Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Are fashion ads more like art than a lot of the modern stuff?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Fashion ads are one of the things that I think show more artistic ingenuity than a lot of modern "art." Many are romantic. The backgrounds are often selectively constructed to achieve perfection, and thus imply man has volition. They are the one thing that have inspired me and kept me going. When I was a little girl, I admired them so much and would imagine my ideal life unfolding as a series of them. I think this is definite proof of Ayn Rand's belief about man's need for proper, romantic art. It is funny how they don't lie about what is ideal. Companies want to sell their products to women, and they can't do it by conforming to the modern esthetic standards. Now, some styles and ads are quite degenerate and ugly, but basically they follow a romantic style.

http://www.mimifroufrou.com/scentedsalamander/images/nina_ad.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DK8CndnRBwE/TIRi4Ki50iI/AAAAAAAABaw/KDHt-9c7dCc/s1600/CK%2520Euphoria%2520nova%2520w%2520m%5B1%5D.jpg

http://media.onsugar.com/files/ons4/2009/12/51/346/3463885/379283118f3bbdd6_gucci_spring_2010_ad_1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure about calling that art, at least in the context of advertisement. I like some fashion images a lot, and they can be great to look at, but it really depends how the photography is done. A story might be implied, or some kind of expressiveness. Other times, it's merely showing a product. I would agree, though, that there is an implied ideal of appearance in any kind of photography of people especially with fashion, so there is more to be said about how a person should express themselves physically. I'm more fond of looking at fashion than I ever am of painting, or really any other kind of visual art, since I think it's very individualistic in expression by its very nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not call that art. It is attention-getting, pleasing to the eye, and presents an ideal of sorts, but it is all at the service of hawking a product, which is usually prominently figured. (Imagine the Sistine Chapel if Michelangelo had had his figures holding expensive perfume bottles or modeled the latest footwear....) I'm not saying that the photographers aren't skilled, creative, and artistic, but those examples definitely fall into the illustration category, not fine art. Nothing wrong with illustration, but it simply serves to sell a product.

As for it being better than modern "art" -- hell, the contents of our kitty litter box is better than the crap that idiots call modern "art". (Better because it lacks pretension, the life-blood of modern "art".) Modern "art" is actually anti-art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Artistic ads make me schizoid - I know I'm being taken for a ride, but nonetheless I might enjoy the ride.

I haven't quite figured it out yet, but I end up getting irritated that I've been manipulated all for the sake of a product. In context, though, an essential part of marketing, and therefore of capitalism.

Anyway, for me, they are 'artful', not artistic.

(Like Andy Warhol's cans of Campbell's soup.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fashion ads are one of the things that I think show more artistic ingenuity than a lot of modern "art." Many are romantic. The backgrounds are often selectively constructed to achieve perfection, and thus imply man has volition. They are the one thing that have inspired me and kept me going. When I was a little girl, I admired them so much and would imagine my ideal life unfolding as a series of them. I think this is definite proof of Ayn Rand's belief about man's need for proper, romantic art. It is funny how they don't lie about what is ideal. Companies want to sell their products to women, and they can't do it by conforming to the modern esthetic standards. Now, some styles and ads are quite degenerate and ugly, but basically they follow a romantic style.

http://www.mimifrouf...ges/nina_ad.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot...520m%5B1%5D.jpg

http://media.onsugar...g_2010_ad_1.jpg

ABSOLUTELY your're on to something here. Official art has been continually decaying because they are confused, they have no standard to compare themselves with. Publicity agencies on the other hand represent patronage of this age much like the wealthy families of Italy were during the Renaissance. Agencies impose a standard based on popular consumer goods but as those gravitate towards luxurious the standard goes up to the best that man can be. That spirit is seldom found in contemporary art, but it is ubiquitous in high end marketing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a strawman argument, comparing the best of commercial art to the worst of contemporary art.

It only highlights how bad the latter is.

So far as it goes, it is understandable that in seeking inspiration and comprehensibility, many may gravitate towards commercial art, when they do not find it in fine art.

The producer of a commercial cannot afford for his work to be ambiguous, but clarity alone does not render it as art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have arrived at this conclusion independently before I knew about this topic. I just never thought to say anything about it until now.

I think that not only are fashion ads art, but many if not all advertisements are art. The difference between usual art and advertisements is that an advertisement will almost always hold the company and/or product as metaphysically valuable. This metaphysical value-judgment is responsible for the fact that the details in the advertisement seem to almost always revolve around the product or company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have arrived at this conclusion independently before I knew about this topic. I just never thought to say anything about it until now.

I think that not only are fashion ads art, but many if not all advertisements are art. The difference between usual art and advertisements is that an advertisement will almost always hold the company and/or product as metaphysically valuable. This metaphysical value-judgment is responsible for the fact that the details in the advertisement seem to almost always revolve around the product or company.

"An advert is a selective display of a client's product according to a creative director's physical value-judgment and commercial intent."No matter how much beauty, mood, plot-line, characterization, glamorization, etc, you cannot get away from the fact that an ad is only a FORM. Its content is a product, even when accomplished with subtlety."Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgements." [AR]Stylizing a product = metaphysical value-judgements? I don't think so.
Link to post
Share on other sites

"An advert is a selective display of a client's product according to a creative director's physical value-judgment and commercial intent."No matter how much beauty, mood, plot-line, characterization, glamorization, etc, you cannot get away from the fact that an ad is only a FORM. Its content is a product, even when accomplished with subtlety."Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgements." [AR]Stylizing a product = metaphysical value-judgements? I don't think so.

And well conceived advertising is a VERY selective re creation of a product (a minute part of reality) according to a well payed designer's array of value judgments. To a reasonable extent well paid is an objective indicator of quality.

For that matter, are cartoons art, not visual art, but post modern theater?

Are parades and rallies (including some infamous but very visually striking ones in 1930s Germany) art in the way that "performance-installations" are usually considered art now? What about the religious processions of pre industrial times, and their Christmas Passions? Were they not the only artistic experienced allowed to the bulk of the population much like advertising is under current Western consumerism?

The question would be whether either of these are good forms of art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Artistic ads make me schizoid - I know I'm being taken for a ride, but nonetheless I might enjoy the ride.

I haven't quite figured it out yet, but I end up getting irritated that I've been manipulated all for the sake of a product. In context, though, an essential part of marketing, and therefore of capitalism.

Anyway, for me, they are 'artful', not artistic.

(Like Andy Warhol's cans of Campbell's soup.)

that's what I feel when I am moved by religious architecture painting and sculpture. Music is the worse and listening to Bach and Handel makes me temporarily gnostic, maybe theist (much like temporary madness, or la petite morte, ecstasy) and I have a terrible time discriminating the origin of the goosebumps; is it only and just the music or the content of the words of the choral arrangements play a part?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...