/lit/ - Literature

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1490471]

Can advertising be a form of art?

[Anonymous No.1490478]

Tao Lin would think so.

[Anonymous No.1490481]

It is..there just happens to be a lot that is pretty bad.

[Arc No.1490482]

The real question is: can art be evil and still be art?

[Anonymous No.1490486]

You do a commercial and you're off the artistic roll call.

[Anonymous No.1490489]

In before some dork copy-pastes something from that miserable, boring god of insufferable neckbeards Bill Hicks' wikiquote page

Having said that, every baby-boomer prick who works in the creative side of advertising thinks he is a subversive, brilliant rock star artist and usually that is incorrect

[Anonymous No.1490491]

>>1490486
>>1490489
Oh goddamn it and I was so close.

[Anonymous No.1490492]

what is art?

[Arc No.1490495]

>>1490486

What of Warhol?

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1490499]

>>1490482
>using the word evil like it's a real quality

Seriously though, a debate I got into. I defended the position of advertising not being art because of the combination that it's exclusively rhetoric, specifically created for commercial gains, and doesn't appear in a context of artwork, but in the specific context of intent for commercial gains.
I don't really agree with that, but that's what I was going with for the sake of discussion.
Thoughts, il/lit/erates?

[gallowsCalibrator No.1490510]

>>1490471
WOW WH4T 4 LO4D3D QU3ST1ON

1 WOULD S4Y TH4T WH1L3 4RT 4ND 4RT1STS C4N B3 1NVOLV3D 1N 1T 4DV3RT1S1NG 1TS3LF 1S PROB4BLY NOT 3V3R GO1NG TO B3 4RT

[Anonymous No.1490511]

When the advertiser saw the cathedral spires over the downs in the distance, he looked at them and wept.

"If only," he said, "this were an advertisement of Beefo, so nice, so nutritious, try it in your soup, ladies like it."

[Anonymous No.1490514]

>>1490499
It's a decent argument, even if you don't really believe it. I mean, the logic holds - it's at least debatable.

Given the similarity to the reason why tripfag posts can't possibly have any worth, I understand why you'd keep a distance from the argument, but it does appear to be sound.

[Arc No.1490531]

>>1490499

Doesn't the quality of the work in and of itself speak more to its artistic merits than its implied intent or the context of its creation?

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1490534]

>>1490510
Well, of course it's a loaded question. The conversation today sort of naturally progressed into that without a bunch of underlying convictions to throw a wrench in the gears, but I came here with a loaded question to start the thread off. If anybody wants to address the assumptions or problems of the question itself, all the better.
Like this guy: >>1490492

>>1490511
I lol'd.

>>1490478
I didn't lol.

[Anonymous No.1490539]

is a 4chan post a form of literature?

[Arc No.1490545]

Another factor to consider here: does 'advertising' apply only to corporate-funded attempts to gain new customers?

What about public service announcements?
Advertisements by a non-profit campaign? Say, against smoking, or in support of breast cancer research?

[Anonymous No.1490546]

>>1490539
The very highest

[Anonymous No.1490549]

>>1490499
Couldn't you argue all art is rhetoric though? Your values often shine through, whether you want them to or not. Unless your art is purposeless, you always have a motive for doing something. I guess I was wondering what the difference was between creating art for love, for your own enjoyment, for the love of the craft, etc., and creating art to sell something. How is one motive more pure?

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1490548]

>>1490531
This is closer to what I would think. Advertising can be art, just the same as any other form of rhetoric can, and the context doesn't really matter.
I would (sincerely) argue that art isn't a definable term at all and neither is its context definable, you get too specific and you're proven wrong easily on the term itself, too vague and you're left with no context.

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1490560]

>>1490549
This was brought up and I basically went into a bunch of quackery (you guys are familiar with my technique for this) about intent and communication, that the intent is changed and so the communication inherently is. What's being made is not being given from a person, it's being sold by an entity.

[Arc No.1490563]

Example: attached pic.

It's a PSA-type-deal intended to warn about domestic abuse. It features the phrase, "It only happens when nobody's watching." It's got a built-in camera that imagescans around the board for human eyes -- and if it finds none, the picture is of a dude beating his wife. And if there are eyes, the picture changes to an innocent-looking one.

This might be lame or unsubtle art, but doesn't it merge form and function in a way that is artful? Doesn't it communicate something?

Most importantly: do we consider this 'advertising'? Because it's certainly created from the same schools of thought/technique that most visual advertising is; ie, 'Graphic Design'.

