Sorry. This one’s a bit dull.
Thinking about Sunday’s post, I’ve come to a few conclusions that seem to have thrown up more questions than I would like.
1. As commenter ‘Paul’ pointed out, there were holes in my assertion through which a Sherman Tank could be driven. There are plenty of ads now that are as good, in their own way, as Lemon.
2. But plenty are far worse, so if advertising doesn’t improve uniformly, that just makes it like many other art forms. Unlike science, where you build on each piece of knowledge until it becomes obsolete, the development of art creates ‘new’ and ‘different’, but whether either of those two words denote ‘better’, is a matter of opinion. I believe ads like ‘Lemon’ would be considered brilliant today, but much of what was produced 50 years ago would not, and that’s just like movies (Renoir, Kurosawa, Hawks=great; thousands of other films from their era-shite), books, art etc.
3. Perhaps the improvement of ads is more like evolution, where the obsolete is discarded as the form seeks to fit its current time. Sure, we still have press ads, but the starburst has long since disappeared (pretty much).
4. But then there’s the relentless search for the new. Does that lead to viable styles and techniques being cast aside before their time? Or is this neophilia a result and perpetuation of the need for originality?
Hmmm…
I reckon there will always be shit.
Shit football teams (nice one, everton)
Shit restaurants.
Shit art.
Shit music.
Shit clients.
Twas ever thus. It all depends which direction you want to look.
I’m not sure what we want as creatives and what clients want are the same thing.
If originality is the best way forward how come clients like (I’m not allowed to say) only ever do the same thing. They never never change. Nearly all of their products are the market leaders in every country in the world. All without an original ad.
Tried and tested is what clients like. And that’s what consumers like on the box too.
Our agency produces hundreds of ads a year. a couple are noted and the rest no one really thinks about. It’s the ones that ‘try’ to be good everyone slags off. ‘Not good enough’ everyone shouts but what about the other two hundred ads that no one tried on?
I’m all for originality but fuck it’s a slog at the minute.
I can’t even remember what my point was but if you can figure it out, let me know.
I’d agree with pretty much all of those rhetorical questions.
Advertising has always been and uneasy alliance between art and commerce. The art part always seeks originality, whilst the commerce part seeks to replicate what is known to be successful.
These days the commerce part undeniably has the upper hand.
Which I guess is why advertising has become so formulaic.
Hmmm
There was a time when John Doe had the upper hand and Gwyneth Paltrow’s head was in a box.
Happy times.
Where do people stand on music in the office?
Any rules?