paints, I do so with a mind of evoking a response and drawing appeal. If the response was embarrassment, or fear, I would feel as if my art has failed. Especially as I illustrate a newsletter aimed at children. I'd think if Monet's impressionist work drew feelings of despondancy where he was painting a tranquil garden scene he might not be so happy with his work. To then claim it is still successful art, to me, seems to defeat its very purpose of communication.
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.
I'm not so sure. There was a reason why Klimt chose the golden colours and the geometric shapes he did, and the style of of the lovers bent as they were. While we all bring our own perception and our own history to the artwork, there would be shared emotions felt by his target audience. He wasn't doing a realistic scene aimed at people who like realism, or a Japanese garden scene aimed at people from the East, for example. Even if ultimately his only intended target audience was himself (I've known some artists who create purely for themselves, after all), he chose his media to communicate something. If others see something in it which they like, so be it. I feel the purpose and role of art is diluted, however, if an artist claims they've been successful purely because people look at it and just feel anything at all.
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.
Really? Hm. I'm not sure.
I question that too, although I think a case could be made.
Well, a case could be made for anything if one designs their own definitions independently of what is broadly or commonly accepted. However, the point is whether if you pointed at a tag on a bench chair in the middle of a mall and said 'hey, it's an advertisement', would people commonly agree? Making anything manmade an advertisment almost broadens the definition to absurdity.
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.
You failed to state what actions it directly inspires. You're evidentally using a different definition to mine. Again, not surprising.
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.
Aaaaaand there we have the typical 'Claus clause'. When you've got nothing, claim it's an opinion.
Imagine a woo doing this -
'Water is a medicine'
'No it's not. I don't see how that fits the definition of a medicine.'
'A medicine is anything that makes your body feel good. If you don't drink water, it makes you feel bad, therefore drinking water makes you feel good and it's a medicine.'
'Where's your evidence for that definition? Where's your evidence that water matches that definition?'
'Hey, it's just my opinion.'
You're a hypocrit, Claus.
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.
The argument isn't whether advertising can use art. Nobody has a problem with that. Stick to the scenario, Claus.
Yet seeing as you've avoided providing evidence, and have resorted to the 'it's my opinion' defence, I guess there's nothing more for you to add.
Athon
