Ben’s hierarchy of artistic quality
Over the years of writing this blog I’ve read many comments that suggest one kind of advertising is better or worse than other; that producing mediocre or even shit ads is somehow an awful way to spend your life; that some art forms offer true creativity and are therefore superior to others.
Well, maybe that’s the case, but maybe it’s just bullshit. Is The Wire better than EastEnders? You could certainly find millions who would argue each side of that. Is Dylan better than One Direction? Ditto. And when it comes to art, as in art, does Picasso beat Renoir, Chagall or Rubens? If so, why?
Of course, there is no ultimate measure of such things, only subjective opinions that swirl around looking bigger or smaller, more or less right depending on who is talking and who is listening.
But fuck all that. Let’s lay the order out properly so you know what a valuable or pathetic person you really are:
Art: proper old art like that renaissance stuff comes first, and paintings ahead of sculptures. Then modern stuff, with the more famous being superior to people you’ve never heard of. The more other people say it’s great, the better it is, and that applies to almost all art.
Literature: The old stuff gets the best press. Shakespeare and Dickens (I know Shakespeare’s were plays but it’s writing, innit?) seem to be the giants of the form, then all those nineteenth century Jane Austen/Thomas Hardy/Dostoyevsky/Flaubert types. 20th century guys like Joyce/Fitzgerald/Faulkner/Nabokov/Steinbeck etc. Then modern ones like Amis, Coetzee and Rushdie. Middlebrow people like Nick Hornby come next, followed by commercial fiction, romance and Jordan novels.
Film: modern masters such as Kubrick, Scorsese, Coppola etc. win, but only in their 70s heyday. Then the old greats: Hawks, Welles, Wilder, Ford etc. Then the best of the new, such as the Coens and Paul Thomas Anderson. Then drop down a level in each of those categories and keep going until you reach Michael Bay. Indies always beat blockbusters.
Music: up there with film, but in a different way. Boring people like classical music; cool people like rock. Dylan, Hendrix, The Beatles, all that stuff… You can’t really compare it to Mozart or Beethoven, so don’t even try. Pick your faves and you can make a case for most of them (except Steps and the Vengaboys).
Photography: Classic greats such as Cartier-Bresson, Lartigue, Man Ray, Cappa, Strand etc, then anyone who has worked for Magnum, then the reportage fellas like Salgado and McCullin, then modern people like Gursky, who are further down the list because they use post, the cheating bastards.
TV: this is now close to passing photography. Its only problem is it has yet to make its way into art galleries where it can bask in the reflective glow of the surroundings. Of course stuff like Mad Men, The Wire, Breaking Bad etc. are the current best and best of all time (we’re in a golden age, people; enjoy the fuck out of it). Then there’s old stuff that people say is good, like Our Friends In The North and House of Cards, then good old comedy like Blackadder and Fawlty Towers and finally, everything else.
Advertising: this is the order: cinema, TV, posters, press, experiential wank, radio, digital, below the line. And then: big brands like Apple, VW, Nike etc., then small brands you’ve never heard of, then big brands that are boring and shit, like Asda. So a good ad for Nike in press beats a great ad for Cif in cinema. It’s all about tell-your-mates-ability. Good work is always cooler, but the bigger the brand, the better. Advertising people might care more if you knock a boring brand out of the park, but your mates probably won’t understand why that’s such a big deal. In the world of advertising people good work for shitty brands is given three extra marks out of ten for difficulty, but like I said: no one else gives a toss
Of course, none of the above is true. I just made it up to give you something to fume/chortle about on a Thursday morning.
(Except secretly you know it is all 100% true and it either bruises your soul or makes you swell with pride to admit it.)
Sublime/Shite.
Gotta disagree there. Advertising is not art. It has to solve a problem, increase sales, change behaviour. Good ads work, bad ones don’t.
But Ben, what about writing/literature (books, plays, poetry, the Beano)?
First, in Film you’ve missed Hitchcock… unless you think he is in “etc.” if so… I don’t respect you anymore 🙂
Second, I’ll start watching The Wire tonight. Not because of you but because of “It’s a Disaster” 2012 – did you see it? It’s a decent comedy… so all characters in it will die within 3 hours, and one of the women starts to cry because she will die without watching The Wire…
Third, in Advertising I’ll probably put digital after below the line 🙂
@SAC: Bernbach said advertising is persuasion and persuasion is an art.
@Lubomir: I didn’t include *everything*. Of course Hitchcock is in the Welles/Ford group.
