Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WTF

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Shucks
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2010
    • 3104

    i guess it depends on whether you feel the greatness of art is dependent on its level of morality, or not. personally, i'm with apathy on that (and i think faust actually is too..?), IF greed is what we are talking about . and let's be honest, advertizing is NOT the best place to look for art. just consider the mind-boggling number of assholes that make up the majority of people in that business. but sure, ONCE IN A FUCKING BLUE MOON a foam board with a decent message survives a thursday evening focus group session somewhere... (benetton ads are a classic example of vapid sensationalistic SHIT btw. )

    edit: apathy you beat me to the punch. i take it by virtuous, you mean the same as moral..?

    Comment

    • bukka
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2011
      • 821

      Originally posted by apathy! View Post
      I suppose we just have different views of "greatness" and it is a waste of time to argue about the meaning of words.

      I absolutely think that any kind of artistic creation is tarnished by a motivation of greed(especially if it is insidious and manipulative).


      I'm not sure why you said this in such a dismissing way.


      the artfulness in advertising is a texture. Nothing of substance.
      Honest question here: how do you know about the artist motivation?
      Is ccp trying to experiment new techniques and, therefore, is he some kind of artist? Is he trying to get filthy rich? Both? Do we care?

      Originally posted by Faust View Post
      NO, NO, NO! Sir, you are committing a cardinal sin of praising a brand that latches onto social causes in order to fling v-neck sweaters?! Get thee to the remedial evil marketing course!
      Hahaha, I don't give a fuck about Benetton. They might be doing this ad to fling v-neck sweaters or they might be doing it because Oliviero Toscani wanted to do it (but apparently I'm wrong or I simply didn't understand Fuuma). Also it might be "vapid sensationalistic SHIT" like Shucks said (with a strong emphasis, like he's still really annoyed by it). In the end, I will still refer to this campaign as a "great" one because we all perfectly remember it and some even felt (being a positive or bad emotion) something about it.
      Btw, moral is as subjective as greatness, and usually way more polemic, I'm out of here.


      That pink mustard polo though.
      Eternity is in love with the productions of time

      Comment

      • Shucks
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2010
        • 3104

        Originally posted by bukka View Post
        Honest question here: how do you know about the artist motivation?
        Is ccp trying to experiment new techniques and, therefore, is he some kind of artist? Is he trying to get filthy rich? Both? Do we care?



        Hahaha, I don't give a fuck about Benetton. They might be doing this ad to fling v-neck sweaters or they might be doing it because Oliviero Toscani wanted to do it (but apparently I'm wrong or I simply didn't understand Fuuma). Also it might be "vapid sensationalistic SHIT" like Shucks said (with a strong emphasis, like he's still really annoyed by it). In the end, I will still refer to this campaign as a "great" one because we all perfectly remember it and some even felt (being a positive or bad emotion) something about it.
        Btw, moral is as subjective as greatness, and usually way more polemic, I'm out of here.


        That pink mustard polo though.

        yeah let's reduce greatness to anything we remember. i'm guessing u work in PR or something?

        Comment

        • mrbeuys
          Senior Member
          • May 2008
          • 2313

          Originally posted by apathy! View Post
          I'm talking about art (if you can even call it that in this context) whose motive is to sell a product being less virtuous.
          Love how stuff gets out of hand here.
          I said : not all content has to be shit just because it sells something.
          Advertising isn't art.
          Advertising imitates art. And rarely well.
          Last edited by mrbeuys; 06-13-2014, 03:35 AM.
          Hi. I like your necklace. - It's actually a rape whistle, but the whistle part fell off.

          Comment

          • bukka
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2011
            • 821

            Originally posted by Shucks View Post
            yeah let's reduce greatness to anything we remember. i'm guessing u work in PR or something?
            You can't be more wrong.
            Always stupidly provocative Shucks
            Originally posted by bukka View Post
            I'm not an expert in advertising (at all)
            Originally posted by bukka View Post
            Anyway, as I said, I don't know much about all this

            Great, in this context, meant that this ad had an impact in our society, being positive or negative, and as a consequence we remembered it.
            Last edited by bukka; 06-13-2014, 01:52 AM.
            Eternity is in love with the productions of time

            Comment

            • apathy!
              Senior Member
              • Jan 2014
              • 393

              Originally posted by bukka View Post
              Honest question here: how do you know about the artist motivation?
              Is ccp trying to experiment new techniques and, therefore, is he some kind of artist? Is he trying to get filthy rich? Both? Do we care?
              I will type more after dinner but I'll just say this now:

              1) We were talking about the merits of marketing and advertising. Not the merits of the creator of the product itself.





              2)I don't know what the artist's true motivation is. But that's a really lazy argument and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss the good and bad intentions of different "artists".

              Relatedly, when it comes to clothing i'm more concerned with the finished product than the motivations/inspirations that led to it. But a designer who has only money on their mind will tend to make a shitty product. See Allsaints et al


              Originally posted by mrbeuys View Post
              Love who stuff gets out of hand here.
              I said : not all content has to be shit just because it sells something.
              Advertising isn't art.
              Advertising imitates art. And rarely well.
              I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me? The message you quoted is clearly in response to someone using the word art and not content. It's on the previous page.

              Comment

              • bukka
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2011
                • 821

                Originally posted by apathy! View Post
                I will type more after dinner but I'll just say this now:

                1) We were talking about the merits of marketing and advertising. Not the merits of the creator of the product itself.

                2)I don't know what the artist's true motivation is. But that's a really lazy argument and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss the good and bad intentions of different "artists".

