Are TV commercials Art?

[Capo]

Interesting debate which rose the other night in my cinema class. Are TV commercials art?

One argument is thus: that anything whose purpose is to sell a product other than its own intrinsic value can not be considered art.

Another argument: that making a commercial advert for a product has in itself certain aesthetic conventions, and that, taken in terms of the language that comprises them, they are in effect short films. Take the Guinness adverts of recent years.

Thanks,
Mick

[RNL]

Are they?

I'm sure some are. It all depends... are they brainstormed by a committee of executives clutching for communal ideas, cynically manipulating a demographic, or has an artist been hired to bring his own aesthetic signature and perhaps personal motifs to the product?

They are short films, as are music videos. The latter's direction is dictated by the qualities of the music, the former's by the product's identity in the marketplace. In both cases the film itself is somewhat handicapped by other forces - but then, no art is totally unconstrained.

[thug]

admin said:

One argument is thus: that anything whose purpose is to sell a product other than its own intrinsic value can not be considered art.

I'd initially be inclined to agree with this statement. But, on second thought, I remember that I once said that all films are propaganda. So are advertisements. Thus, they are one in the same in that matter. Though very rarely is a commerical director allowed to be an artist. Often directors have to follow what the companies tell them to do. Sometimes however, they are allowed to do what they want and create a product of their own.

The difference is like the difference between, say, Tim Burton's original Batman and Batman Returns. Batman was done for the studio with the studio making many important decisions and Burton keeping everything together. The film is not really a piece of art. Batman Returns is a Tim Burton film with Batman in it and he was allowed to do what he wanted, and I think the final product is a work of art.

It really depends on the circumstances.

[Vercetti]

I think it depends. One might make a commercial in a generic fashion to make money.

Another may be doing that for the same reason, but he tries to put forth artistic vision into all of his work, even something as minor as a commercial. I think it depends on the director's intentions.

What about film trailers? I think we all remember some for their creativity, like Dr. Strangelove.

[Capo]

vercetti said:

What about film trailers? I think we all remember some for their creativity, like Dr. Strangelove.

When I think of creative film trailers, two come to mind. Both are for Hitchcock films, and I've only seen one (though Halliwell's film guide has the script to the second one). Rope's (1948) trailer was a short film which stood alone; it was a preceding scene to the film, and had no footage of the actual film itself. Psycho's (1960) trailer virtually spoils the entire film, with Hitchcock himself taking a tour round the film's set, giving away all the narrative's details.

So, coming back to the question, whether or not commercials are an art form, it may indeed depend. But I think answers like that are lazy, and too easy to conclude so. If it depends, then, does that mean we should simply leave the question alone and not even attempt to define which commercials are art and which aren't? Is it a case of gut instinct, whereby you can only tell when actively watching the commercial?

I saw no less than twenty films at the Northern Lights Film Festival this week, before each one were the same set of commercials, in the same order, for the same things. A set programme. For many, I didn't even realise what they were promoting until days after watching them over and over.

Thanks,
Mick

[Vercetti]

Who knows, maybe we should start a commercial Proview and try it.

Verizon Wireless - zero stars
An asshole spokesperson tries to see if he can be heard all over the world with his cell phone. ;D

[RNL]

You can't really define art. When it's tried, some artist comes and makes art that doesn't fit the definition. 1000+ years of art theory and still most people think, "What I like is art, what I don't isn't." To call something a "work of art" as a compliment is to propogate this attitude. You should be able to despise someone's art and still openly recognise it as such.

I don't agree with the philosophy that art is something lofty and holy and 'for the elite'. It all began with crude drawings on cave walls, beating animal skins with their bones, and simple proto-parables to make sense of the world - and it's only become slicker, not deeper. My personal definition of art is as humble as: "Human expression of thought and emotion through a creative medium."

That's expression, not communication. If you try to define it at the communicative end of the spectrum, you revert to the totally subjective ideas of 'successful'/'unsuccessful', 'pleasurable'/'displeasurable', 'meaningful'/'meaningless' communication. And we're back to "What I like is art."

