Kinetic Advertising
November 19, 2008 12:03 PM Subscribe
"The way all of these objects interact and just miss each other in the same environment, it's kind of building a machine out of organic movements." A timesculpture is part music video, part performance art, part kinetic sculpture, and part innovative use of computer and video technology. Its first application? Advertising, of course.
Toshiba paid London ad agency Grey London £3million to create an ad for a new product line. 200 camcorders, 20TB of video data and 336 hours of processing time later, the first timesculpture was created.
But despite Toshiba's rather breathless press release and the use of the word "sculpture," is it really a new form of art? Is it even new? Can something created for commercial purposes be art at all? Other examples of the technique might help answer these questions, but it seems there aren't any yet.
Previous art in motion. Music by Canadian duo Crystal Castles.
Toshiba paid London ad agency Grey London £3million to create an ad for a new product line. 200 camcorders, 20TB of video data and 336 hours of processing time later, the first timesculpture was created.
But despite Toshiba's rather breathless press release and the use of the word "sculpture," is it really a new form of art? Is it even new? Can something created for commercial purposes be art at all? Other examples of the technique might help answer these questions, but it seems there aren't any yet.
Previous art in motion. Music by Canadian duo Crystal Castles.
Post seems spot on to me, not onto the snark....
The commercial would have been cooler as a QTVR though, so I could have looked up the girl's dress.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:18 PM on November 19, 2008
The commercial would have been cooler as a QTVR though, so I could have looked up the girl's dress.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:18 PM on November 19, 2008
What hath the Wachowski Brothers wrought?
Seriously, if you're just making a cooler version of bullet time, don't give it a pompous name like "timesculpture".
posted by demiurge at 12:49 PM on November 19, 2008 [3 favorites]
Seriously, if you're just making a cooler version of bullet time, don't give it a pompous name like "timesculpture".
posted by demiurge at 12:49 PM on November 19, 2008 [3 favorites]
Here's a similar (but to me much more interesting) animation from 1980, Zbigniew Rybczynski's Tango. (more info)
posted by moonmilk at 12:55 PM on November 19, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by moonmilk at 12:55 PM on November 19, 2008 [2 favorites]
(I should add that the Tango video might be mildly NSFW)
posted by moonmilk at 12:57 PM on November 19, 2008
posted by moonmilk at 12:57 PM on November 19, 2008
Yeah, it's just... "Tango" in bullet time, with a cute new name for the technique and (presumably) a lot more pre-planning. And a lot more money involved, too. "Tango" didn't play the games with scrubbing each individual timestream back and forth like this did, but then again "Tango" was also done in the era of optical compositing.
IMHO it's also a lot less legible than "Tango" was, but whatever.
posted by egypturnash at 1:18 PM on November 19, 2008
IMHO it's also a lot less legible than "Tango" was, but whatever.
posted by egypturnash at 1:18 PM on November 19, 2008
I liked the part where the gorilla walked through.
posted by The Bellman at 1:21 PM on November 19, 2008 [9 favorites]
posted by The Bellman at 1:21 PM on November 19, 2008 [9 favorites]
Can something created for commercial purposes be art at all?
Egads, as if Shakespeare's "Richard the Third" wasn't a piece of breathless propaganda for the House of Tudor!
Indeed, the purpose of much art is to sell art. There is a rich history of artists creating art to get paid. In that sense, many works of art are kinds of commercials for themselves.
The question, I suppose, is "can something possess aesthetic value in and of itself and, at the same time, be used to advertise something else?"
I would say the answer to this is "well, yes, of course."
Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" is in many people estimation an aesthetically effective piece of music. The fact that most people know it as "theme from United Airlines commercials" doesn't negate its aesthetic value (though I'm sure its use in commercials diminishes its value in some people's opinions).
Something has aesthetic/artistic value not because of why it was created or what values it espouses, but in spite of its purpose.