                Relatedly, when it comes to clothing i'm more concerned with the finished product than the motivations/inspirations that led to it. But a designer who has only money on their mind will tend to make a shitty product. See Allsaints et al
                Hey, you were the first one to talk about all "art" in general.

                If the artist true motivation is lazy argument, then "any kind of artistic creation is tarnished by a motivation of greed" is a lazy statement imo.
                Edit: and you were also the one who said that discussing the meaning of "greatness" was a waste of time. Even if that's exactly the main point of this whole discussion...
                Eternity is in love with the productions of time

                Comment

                • Shucks
                  Senior Member
                  • Aug 2010
                  • 3104

                  Originally posted by bukka View Post
                  Hey, you were the first one to talk about all "art" in general.

                  If the artist true motivation is lazy argument, then "any kind of artistic creation is tarnished by a motivation of greed" is a lazy statement imo.
                  Edit: and you were also the one who said that discussing the meaning of "greatness" was a waste of time. Even if that's exactly the main point of this whole discussion...
                  the lazy argument apathy is talking about is you saying NOT KNOWING the true intentions (of maker or marketer or both) would make a discussion on morality irrelevant. it doesn't. unless of course you are into vapid sensationalistic shit.

                  Comment

                  • bukka
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2011
                    • 821

                    Originally posted by Shucks View Post
                    the lazy argument apathy is talking about is you saying NOT KNOWING the true intentions (of maker or marketer or both) would make a discussion on morality irrelevant. it doesn't. unless of course you are into vapid sensationalistic shit.
                    Exactly, I'm into vapid sensationalistic shit.
                    I'll maybe reply to this later, work is waiting. Have a good day
                    Eternity is in love with the productions of time

                    Comment

                    • mrbeuys
                      Senior Member
                      • May 2008
                      • 2313

                      Originally posted by apathy! View Post
                      I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me? The message you quoted is clearly in response to someone using the word art and not content. It's on the previous page.
                      Yes, it's in response to your message. Your name is in the bloody quote.

                      And that was my point. When this conversation started (a few pages back) it was because I mentioned content marketing and storytelling. I was never talking about art, equating content / advertising to art. I just said that not all advertising content is shit just because it's in service of selling a product. Of course that doesn't make it fucking art.

                      But I know you said before "the artfulness in advertising is a texture. Nothing of substance." so all good. I guess we're on the same page.

                      Can we talk about Damien Hirst now?
                      Hi. I like your necklace. - It's actually a rape whistle, but the whistle part fell off.

                      Comment

                      • bukka
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2011
                        • 821

                        Originally posted by mrbeuys View Post
                        Can we talk about Damien Hirst now?
                        I was going to throw my boy Koons in the conversation but you beat me
                        Eternity is in love with the productions of time

                        Comment

                        • sybarite
                          Junior Member
                          • May 2014
                          • 19

                          Originally posted by apathy! View Post
                          I absolutely think that any kind of artistic creation is tarnished by a motivation of greed(especially if it is insidious and manipulative).
                          Where does this leave portraiture and vast swathes of Renaissance commissioned art? Or Greek pottery, ceramics and amphorae produced for commercial use?

                          The conceit that art is incompatible with the profit motive is hippy pablum.

                          At least two subjects in Vasari's Lives of the Artists were described as motivated by profit: the Florentine Agnolo Gaddi ("There are many panels . . . which were wrought by him with much profit to himself, although he worked more in order to do as his forefathers had done than for any love of it, having his mind directed on commerce, which brought him better profit") and Agnolo of Siena ("Nor was it a great labour for him to do this, seeing that the intercourse of Agnolo with Agostino and with the other sculptors had already, as he saw the honour and profit that they were drawing from such an art, fired his mind with extreme eagerness and desire to apply himself to sculpture").

                          Cellini is also transparent in his memoirs. "My shop was at this time full of works of great importance . . . . I had eight hands in all, and worked day and night myself, excited by the desire of reputation and profit."

                          Commissions and patronage meant customers frequently interfered in the 'integrity' of the work of artists beholden to their paymasters: yet great works of art were produced in spite of such interference!

                          Probably not a coincidence that the great art cities were also hubs of commerce, and the art of communist states so drab.

                          Comment

                          • apathy!
                            Senior Member
                            • Jan 2014
                            • 393

                            ^

                            There is a distinction between art made for money (which is neccessary to some degree), and something made with the intention of selling a product AKA advertising (which is what we were discussing).

                            This thread may have become a mess of people wanting to disagree with each other when really they share pretty similar opinions.



                            I think a lot of people were thrown by my sentence about not discussing the meaning of "greatness". I probably phrased it poorly.

                            What I meant was, some people are using "great" in this context to mean an advertising campaign that is effective whereas others are using "great" to show some higher appreciation for advertisments and suggest that marketing can be worthwhile art.

                            The first definition is pretty cynical and betrays a bit of a fall in to consumerism. But I get it. You're just judging how well the marketing person did their job.

                            the second I disagree with for the reason I have posted in this thread. That is, the creator's intention isn't to make something worthwhile, but to sell something to you.

                            Comment

                            • sybarite
                              Junior Member
                              • May 2014
                              • 19

                              I was thrown by your statement that "any" kind of art made with profit in mind is compromised. This is plainly false.

                              Comment

                              • apathy!
                                Senior Member
                                • Jan 2014
                                • 393

                                I didn't say that though did I?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X
                                😀
                                🥰
                                🤢
                                😎
                                😡
                                👍
                                👎