A selection of posts from the thread, and the initial question (*my comments in bold and red):
mk00
Posts: 5 Registered: 12/5/04
Can we class advertising as art? Posted: Dec 5, 2004 12:46 AM
This is an age old question. But i just have to ask it. What does everybody think? What about the evolution of pop art? Can we in many ways say that it evolved from advertising or one that challenges in a way? Can we say advertising has the same aesthestic purpose of art? - does the pupose of creating the advert mean that we class it differently?
S_Champken
Posts: 2 Registered: 12/16/04
Re: Re: Re: Can we class advertising as art? Posted: Dec 17, 2004 2:36 PM in response to: mk00
Roland Barthes writes in his essay The Death of the Author
The image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centered on the author, his person, his life, his tastes, his passions, while criticism still consists for the most part in saying that Baudelaire`s work is the failure of Baudelaire the man, Van Gogh`s his madness, Tchaikovsky`s his vice. The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it.
In my opinion this could relate to advertising aswell. Van Gogh made beautiful art because he was mad, or Van Gogh made beautiful art and he was mad, or Van Gogh made beatiful art and went mad, or Van Gogh`s beautiful art reflects his madness..........by knowing that Van Gogh was mad make his art any more or less valuable?
Brands such as nike or addids create aesthetically beautiful designs in there advertising. I believe it is completely irrelevant why these designs are made or the theme or message it conveys, that it simply is an aesthetically beautiful design makes it art.
This writer appears to have the belief that art is anything aesthetically beautiful, regardless of its message or motives. This is a somewhat imprecise observation since much 'art' displayed in galleries is far from beautiful (Tracy Emin's 'My Bed' etc).
Does this mean an advert to be deemed 'artistic' must be beautiful? Many iconic adverts do have a visually pleasing aspect (the Guinness advert you posted Sean could be percieved as 'beautiful'). This then begs another question, isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? Is it then, financially viable to make an advert 'artistic', when potentially it could only appeal to a narrow market?
andreatheamazing
Posts: 2 Registered: 5/24/05
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can we class advertising as art? Posted: May 24, 2005 10:35 PM in response to: S_Champken
I feel that you make a good point. But i think that this than proceeds to raise questions about how we measure "Value"in the art world. It is obvious that in advertising it is measured by dollar signs, Is this how we now measure art as well? Is a 200 million dollar painting "more effective" then a ten dollar one? Art is a creation for the subject creating it. So in efforts for the those who wish to understand the peice it is a logical extention for them to investigate into the creaters life (such as Van Gogh) His insanity may not add value, but may add understanding or appriciation. Is this not how we should measure the value of art? Is that not the only difference between art and advertising? Also, you raise issues of Branding-- which i feel is the ideological extention of advertising. I can see room within the Art world for advertising, but not for branding. I can not deem these things "beautiful", i find them destructive and consuming of the space which art once filled-- the public gallery is now the sponced gallery and with that comes certain guildlines for a purpose which is good for buisness, and not good for art.
This post raises issues with budget as well, a successful piece of art (and therefore advert) may not have to cost a lot to shoot?...