Indeed, I can enjoy the work of Richard Wagner while, at the same time, decrying his anti-semitism. Similarly, I can enjoy this "timesculpture" for its aesthetic value while, at the same time, recognizing that many of Toshiba's products are pieces of fucking shit.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:28 PM on November 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
Egads, as if Shakespeare's "Richard the Third" wasn't a piece of breathless propaganda for the House of Tudor!
Indeed, the purpose of much art is to sell art. There is a rich history of artists creating art to get paid. In that sense, many works of art are kinds of commercials for themselves.
The question, I suppose, is "can something possess aesthetic value in and of itself and, at the same time, be used to advertise something else?"
I would say the answer to this is "well, yes, of course."
Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" is in many people estimation an aesthetically effective piece of music. The fact that most people know it as "theme from United Airlines commercials" doesn't negate its aesthetic value (though I'm sure its use in commercials diminishes its value in some people's opinions).
Something has aesthetic/artistic value not because of why it was created or what values it espouses, but in spite of its purpose.
Indeed, I can enjoy the work of Richard Wagner while, at the same time, decrying his anti-semitism. Similarly, I can enjoy this "timesculpture" for its aesthetic value while, at the same time, recognizing that many of Toshiba's products are pieces of fucking shit.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:28 PM on November 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
Considering the apparent amount of effort involved in this piece/production, I was expecting something more impressive.
posted by Hicksu at 1:31 PM on November 19, 2008
posted by Hicksu at 1:31 PM on November 19, 2008
Moonmilk, I wasn't aware of Tango, though after viewing it, clearly the director of the Timesculpture ad must have been. Thanks for that.
Joey, a further question might be, are aesthetic value and artistic value the same thing? I find a great deal of aesthetic value in the human form, but (as a non-creationist/intelligent-designist) I don't regard it as a work of art. Likewise a piece of rock placed on a coffeetable as a (so-called) objet d'art because of its pleasing shape.
So I acknowledge the aesthetic value in the Timesculpture ad, while at the same time questioning whether it is art (and I haven't settled on an answer yet), because I tend to define art as "something combining aesthetic value with a message from the artist to the viewer/listener/participant." This definition may be inadequate, of course, but it's the best I've done so far.
The difficulty is that, while Tango and Timesculpture are aesthetically similar (in broad strokes), Tango seems to have a message for its viewers, while I sense that Timesculpture may be nothing more than a technical exercise meant to wring as much aesthetic value as possible from an attention-grabbing concept.
As an aside, I completely agree with your assessment of the quality of Toshiba products. Worst DVD player I ever bought.
posted by [user was fined for this post] at 2:25 PM on November 19, 2008
Joey, a further question might be, are aesthetic value and artistic value the same thing? I find a great deal of aesthetic value in the human form, but (as a non-creationist/intelligent-designist) I don't regard it as a work of art. Likewise a piece of rock placed on a coffeetable as a (so-called) objet d'art because of its pleasing shape.
So I acknowledge the aesthetic value in the Timesculpture ad, while at the same time questioning whether it is art (and I haven't settled on an answer yet), because I tend to define art as "something combining aesthetic value with a message from the artist to the viewer/listener/participant." This definition may be inadequate, of course, but it's the best I've done so far.
The difficulty is that, while Tango and Timesculpture are aesthetically similar (in broad strokes), Tango seems to have a message for its viewers, while I sense that Timesculpture may be nothing more than a technical exercise meant to wring as much aesthetic value as possible from an attention-grabbing concept.
As an aside, I completely agree with your assessment of the quality of Toshiba products. Worst DVD player I ever bought.
posted by [user was fined for this post] at 2:25 PM on November 19, 2008
This was that wet-fart kind of thing: so unfortunate, and happens to the nicest people.