[Anonymous No.1490564]

i don't think so

[Anonymous No.1490575]

art1    
[ahrt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2.
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3.
a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4.
the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5.
any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6.
(in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7.
the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8.
the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9.
skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10.
a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11.
arts, a.
( used with a singular verb ) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b.
( used with a plural verb ) liberal arts.
a.
( used with a singular verb ) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b.
( used with a plural verb ) liberal arts.
12.
skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13.
trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14.
studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15.
an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16.
Archaic . science, learning, or scholarship.
So, yup.

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1490586]

>>1490575
>he uses denotation to argue
Prescriptivism =/= final authority.

[Anonymous No.1490588]

>>1490560
Michaelangelo hated painting the Sistine Chapel. He was basically doing it for the money. In fact, it's practically an advertisement for the church, and yet indisputably art.

(This is a little unfair, I know, but bottom line: his intent was murky at best, his results speak for themselves)

[Arc No.1490590]

Maybe part of the difficulty is that a lot of people define 'art' as communicating a theme -- in the case of advertising, that theme is 'buy this'.

Does lack of a theme -- or a 'bad' theme, or even a theme that is morally repugnant by societal standards (what I meant by 'evil' earlier -- advocating rape, genocide, etc) -- stop something from BEING art?

Is 'evil' art still art?

Why or why not?

[Anonymous No.1490597]

>>1490588

Great example.

[Anonymous No.1490600]

www.holybiblequotes.org

This comment is art.

[Anonymous No.1490603]

The fact alone that you are even discussing it could be art therefore makes it art.

/thread.

[Anonymous No.1490610]

>>1490590
Is saying "the Holocaust never happened" not speaking?

Art has nothing to do with morality.

[Anonymous No.1490612]

>>1490600
Also, somebody like this on facebook, just so others see it and possibly go to it. If the site is even a little bit decent it, hits should go up exponentially (in a small sense, like an exponential growth of 1.1), I just need them to start going up.

Also, this is art.

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1490616]

>>1490588
Nope, already covered this, and I read a history book that covered this once. You're not taking into account the political power of the Roman Catholic church at that time-- if the Pope says, "You're gonna do this," you start doing it or you pack your bags for a very long journey. He was also basically being bribed with the completion of (and payment for) another work he actually did want to do, which was sculpture: Michelangelo's preferred medium and the one for which he is most well known.

[Arc No.1490638]

>>149061

Goddamn right!

[Anonymous No.1490668]

>>1490616
That's not the point, though. You were suggesting that it was the intent of the artist that determined whether or not something was art. So the advertisement, comissioned by (usually) a corporation and created by the artist for pay is not a work of art.

Setting aside the fact that only amateurs paint or writer or what have you *strictly* for love of the work, thereby confusing everyone's intent to some degree, it's still undeniable that, had he absolute freedom, Michaelangelo would have not painted the Sistine Chapel at all, or the end result would have been very different.

His intent, whether it was to get paid or to not be beaten and exiled, was not "pure", and yet he created one of the most astounding works of art ever known.

Therefore, intention of the artist alone doesn't seem to disqualify advertisements as art.

[Anonymous No.1490674]

Read DFW's essay "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again." He goes into this very discussion and makes some good points.

[Anonymous No.1490696]

>>1490674
I've always felt that this hurts a lot of debates. You get an interesting argument going, and then it's like "so and so and this guy argued about this is 1884, maybe you all should familiarize yourself with that", and then you're down a rabbit hole of commentary and counter-commentary for, like, a month, because people have undoubtedly been arguing these points since Tokk painted his cave wall and then Nokk did the same thing because he saw how much pussy Tokk wound up getting.

Sorry to single you out, and I probably will check that out eventually (DFW can probably make a much more convincing argument that I can, I am curious about his thoughts), this is just a pet peeve. Arguing on the internet is already futile, but I hate being reminded that smarter people have already made all my points hundreds of years before I thought them.

[Anonymous No.1490737]

>>1490696
We're a literature discussion board. We like to augment our own opinions and arguments with the opinions and arguments of the authors of literature. Usually (especially if the article is short and a link is posted in the thread) it leads to good discussion here.

DFW is long-winded and complicated so most people won't read the article and come back to argue his points. Just in case anyone wants to,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2
F%2Fpeople.virginia.edu%2F~jrw3k%2Fmediamatters%2Freadings%2Fcult_crit%2FWallace_A.Supposedly.Fun.Th
ing.I'll.Never.Do.Again.pdf&rct=j&q=a%20supposedly%20fun%20thing%20i'll%20never%20do%20again
%20pdf&ei=a1Q-TaeiB4vWtQOytOmjAg&usg=AFQjCNFVG-jYANZvkCmgEDP72u4ZTn-2tg