Is it possible for advertising to be art? Or is the traditional idea of art, that horribly off-kilter idea of expressionism that ends up as nose piercing or a poorly designed tattoo? It has always been my impression that art for art’s sake is a waste of time. At least from my own personal perspective. Depending on how you look at it, yes, the two coincide, and in fact work quite well together. I don’t subscribe to the idea that art serving capitalism is not art. Ads, marketing, all of these tools that end up on billboards or on Tv, no matter if their drive is to sell a product, the end result, the culmination of the work from various people doing research and trying new and inventive ideas to come up with the final product is in fact art. Because it must be art to tug at the heart strings. It must be art to inspire and pull you in through sheer visual beauty. It must be art to capture your imagination and compel you to action of any kind. It doesn’t matter if that action is buying Kleenex from Wal-mart, or shoes from Nike. The simple fact of the matter is that you took action because you responded emotionally, intellectually, and then physically to something that you saw. In many cases it may not have been pretty. It may have been heart wrenching, or it may have been stupid beyond all recognition. But you acted. And unless the advertisers lied, you were probably happy about it. And the simple fact that you were indeed compelled to act isn’t manipulation, it is an artistic expression that has simply been fine tuned to a very focused frequency, so much so that you didn’t even realize that you needed that new car. But what the heck, you bought it anyway.
So to truly answer the question, do art and capitalism work together? Without a doubt, happily, and forever after…or until trends move us to new and uncharted waters.
No comments:
Post a Comment