They (the engineers and etc.) did a cool thing - almost as cool as the bike riding video thing or the Japanese Rube Goldberg things (both Honda and the other one) - but then (and this is the part where they have to run for the bathroom with that post wetfart funny, please don't let it rub around too much in my underwear, walk/shuffle) they talked about it. A lot. While mentioning the brand. Prominently. I mean, for fuck's sake. It could of just been embarrassing and smelly, but it went that extra mile.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:57 PM on November 19, 2008
They (the engineers and etc.) did a cool thing - almost as cool as the bike riding video thing or the Japanese Rube Goldberg things (both Honda and the other one) - but then (and this is the part where they have to run for the bathroom with that post wetfart funny, please don't let it rub around too much in my underwear, walk/shuffle) they talked about it. A lot. While mentioning the brand. Prominently. I mean, for fuck's sake. It could of just been embarrassing and smelly, but it went that extra mile.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:57 PM on November 19, 2008
I guess I've seen too many cutting edge music videos and whatnot to see the spectacularity of this.
I give it an unqualified "meh".
posted by Ron Thanagar at 3:06 PM on November 19, 2008
I give it an unqualified "meh".
posted by Ron Thanagar at 3:06 PM on November 19, 2008
Yeah, it's kind of a shame. They put so much effort into this, but the end result is pretty uninteresting, technically or aesthetically. It feels like a concept reel, rather than any artistic product. Like when I first discovered as a kid that I could tape something on our camcorder and then play it backwards. Mr. Backwards could repair torn paper, suck water into a jug, and catch a deck of scattered playing cards, but he didn't really tell much of a story.
posted by team lowkey at 3:20 PM on November 19, 2008
posted by team lowkey at 3:20 PM on November 19, 2008
So I acknowledge the aesthetic value in the Timesculpture ad, while at the same time questioning whether it is art (and I haven't settled on an answer yet), because I tend to define art as "something combining aesthetic value with a message from the artist to the viewer/listener/participant." This definition may be inadequate, of course, but it's the best I've done so far.
Well, there is a message from the artist to the viewer: Buy Toshiba. Indeed, I think the message of this particular work is a lot more clear than, say, your typical Murakami statue (NSFW) - which is not to say that Murakami's work lacks a message, just to say that the Toshiba message is, on one level, crystal clear.
Ergo, this combines aesthetic value with a message.
I believe what you're actually questioning is the actual value of the message. To whit, is it a work of art if the message has the same basic value as spam. I think this comes down to a matter of personal opinion.
As far as defining what art is, I'm afraid that I'm a frustrating artistic relativist. I believe that something is a work of art only so long as the viewer/listener/participant perceives it to be a work of art. Indeed, calling something "art" is as subjective a judgement as calling something "good" or "bad."
This is how I rationalize keeping "Sex Type Thing" by The Stone Temple Pilots on my iPod, mixed between Brandenberg Concerto #2 in F-Major and Can's Tago Mago.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:04 PM on November 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well, there is a message from the artist to the viewer: Buy Toshiba. Indeed, I think the message of this particular work is a lot more clear than, say, your typical Murakami statue (NSFW) - which is not to say that Murakami's work lacks a message, just to say that the Toshiba message is, on one level, crystal clear.
Ergo, this combines aesthetic value with a message.
I believe what you're actually questioning is the actual value of the message. To whit, is it a work of art if the message has the same basic value as spam. I think this comes down to a matter of personal opinion.
As far as defining what art is, I'm afraid that I'm a frustrating artistic relativist. I believe that something is a work of art only so long as the viewer/listener/participant perceives it to be a work of art. Indeed, calling something "art" is as subjective a judgement as calling something "good" or "bad."
This is how I rationalize keeping "Sex Type Thing" by The Stone Temple Pilots on my iPod, mixed between Brandenberg Concerto #2 in F-Major and Can's Tago Mago.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:04 PM on November 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
I liked the part about the 4 TWENTY-FOUR HOUR DAYS EDUCATED STUPID
posted by DU at 4:33 PM on November 19, 2008
posted by DU at 4:33 PM on November 19, 2008
Art is some item, often tangible but not necessarily, that communicates some message from the artist to an audience. Commercials communicate messages from the creator to an audience. Therefore commercials are art. Usually pretty crappy art.
posted by DU at 4:36 PM on November 19, 2008
posted by DU at 4:36 PM on November 19, 2008
Id like to see this in the hands of some people who can turn ads into fun things to watch. Neat tool but the end result is just a mess.
posted by ElmerFishpaw at 5:42 PM on November 19, 2008
posted by ElmerFishpaw at 5:42 PM on November 19, 2008
Not super interesting. I like the Kylie Minogue video where she's interacting with time-displaced instances of herself much more.
