Friday, November 04, 2005

Taking the commercial out of commercial art.

The ‘What is art? What is not?’ debate can get pretty heated. For the sake of argument let us take the common perception – that art is anything that creates an emotional reaction in the observer, and that it is popular, well, at least liked by more than one person.

Visibility is the first precursor to popularity.

The visibility of art, of course, is hinged on many factors – distribution, notoriety (of the piece, the subject and the artist themselves), frequency, PR and whatnot.

However, there generally has to be some consensus on behalf of a majority whether the piece is exemplary, to some set of objective criteria, vs being merely self-indulgent. So. The value, and ultimately the influence of art, is not really a subjective experience when factored into a mass audience.

But enough whitter. Here is one of my favourite Nike ads of all time Nike Tag

Continuing along the theme from yesterday - the logo only comes at the very end. But it is so distinctively Nike that it wouldn’t matter if every other advertiser tried to emulate it. There is a Nike feel that can be pulled through every element of this ad. This ad will always be known as ‘That Nike Ad’.


At 3:18 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an intriguing ad, in that it really could be an ad for anything: Nike shoes, sporting goods, any other article of clothing. It is a story about the world playing games, but will be known as a Nike ad due to two scenes: a split second shot of shoes, and the logo. The name and logo are so recognizable and commonplace, that Nike doesn't have to fill their time with shots of new products and slogans, they might as well do something more creative in the meantime. Why not something artistic?


Post a Comment

<< Home