A few centuries ago, art was considered/used as advertising (some of my favs: Alfonso Mucha, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec). Now there are a lot of debates on whether advertising can be considered art. All the creatives from the advertising agencies long for the 'artist' status. Is placing fine art in the ads a way of getting it? Of course not, but the number of famous paintings used in prints is increasing lately and I find some of them interesting and funny.
El Corte Ingles launched this year a campaign inspired by Velázquez's 'Las Meninas'. Practically, the painting is being brought into modern times, each and every element from the original painting being edited according to today's life. Velázquez is becoming a photographer, the canvas is an umbrella, even the wardrobe keeps the times' feeling, besides the painter's leather jacket obviously. Nothing is random, not even selecting Velázquez for promoting a very traditional supermarket for Spanish people. El Corte Ingles is their every Sunday store, a family tradition as they go together, almost a ritual. I could go on and on talking about Las Meninas and its mirror and reflection game, about the semiotics of this painting, as it was also a subject for my thesis at University, but I will let you discover its meaning.
Another long term debate in advertising is on the efficiency of the campaigns. I won't go to El Corte Ingles just because I like Velázquez but for sure this print will stick to my mind. What exactly are they counting on when creating such an ad? They say it's useful because art catches your eyes and the ad grabs its quality, increasing memory on the product. It is true that art connects emotionally with people and in a way it is less artificial and has a stronger impact.
Art appropriation is the use of a work of art in an advertisement. It seems that in the process of appropriation, art lends some of its cultural aura to the advertisement, which becomes aesthetically charged. A bit too spiritual, isn't it? A few qualitative studies suggest that not only does appropriation result in the advertisement gaining some aesthetic value, but it also results in the artwork losing some of its original aesthetic value.
Anyway, there is a constant fear among contemporary artists that, if their work will be stripped of the artistic context, very little would remain. Do Dali, Velázquez , Magritte and many others turn in their graves right now?
Advertising, as McLuhan said, may have indeed been the greatest art form of the 20th century. Perhaps art will be known as the greatest form of advertising in the next.
El Corte Ingles launched this year a campaign inspired by Velázquez's 'Las Meninas'. Practically, the painting is being brought into modern times, each and every element from the original painting being edited according to today's life. Velázquez is becoming a photographer, the canvas is an umbrella, even the wardrobe keeps the times' feeling, besides the painter's leather jacket obviously. Nothing is random, not even selecting Velázquez for promoting a very traditional supermarket for Spanish people. El Corte Ingles is their every Sunday store, a family tradition as they go together, almost a ritual. I could go on and on talking about Las Meninas and its mirror and reflection game, about the semiotics of this painting, as it was also a subject for my thesis at University, but I will let you discover its meaning.
Another long term debate in advertising is on the efficiency of the campaigns. I won't go to El Corte Ingles just because I like Velázquez but for sure this print will stick to my mind. What exactly are they counting on when creating such an ad? They say it's useful because art catches your eyes and the ad grabs its quality, increasing memory on the product. It is true that art connects emotionally with people and in a way it is less artificial and has a stronger impact.
Art appropriation is the use of a work of art in an advertisement. It seems that in the process of appropriation, art lends some of its cultural aura to the advertisement, which becomes aesthetically charged. A bit too spiritual, isn't it? A few qualitative studies suggest that not only does appropriation result in the advertisement gaining some aesthetic value, but it also results in the artwork losing some of its original aesthetic value.
Anyway, there is a constant fear among contemporary artists that, if their work will be stripped of the artistic context, very little would remain. Do Dali, Velázquez , Magritte and many others turn in their graves right now?
Advertising, as McLuhan said, may have indeed been the greatest art form of the 20th century. Perhaps art will be known as the greatest form of advertising in the next.
Posts
3 comments:
Do you know what agency made the advertising?
Herve
Questionning a model at the top it's not alway a good idea (http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2007/last-supper-in-advertising/)and it could be your last supper : ask to Francois Girbaud for that...
very nice post I am really enjoyed visiting your blog thanks for sharing…
Post a Comment