Bullettime is so passé.
posted by signal at 5:43 PM on November 19, 2008
Bullettime is so passé.
posted by signal at 5:43 PM on November 19, 2008
Oh, and the whole "first timesculpture" thing is pathetic.
posted by signal at 5:43 PM on November 19, 2008
posted by signal at 5:43 PM on November 19, 2008
I second ElmerFishpaw's analysis, for which he has helpfully provided examples. All the techy two hundred cameras thing is great, but the end result is a visual mess. I'm guessing there were "artistic directors" on the payroll, but if there were "writers" or "narrative directors" or whatever they are called these days, those two groups were left out of the brouhaha of all of the techcitement.
posted by kozad at 8:29 PM on November 19, 2008
posted by kozad at 8:29 PM on November 19, 2008
Well, there is a message from the artist to the viewer: Buy Toshiba. [...] I believe what you're actually questioning is the actual value of the message. To whit, is it a work of art if the message has the same basic value as spam.
Fair enough--I agree entirely that there's a message here, and my given definition of art was flawed. What I'm trying (poorly) to get at is that if the message intends to provoke a specific action on the part of the viewer, I don't think of it as art. The most suitable word I can think of is propaganda, in the bare dictionary sense of attempting to persuade large groups of people to do, say or think specific things.
By that definition, advertising is a form of propaganda with the (relatively benign) message BUY THIS NOW. Soviet posters have a high level of aesthetic value, but they're still propaganda. The story about Jesus' footprints in the sand is often presented in the form of a poem, but its goal is to bolster adherence to a specific belief system.
I think of propaganda and art as mutually exclusive. I know I may be backing myself into an indefensible position here which, on further reflection, could mean that my views need to change. But I think of "art" as the subset of all creative output that has as its goal the expanding of human thought, feeling, imagination or understanding. This was my intended meaning of the poorly-chosen word "message." Propaganda may do this, but only incidentally; its goal is to control, if only within the bounds of consumerism, and exercising control over another person is the opposite of providing a catalyst for self-expansion.
So, you're right. I am questioning the value of the message more than the presence or absence of one. But I'm not a relativist; I think the motivation of the would-be artist does matter, and if s/he turns out to be a propagandist, then the work falls outside the sphere of what I would consider art. (I'm not rejecting people like Duchamp who specifically declare that a creation has no artistic message--the declaration is itself a message challenging previously-held views of art, so these end up meeting my definition very nicely.)
I realize the line can be blurry. Your example of Richard the Third is sufficient to demonstrate that. Ultimately it would be foolish to think it possible to declare every work as falling cleanly into the categories of art or not-art.
And I'll grant that the line may be blurry even in the case of the Timesculpture ad. If the Youtube player had a bug cutting off the video just before the voice-over comes in, I might have a different impression of the work. I would love to sit down with Mitch Stratten and ask what his motivation was.
posted by [user was fined for this post] at 9:32 PM on November 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
Fair enough--I agree entirely that there's a message here, and my given definition of art was flawed. What I'm trying (poorly) to get at is that if the message intends to provoke a specific action on the part of the viewer, I don't think of it as art. The most suitable word I can think of is propaganda, in the bare dictionary sense of attempting to persuade large groups of people to do, say or think specific things.
By that definition, advertising is a form of propaganda with the (relatively benign) message BUY THIS NOW. Soviet posters have a high level of aesthetic value, but they're still propaganda. The story about Jesus' footprints in the sand is often presented in the form of a poem, but its goal is to bolster adherence to a specific belief system.
I think of propaganda and art as mutually exclusive. I know I may be backing myself into an indefensible position here which, on further reflection, could mean that my views need to change. But I think of "art" as the subset of all creative output that has as its goal the expanding of human thought, feeling, imagination or understanding. This was my intended meaning of the poorly-chosen word "message." Propaganda may do this, but only incidentally; its goal is to control, if only within the bounds of consumerism, and exercising control over another person is the opposite of providing a catalyst for self-expansion.
