Art Lite: Why Advertising is not Art

When renowned 19th-century painter John Millais allowed Thomas Barrett to use his paintings to promote Pears’ soap, he hoped the ads would foster an appreciation for the fine arts. As it turned out, artists enjoyed their exclusivity and resented mixing “high culture” with “the vulgar.” Millais invited the wrath of his peers because he allowed his work of art to be turned into an “advertisement.”

The essence of the “Child’s World” piece remained, but the addition of the Pears’ brand altered the context of the painting. In its original form, Millais invites the viewer to revel in the beauty and innocence of childhood. His invitation remains even after the additions, but it is no longer the purpose of the piece. The sales pitch became the real purpose of the painting, while the image of the child became the lovely dress to lure in the viewer.

The impact artists have made in the advertising industry begs the question: do “real” artists work in advertising instead of the fine arts? If so, can ads now be considered works of art? The face of art may have changed, but its constitution has not. Art is an end unto itself. Although advertisements share similar attributes, the underlying intentions are what separates them. Advertising is a tool, a means to an end. Therefore, “real” artists work in advertising and don’t just make art.

In this essay, the word “art” refers to its philosophical meaning under the study of aesthetics. Instead of focussing on the mechanical aspects of the practice, the subject of art will deal with a piece’s ephemeral, emotional, sensory, and intellectual sensibilities. As such, society looks upon art with reverence, as if it were a gift from God. It is not seen but witnessed. It can transcend time, culture, and dogma while communicating on a level beyond language and awareness. In the presence of great works of art like Michelangelo’s David or Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, we are often left speechless – unable to articulate how or why the piece moves us entirely. To this extent, the power of art does not just lie in the artist’s technical abilities but in its ability to provide insight into the human experience. The message need not be agreeable, apparent or even necessary, but it must express the artist’s beliefs for it to be considered fine art. The intention of the piece is vital to its integrity.

In contrast, applied arts incorporate elements and principles of design and creative ideals into utility objects. This practice may include design, photography, graphic arts, desktop publishing, typography, video, etc. The advertising industry encompasses all these disciplines to promote any product or service. Therefore, an ad is merely an object of utility that incorporates artistic ideals.

The perception of the fine arts being on a higher aesthetic plane is still common today. However, the work produced by both disciplines looks so similar that the results may appear interchangeable. This notion was not true in the past when art institutions and academia made the distinction between art and artifact more evident. Contemporary art and advertising, however, use different tools and technology but also employ similar tactics to reach their respective audiences. Once restricted to paints, pencils or other traditional media, contemporary artistic practice includes using mediums prevalent in applied arts. Since artists nowadays are more immersed in technology, many have incorporated it into their work.

Pop Art was an art movement that began in Britain during the 1950s and continued to grow in America later in that decade. At this time, artists were conscious of the influence of mass media, popular culture and the ethos of consumption. Artists like Andy Warhol (an artist from the advertising industry) used familiar mass-produced images and elevated them as fine art through appropriation and deconstruction.

This phenomenon continued well into the 90s with the rise of the Young British Artists. The most prominent member of this collective is English artist, entrepreneur and art collector Damien Hirst. Known for his controversial pieces mainly focusing on the subject of death, Hirst put himself on the “map” by placing a 14-foot shark in a tank of formaldehyde in his installation titled, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.” Julian Stallabrass, in High Art Lite: British Art in the 1990s, aptly describes Hirst’s body of work as “spectacular and attention-seeking.” Hirst’s work perfectly combines slick mass marketing and conceptual art.

Despite Hirst’s appeal and success, many of his peers and critics have questioned his works and integrity as an artist. He unapologetically blends his concepts with elements from advertising and mass media. As a result, Stallabrass believes Hirst has become a “visible manifestation of a brand” where “both artwork and self disappear into the pure image and pure celebrity.” If Hirst were a brand, could his art pieces be considered the ads promoting him? If that were true, then could ads, in turn, be considered art even if they promote a brand?

While the above argument seems reasonable, art exists independent of the artist’s public image. The commercial aspect comes after. The marketing of the artist and his work belongs to a system in the artistic community that is separate from the art-making process that defines art. Even in Hirst’s case, becoming a brand was part of his artistic concept. His body of work was a study of the artist’s persona. His goal was to turn himself into a brand, and he commented on how the public’s perception of the artist affects the perception of his work. Unlike advertising, commerce is not the goal of art. It can, however, be a bi-product.

Using art and artistic sensibilities as frames of reference for manufacturers is not a recent phenomenon. Art preceded advertising. As more products were introduced during the Industrial Revolution, the presentation of consumer goods evolved from the ubiquity of plain packaging to the development of the brand. To establish brand identity, many manufacturers incorporated the decorative elements of art to enhance their product’s appeal. The evolution of technology and media continues to directly impact the development of the advertising industry as we know it. As a result, campaigns have become far more sophisticated and conceptual, thus at times blurring the distinction between an ad and a work of contemporary art.

The partnership between photographer Oliviero Toscani and international fashion brand Benetton in 1986 resulted in the most artistic-looking yet controversial ads in advertising history. Known for his “shocking and uniquely ingenious” style, Toscani helped Benetton position itself as a “subverter of stereotypes.” Benetton’s products were deliberately omitted from the ads. Instead, the “United Colors” campaign showed integrated images from the time’s conflicting social, political, cultural, and religious ideals. The most memorable and scandalous ad of the series symbolized the discord between sex and religion by portraying an image of a priest and nun kissing.

Later campaigns abandoned the traditional concept of fashion advertising altogether and presented pictures in a typical reportage style. Whether an image of a newborn child or a photo of a person with AIDS, David Kirby, on his deathbed, Benetton’s angle was to “introduce depth of field and a bit of real life into the artificially sweet world of advertising.” Benetton’s campaign strategies encompassed many artistic ideals. Its ads not only presented its audience with “realistic and shocking” depictions of the human condition but also challenged the notion of advertising by incorporating images and issues deemed inappropriate for the fashion industry.

Though Benetton produced thought-provoking pieces that engage its audience on deeper moral, emotional, and intellectual levels, they cannot be categorized as art. Many of the images used in the ads were not staged nor taken for the use of Benetton. Pictures like the one of a soldier gripping a human thighbone or a man assassinated by the Mafia were news photos of real, high-drama situations. The famous picture of Kirby on his deathbed appeared in Life magazine’s November 1990 issue and received the 1991 World Press Photo Award before being appropriated by Benetton. Much like Millias’ paintings, the pictures themselves are works of art. Unfortunately, they, too, became advertisements when the Benetton logo was added. It altered the images’ context. Those unfamiliar with the pictures’ origins may even wonder if the scenes were staged to be used in the ad. Ground-breaking images like the one of Kirby, moments before succumbing to AIDS, will forever be known as a promotion for fashionable clothing.

Despite the similarities, the distinction between advertising and contemporary art lies in their makers’ creative process, intentions and context for their work. The same artistic techniques may be used, the same creative faculties may be employed, and even the materials used may be identical. Still, the contexts in which artworks and advertisements are presented define them. Since many artists work in the advertising industry, it is easy to see why their work for their clients can be seen as art. They have elevated the campaigns’ quality and made them more engaging. Unfortunately, the business strategy replaces the exploratory, transcendent and personal expressions that identify art.

Thus, artists may work in advertising but must produce fine art for their audiences.