If you write a poem, quickly, cathartically, then burn it - that was art. It communicated nothing to anybody, but I believe it was art at its most essential.

In this sense, since the crux of advertising is the communicative event, it has no inherent artistic qualities of its own. Speaking of the short films that are used as conduits for this communication, I'd suggest that they merely offer less scope for artistry than would a film with no reason to be anything other than a container for someone's expression.

As I've said before, no film/poem/painting is 100% art. There are always pragmatic concerns; physical and financial and social and technical limitations. Not to mention that the very syntax of cinema/language/paint itself will deny the realisation of certain imaginings. You've never seen, and will never see, a pure piece of art outside of your own unconscious. That's where it's conceived, and its birth through any medium deforms it. Advertisement, I think, imposes the most limitations, gives the artist the smallest canvas and tells him to behave like a psychoanalyst, to communicate when all he can really do is express. In some instances, to circumvent this, the hired artist is given carte blanche on the expression, then the result is filtered through marketing and the real analysts assess it and the best way to use the container as a conduit. David Lynch's Playstation2 commercial is a prime example of this - it has no relation whatsoever to the product and is a typical Lynch piece.

I'd say all ads contain some degree of art, others contain a lot, but none are art in the sense that that's all they are and they are purely that - but nothing is.

[Michael]

vercetti said:

Who knows, maybe we should start a commercial Proview and try it.

Verizon Wireless - zero stars
An asshole spokesperson tries to see if he can be heard all over the world with his cell phone. ;D

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[The Ghost of LLC]

Well, it depends. I mean, I don't consider it art when Nissan puts out a commercial with vivid colours, fast cars, and loud techno music and says "CONSUME OUR EVERY BOWEL MOVEMENT!!! WE SELL YOU VERY GOOD CAR!!!"

But on the flipside, there are some artistically done commercials, I think, like the new Mastercard commercials with De Niro and other actors. Also--and you can youtube this one--Lynch did a commercial for... I can't remember what it was, I think it was beer, or mouth-wash, or something, and it was shot using the same artistic measures as he would apply to a scene in a film, I think.

[Valenti]

Lynch also did very, very good commercials for cigarettes and the Playstation 2, all of which literally have NOTHING to do with the product. Not a thing. It's not even seen or mentioned until the end of the commercial.

If you watched one out of context, it would be very odd.

[The Ghost of LLC]

Yeah, I think it is the cigarette commercial I am thinking of. I remember there being exposed powerlines and zombies. And if it weren't for common sense and health risks, those zombies would have made me a smoker.

That commercial also spoke to the drug and sexual offender communities of North America.

valenti said:

If you watched one out of context, it would be very odd.

I watched one in context and it was very odd.

[Michael]

Lynch's PS2 commercial

Lynch's PS2 commercial #2

Lynch's PS2 commercial #3

Lynch's Nissan commercial

Lynch's Cigarette commercial

Lynch's Public Service Announcement

All make perfect sense.

[The Ghost of LLC]

I don't have time to watch them now, but I saw one of the PS2 ads a while ago... the one with the deer about to get hit by the car. It reminded me alot of the Rabbit in your Headlights video for obvious reasons.

[Omar]

To me, only the second PS2 commercial and the cigarette and public service one felt Lychian. The public service one being the most so.

[Boz]

Has anyone seen the recent Sprite "Lymon, subliminal advertising" commercials?

I'd definitely consider those art.

Thank god for Tivo. Every time I catch one on a show I've taped, I'll watch it at least 2 or 3 times. They're especially great in slow-motion.

[Valenti]

I love those commercials.

Is that Michael Stipe at the end of them, snapping his fingers? I only catch glimpses. Surely, it couldn't be...

[Boz]

Nah, generic bald man. It's probably intentional that you can't quite make out who that is though considering the shot is a POV shot of someone who just woke up from a trance or something, and it's subsequently framed oddly.

[Boz]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCQgBcn3F8A

Martin Scorsese's American Express commerical

Now that's art.