So, you're right. I am questioning the value of the message more than the presence or absence of one. But I'm not a relativist; I think the motivation of the would-be artist does matter, and if s/he turns out to be a propagandist, then the work falls outside the sphere of what I would consider art. (I'm not rejecting people like Duchamp who specifically declare that a creation has no artistic message--the declaration is itself a message challenging previously-held views of art, so these end up meeting my definition very nicely.)
I realize the line can be blurry. Your example of Richard the Third is sufficient to demonstrate that. Ultimately it would be foolish to think it possible to declare every work as falling cleanly into the categories of art or not-art.
And I'll grant that the line may be blurry even in the case of the Timesculpture ad. If the Youtube player had a bug cutting off the video just before the voice-over comes in, I might have a different impression of the work. I would love to sit down with Mitch Stratten and ask what his motivation was.
posted by [user was fined for this post] at 9:32 PM on November 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
To whit, is it a work of art if the message has the same basic value as spam
I see some beautiful prose telling me my email address has won, and the verbiage of foreign ex-heads of state who urgently need to move something into my bank account is something to see as well.
But it isn't art, and never will be.
posted by DreamerFi at 10:32 PM on November 19, 2008
I see some beautiful prose telling me my email address has won, and the verbiage of foreign ex-heads of state who urgently need to move something into my bank account is something to see as well.
But it isn't art, and never will be.
posted by DreamerFi at 10:32 PM on November 19, 2008
I see some beautiful prose telling me my email address has won, and the verbiage of foreign ex-heads of state who urgently need to move something into my bank account is something to see as well.
But it isn't art, and never will be.
As I mentioned in my discussion with [uwfftp], this suggests that, for you, a message is essential for something to be considered art - and furthermore that the message in the art must be something you believe has value. Is this a fair assumption?
I think the motivation of the would-be artist does matter, and if s/he turns out to be a propagandist, then the work falls outside the sphere of what I would consider art.
This is an interesting distinction between our points of view. My feeling is that the motivation of the artist matters not a jot - it is the audience member's belief that determines a works status as art.
That said, the definition of "propaganda" becomes important here. We've been discussing Richard the Third and, while I offered it as an example of art that was also propaganda above, it is likely that the main goal of Shakespeare was to create a work that was entertaining and, perhaps, enlightening to an audience. The propaganda value of the piece was - while not incidental - not the prime goal.
One could make an argument that some of the greatest pop songs of the last century - many of which have at least a degree of artists value - were songs that contained social messages that could be considered propaganda. Is a Neil Young song protesting the Vietnam war less of a work of art because part of its goal was to deliver a specific political message?
The scale, perhaps, tips when a work of art is primarily created for propganda/commercial purposes. Perhaps what is at issue here is that the primary goal of this Timesculpture is to sell Toshiba products - its success as a aesthetically pleasing work of art (with a secondary message about the fleeting beauty to be found in specific moments) being less important than that primary goal.
Of course, perhaps "Ohio" by Neil Young was primarily written with a propaganda role in mind, too, its aesthetic success (which is, of course, a subjective opinion) secondary to its message.
Perhaps the issue is whether for the viewer (there I go with my relativism again) believes that the non-commercial content and quality of a work of art outweighs its propaganda or commercial message. Ergo, "Ohio" and Richard III are works of art because the works overpower their propaganda content (and, certainly in the case of Richard III, the work has long since outlives its value as propaganda). In the case of the Timesculpture, the value of the work as viral advertising perhaps currently outweighs its artistic value.
Of course, Toshiba could fold tomorrow. If Toshiba did fold and there was still respectable interest in the Timesculpture piece, that could serve as evidence that there was value beyond the commercial for the work. This is, of course, still relativistic - if the opinion of a work of art can change over time based on social and historical context, its value is relative to the viewer in that period of time.