@G: maybe I’ll add books.
I would opine that a perfectly executed solid poo (ie solid, no more odour than a freshly baked biscuit, no splash and crescendos in a glory wipe) beats advertising.
I think I’m with SAC more than Bernbach on this one.
Advertising is not an art, it’s advertising.
Much like bus driving is not an art, it’s bus driving.
The foundation of BB’s argument seems somehow wrong to me. Is persuasion really an art? I mean, if I get my wife to drive on a drunken night out am I an artist? Was my argument a work of art?
I think Bernbach was more trying to make the (correct) point that advertising is definitely not a science. But then who am I to put words in his mouth.
I heard someone once say that creativity without strategy is art. Creativity with strategy is advertising. It’s not perfect (anything commercial has strategy – be it TV, books, cinema), but I think it’s better.
Even if advertising isn’t an art, it helps to treat it like one.
Anyway, it’s only a matter of definition. The lines are blurred.
As for the original post. Phew. Big one. Is it not the idea that’s more important than the medium? What makes an idea of greater artistic worth? Is an expression of an idea less brilliant the more abstract it becomes, as some argue? Or is that testimony to a greater depth of idea? Hard to say.
Kierkegaard makes a rock solid case for Mozart’s Don Giovanni being the best work of art of all time. Is that in the same category as Steps? Nope.
I need to believe there is an objective difference between real art and utter shite. What separates ‘Hamlet’ from Kasabian? Something, surely. But I’m fucked if I know where or how the line is drawn.
Soul? What soul?
Also, does this make Jordan more of an artist than Alex Bogusky?
Well, it’s a bit of a grey area, but yes it does.
Long poo, Ben?
@S&C an @Anonymous
Somewhere in Sir John’s speeches is the story about the Italian artist who included a particular glass bottle in his painting. The bottle was there to promote the products of the artists patron. And the argument being that (some) art was the advertising of its time.
Advertising then seen as art now. Advertising now since as art sometime in the future?
Not sure how many clients are going to sign up to the thought that they’re investing their production budget in ‘art’…. Where’s that Dave Knockles when you need him eh?
Could all art have strategy too?
It maybe appear to be self-agrandissement but hasn’t a degree of calculation been deployed to capture an intended audience?
People’s appreciation of the great works of art tends to appreciate over time. It’s almost impossible to define any piece of true art as ‘great’ until its been given the perspective of a few years distance. That goes for film, photography, music, anything really.
Advertising is created specifically to be appreciated in a contemporary context, so the inverse is true. If people don’t love an ad instantly, it will disappear without a trace and be long forgotten. Very, very, very few ads stand the test of time for any reason other than nostalgia. It is this quality that makes them incompatible with ‘true’ art. That and the meerkats.
Warning kids.
Never post on your blog after half a bottle of Lambrini.
Does anyone give a shit about D&AD? This is (kind of) an ad blog, yet we’re not talking about what is meant to be one of the biggest nights of the year. I guess we’ve all become jaded with the whole money grabbing awards system. Or none of us won a fucking pencil. In fact hardly anyone wins a fucking pencil any more. Superhumans and Dumb Ways to Die won Black and shit loads of Yellows, but virtually nothing else won (in film at least). Does anybody care?
All of the things on the list, apart from advertising, are art forms. Advertising isn’t an art form.
Advertising uses art forms for commercial ends. The artistic skills of visual art, writing, film-making, music etc are often employed, but not to create art in itself, but to make things designed to meet commercial goals.
Advertising isn’t art, but there is often an art to making it.
Ah, Dave Knockles. Many laughs were had on the agency bog while reading his blog(s).
I still don’t think advertising is an art form. But what do you say to something like Warhol’s Campbell soup? Is it a work of art? Yes. Is it advertising? Sort of. Can the two be separated? Not always. But advertising serves a purpose, whereas art (more often than not) doesn’t.
@George: I had no idea D&AD was happening until I read about it via a couple of Tweets.
Really, really, really couldn’t give a toss.
(Congrats to all the winners.)
Didn’t the Coca-Cola poster win last year at D&AD?
Expedia. So they’re now awarding campaigns that rip-offed other award winning campaigns. Congratulations Mr.Ogilvy.
Dan Brown is a below-the-line novelist.
This year’s press winners are underwhelming.
Hey! Bellends! What about my poo comment?
Jeez. Sometimes I don’t know why I bother.
I wonder as well, Lavendula.