Superbowl XLV - The Ads

[Kidlicious]

Kidicious, where do you draw the line? All these things you call art are also entertainment. A commercial can be entertaining as well and have as much thought put into it as a short film. In fact, marketing today is approaching art and entertainment in ways that it never did before. I don't stay abreast on this enough to cite some great examples (but I'm sure others can), but I think of things like how the video game Assassin's Creed II was promoted through the internet with a 30 minute short film which was at least as good in quality as any made-for-tv or B movie you would ever see. Yet its purpose was to promote a video game.

If you didn't know that, however, would it somehow be more valuable? How does knowing it was created as an advertising tool diminish its value?

That's a good example because I haven't seen it. Then I can say that because it was an ad it primarily had a practical value at the expense of any artistic value. And that's because the aim was practical and not artistic.

Now, I'm not saying the Assassin's Creed movie was high art or anything; that is subjective.

Of course it is subjective, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't artistic. The Mona Lisa is indeed a beautiful painting no matter what anybody says.

[Kidlicious]

Artists who 'sellout' are not artists? Here's a thought experiment that has actually happened all the time... an artist makes a song. It's for his album and is his 'artistic expression'. Art, right? He signs a deal with a company to use his song in a commercial... did the song suddenly lose artistic value because of this? How and why?


O such a great crime! These artists who seek monetary compensation for their art and craft!

No it didn't lose any value. My point is that it didn't have any to begin with.

[Al B. Sure!]

Of course it is subjective, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't artistic. The Mona Lisa is indeed a beautiful painting no matter what anybody says.

Blah? How does that make any sense?

[Al B. Sure!]

No it didn't lose any value. My point is that it didn't have any to begin with.

So wait... if the artist never uses it for a commercial, it never has value either?

[Kidlicious]

So wait... if the artist never uses it for a commercial, it never has value either?

Look, Eminem is somewhat artistic, but the purpose of most of his efforts is to make money. That much is clear now. We can now say objectively that he isn't that good.

[Al B. Sure!]

Look, Eminem is somewhat artistic, but the purpose of most of his efforts is to make money. That much is clear now. We can now say objectively that he isn't that good.

Huh? Wait what?

I am lost. So Eminem was artistic until he made a commercial? Then once he made a commercial, it suddenly means retroactively that he isn't artistic anymore? Huh?! How does that make any sense?

[Al B. Sure!]

And how does trying to get paid for your trade diminish the value of your product?

[Kidlicious]

Huh? Wait what?

I am lost. So Eminem was artistic until he made a commercial? Then once he made a commercial, it suddenly means retroactively that he isn't artistic anymore? Huh?! How does that make any sense?

No no. It's the difference between making a subjective judgement and an objective judgement. Previously many people thought he was a good artist. That doesn't mean that he was, only that they thought that he was. Whether or not his work was good isn't dependent on whether or not people paid for it.

But we can use objective criteria to make the judgement. For example, you may say that artists that sell x amount of cds are good, and unless they do so they aren't good. I say that's wrong. My objective criteria is that if an artist shows that he cares more about making money than other things like principles (see that there are no Chrysler factories in Detroit) then he sucks. If he doesn't sellout we can still say that he is good, so long as you like his music.

[Al B. Sure!]

No no. It's the difference between making a subjective judgement and an objective judgement. Previously many people thought he was a good artist. That doesn't mean that he was, only that they thought that he was. Whether or not his work was good isn't dependent on whether or not people paid for it.

But we can use objective criteria to make the judgement. For example, you may say that artists that sell x amount of cds are good, and unless they do so they aren't good. I say that's wrong. My objective criteria is that if an artist shows that he cares more about making money than other things like principles (see that there are no Chrysler factories in Detroit) then he sucks. If he doesn't sellout we can still say that he is good, so long as you like his music.

What the ****? Kidicious, go look up the definitions of 'subjective' and 'objective' and please re-write that post into something more cogent. I'm not trying to be a smart ass. You're really not making any sense. Maybe it's making sense in your head but your usage of certain words is incorrect and is making what you say unintelligible.

[SlowwHand]

[Ming]

I see that this thread has been Kidded...

Since when is a desire to make money lessen the art form. Since the beginning of time, story tellers and wandering minstrels would perform for the price of food and board... the great artists took commissions... It's OK to make a living using artistic skills. And who are you to determine if somebody else has "sold out"... and who cares what you think.

I'm sure he would think you suck

[Al B. Sure!]

What is the difference between an artist and a carpenter? Can the artist not sell his wares the same as a carpenter? Does the selling of the wares diminish the value of the artist's product but not the carpenter's? Must the artist rely on some other skill for his subsistence and not what he is best at?

I expected Kidicious to make an argument about intentions and in that, yes, an advertiser's product (a commercial) was created for the express purpose of selling a product and isn't "art for art's sake". In that case, the corporate jingle performed by a musician wouldn't be considered art though the rest of the musician's repertoire would still be. It's not a good argument for a variety of reasons (what if the song wasn't written/performed expressively for the ad but was used by the ad later? Did it lose its value? Why is acquiring money through corporate sponsorship different than acquiring money through album sales and concerts?, etc. not to mention the philosophical debate about the nature of art and the blending of art and entertainment)

Yet Kid didn't go that way. I'm lost as to what his argument is.

[giblets]

Wow, I'm shocked that Albert is trying to be the center of attention in this thread. At least there's something human about him.

[self biased]

And Imran, oh my god, you have become such a whore. You're a sports whore, a corporate whore, a pop culture whore, whatever is popular and everyone else is doing right now whore...

you say this as if it were some kind of surprise that Imran was a PBR swilling hipster douchebag.

[Hauldren Collider]

Is that part of why he gets totally bent out of shape when I say benign things about Israel?