Anyhow, sorry for the lengthy rants here. As you might guess, I find this topic endlessly fascinating.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:52 AM on November 20, 2008 [1 favorite]
But it isn't art, and never will be.
As I mentioned in my discussion with [uwfftp], this suggests that, for you, a message is essential for something to be considered art - and furthermore that the message in the art must be something you believe has value. Is this a fair assumption?
I think the motivation of the would-be artist does matter, and if s/he turns out to be a propagandist, then the work falls outside the sphere of what I would consider art.
This is an interesting distinction between our points of view. My feeling is that the motivation of the artist matters not a jot - it is the audience member's belief that determines a works status as art.
That said, the definition of "propaganda" becomes important here. We've been discussing Richard the Third and, while I offered it as an example of art that was also propaganda above, it is likely that the main goal of Shakespeare was to create a work that was entertaining and, perhaps, enlightening to an audience. The propaganda value of the piece was - while not incidental - not the prime goal.
One could make an argument that some of the greatest pop songs of the last century - many of which have at least a degree of artists value - were songs that contained social messages that could be considered propaganda. Is a Neil Young song protesting the Vietnam war less of a work of art because part of its goal was to deliver a specific political message?
The scale, perhaps, tips when a work of art is primarily created for propganda/commercial purposes. Perhaps what is at issue here is that the primary goal of this Timesculpture is to sell Toshiba products - its success as a aesthetically pleasing work of art (with a secondary message about the fleeting beauty to be found in specific moments) being less important than that primary goal.
Of course, perhaps "Ohio" by Neil Young was primarily written with a propaganda role in mind, too, its aesthetic success (which is, of course, a subjective opinion) secondary to its message.
Perhaps the issue is whether for the viewer (there I go with my relativism again) believes that the non-commercial content and quality of a work of art outweighs its propaganda or commercial message. Ergo, "Ohio" and Richard III are works of art because the works overpower their propaganda content (and, certainly in the case of Richard III, the work has long since outlives its value as propaganda). In the case of the Timesculpture, the value of the work as viral advertising perhaps currently outweighs its artistic value.
Of course, Toshiba could fold tomorrow. If Toshiba did fold and there was still respectable interest in the Timesculpture piece, that could serve as evidence that there was value beyond the commercial for the work. This is, of course, still relativistic - if the opinion of a work of art can change over time based on social and historical context, its value is relative to the viewer in that period of time.
Anyhow, sorry for the lengthy rants here. As you might guess, I find this topic endlessly fascinating.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:52 AM on November 20, 2008 [1 favorite]
As I mentioned in my discussion with [uwfftp], this suggests that, for you, a message is essential for something to be considered art - and furthermore that the message in the art must be something you believe has value. Is this a fair assumption?
I'll have to think a bit about this one, I guess I haven't thought about exactly what it is that make me consider something to be "art". I could fall back on the "I know it when I see it" cop-out, but that's too cheap. There's plenty of stuff that I recognize is art, and yet I personally don't like, and I've never thought about it in a "you just don't like the message" way.
There have been attempts to use 419 spam in art, and most of the time I thought "yeah, sure, it's art, fine, but for me it only works as a gimmick". You could say that in that case I acknowledge it's art. I would even acknowledge there's a message in there, and that the message in question, to me, is without value. Yet it's still art.
I've also seen abstract art from artists that purposely contain no message at all. Yet, I still consider it art. Again, it was art that I wouldn't care to own, so if you rephrase your question in a way that it talks about "art that I like" instead of just "art", you're probably closer to the mark.
I'm afraid I don't have a clearer answer for you on this one.
posted by DreamerFi at 7:19 AM on November 20, 2008
I'll have to think a bit about this one, I guess I haven't thought about exactly what it is that make me consider something to be "art". I could fall back on the "I know it when I see it" cop-out, but that's too cheap. There's plenty of stuff that I recognize is art, and yet I personally don't like, and I've never thought about it in a "you just don't like the message" way.
There have been attempts to use 419 spam in art, and most of the time I thought "yeah, sure, it's art, fine, but for me it only works as a gimmick". You could say that in that case I acknowledge it's art. I would even acknowledge there's a message in there, and that the message in question, to me, is without value. Yet it's still art.
I've also seen abstract art from artists that purposely contain no message at all. Yet, I still consider it art. Again, it was art that I wouldn't care to own, so if you rephrase your question in a way that it talks about "art that I like" instead of just "art", you're probably closer to the mark.
I'm afraid I don't have a clearer answer for you on this one.
posted by DreamerFi at 7:19 AM on November 20, 2008
Joey - I find the topic fascinating as well, and important. No need to apologize.
I may be more of a relativist than I want to admit. I would like to be able to identify each creator of a work as having a single overarching motivation, which would then allow me to classify their work in terms of art or [something else]. My mind is seeking simplicity and clarity here. But as you've pointed out, we complex creatures are capable of having more than one motivation when creating something, and that makes things messy.
The need to express oneself creatively is present in everyone, including propagandists. And this undermines my position: it's probably unfair to dismiss a work as potentially artistic because it is (primarily) propaganda, and likewise to disregard the propagandistic elements of a work created (primarily) as art.
It makes me uncomfortable to acknowledge that a work can be both simultaneously. This is because I fear that if I open myself to appreciating the artistic message of a piece, I will also make myself vulnerable to being swayed by its propagandistic message. That may sound silly or weak-minded, but I strongly suspect that this is exactly the effect Toshiba and many, many others are hoping for when they spend millions on advertising like this.
I'm going to ponder this further for awhile. You've given me a lot to think about--thank you.
posted by [user was fined for this post] at 8:00 AM on November 20, 2008
I may be more of a relativist than I want to admit. I would like to be able to identify each creator of a work as having a single overarching motivation, which would then allow me to classify their work in terms of art or [something else]. My mind is seeking simplicity and clarity here. But as you've pointed out, we complex creatures are capable of having more than one motivation when creating something, and that makes things messy.
The need to express oneself creatively is present in everyone, including propagandists. And this undermines my position: it's probably unfair to dismiss a work as potentially artistic because it is (primarily) propaganda, and likewise to disregard the propagandistic elements of a work created (primarily) as art.
It makes me uncomfortable to acknowledge that a work can be both simultaneously. This is because I fear that if I open myself to appreciating the artistic message of a piece, I will also make myself vulnerable to being swayed by its propagandistic message. That may sound silly or weak-minded, but I strongly suspect that this is exactly the effect Toshiba and many, many others are hoping for when they spend millions on advertising like this.
I'm going to ponder this further for awhile. You've given me a lot to think about--thank you.
posted by [user was fined for this post] at 8:00 AM on November 20, 2008
Not to Godwinize things, and this is not really in response to anything, but this got me thinking about the following images:
Obama
Hitler
Arguably, the first painting has an undeniable propaganda purpose. Furthermore, in light of how popular Obama has proven to be, this print (?) might be something that a certain segment of the population would be proud to display in their home.
I don't know the history of the second painting, but let's imagine it was commissioned during Hitler's lifetime. Though the propaganda function of that painting is less obvious, clearly one of the reasons countries commission painted portraits of their leaders is to stress their importance. To whit, regular, ordinary people aren't typically important enough to be the subject of classical paintings (which is not to say that ordinary people have not, from time to time, been elevated to that level of importance). That all said, despite the care put into creating a high quality portrait, I suspect that displaying this portrait in one's home would elicit a considerably different response from one's friends than the other.
In either case, I suspect that very few people would display either portrait simply for its artistic value. One chooses to display these portraits to make a very specific point.
So, let's look instead at this painting:
Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ
Just to make it clear that I'm not trying to trick anybody, that painting is by Hitler.
What does it mean if one displays that painting on their wall? Its subject matter is benign, but the artist was a monster. A viewer looking at the painting without any knowledge of its creator might see it as a fairly trite religious painting. A viewer with a knowledge of its creator might see it as an unpleasant political statement on the part of the person displaying the work. Perhaps some viewers would see in it a tragedy in it of a young, failed artist who chose an appalling alternate career path.
On the other hand, how many other failed artists from this same period have their mediocre paintings of Madonna and child available for viewing on the Internet? The only remarkable thing about this painting is who created it - sort of like John Wayne Gacy paintings.
I guess the point I'm getting to here (and it is a relativist point, after a fashion) is that a person's understanding of the context of a particular work cannot help but influence their perception of that work. [uwfttp] makes a good point about how his (I'm assuming "his") perception of the Timesculpture might have been altered had the end of the video (which identifies it as a commercial) had been cut off.
One could also point to Duchamp's fountain, which only makes sense as art if one actually knows about the artists' message. One could also make the argument that, regardless of the artists' message, Duchamp didn't actually do anything other than paint a psuedonym on the side of a urinal and, thus, its not art. Is the art in the message? It is in the actual work? Is it in the mind of the viewer only?
How we import meaning and value into art seems to be at least as much a function of our actual knowledge about any given piece of art and its artist.
Of course, there are some works of such transcendent beauty and importance that the have a profound and immediate impact on any viewer.
Egads, I think that might be the still image equivalent of a rick roll.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:05 PM on November 20, 2008
Obama
Hitler
Arguably, the first painting has an undeniable propaganda purpose. Furthermore, in light of how popular Obama has proven to be, this print (?) might be something that a certain segment of the population would be proud to display in their home.
I don't know the history of the second painting, but let's imagine it was commissioned during Hitler's lifetime. Though the propaganda function of that painting is less obvious, clearly one of the reasons countries commission painted portraits of their leaders is to stress their importance. To whit, regular, ordinary people aren't typically important enough to be the subject of classical paintings (which is not to say that ordinary people have not, from time to time, been elevated to that level of importance). That all said, despite the care put into creating a high quality portrait, I suspect that displaying this portrait in one's home would elicit a considerably different response from one's friends than the other.
In either case, I suspect that very few people would display either portrait simply for its artistic value. One chooses to display these portraits to make a very specific point.
So, let's look instead at this painting:
Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ
Just to make it clear that I'm not trying to trick anybody, that painting is by Hitler.
What does it mean if one displays that painting on their wall? Its subject matter is benign, but the artist was a monster. A viewer looking at the painting without any knowledge of its creator might see it as a fairly trite religious painting. A viewer with a knowledge of its creator might see it as an unpleasant political statement on the part of the person displaying the work. Perhaps some viewers would see in it a tragedy in it of a young, failed artist who chose an appalling alternate career path.
On the other hand, how many other failed artists from this same period have their mediocre paintings of Madonna and child available for viewing on the Internet? The only remarkable thing about this painting is who created it - sort of like John Wayne Gacy paintings.
I guess the point I'm getting to here (and it is a relativist point, after a fashion) is that a person's understanding of the context of a particular work cannot help but influence their perception of that work. [uwfttp] makes a good point about how his (I'm assuming "his") perception of the Timesculpture might have been altered had the end of the video (which identifies it as a commercial) had been cut off.
One could also point to Duchamp's fountain, which only makes sense as art if one actually knows about the artists' message. One could also make the argument that, regardless of the artists' message, Duchamp didn't actually do anything other than paint a psuedonym on the side of a urinal and, thus, its not art. Is the art in the message? It is in the actual work? Is it in the mind of the viewer only?
How we import meaning and value into art seems to be at least as much a function of our actual knowledge about any given piece of art and its artist.
Of course, there are some works of such transcendent beauty and importance that the have a profound and immediate impact on any viewer.
Egads, I think that might be the still image equivalent of a rick roll.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:05 PM on November 20, 2008
And thank you, DreamerFi and [uwfttp] for the conversation!
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:06 PM on November 20, 2008
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:06 PM on November 20, 2008
« Older Yum - Yum...Gone! | The Faroe (Fær Øer) pilot whales... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also, first FPP. Tell me what I could have done better; I can take it.
posted by [user was fined for this post] at 12:05 PM on November 19, 2008