Advertising as Art: An Argument

Most of us like to think that we’re entitled to our opinions, and most of us articulate our opinions in keeping with this spirit of entitlement. We’re quick to legitimize what we like, dismiss what we dislike and to oppose competing points of view. And when it comes to art and advertising, people – here I speak of the somewhat informed many, not the well-informed few - tend to have distinct associations and defined points of view. In the popular imagination, Art is pure, born of ideal and idea, untainted by commerce. Great art is something the world is always in need of. Advertising, on the other hand, is glorified salesmanship. Ads are eyesores, frequently crude, unabashedly commercial. Ads are the siren call of capitalism. Always taken with a pinch of salt, they’re something the world could do without.

Art and advertising. We’re somehow convinced that the twain will never meet. 

Except that they have, and do.

There are numerous examples of art masquerading as advertising. Both BMW and Mercedes have sponsored art, with the caveat being that their cars are used as the canvas. Skoda has launched a prize for emerging Indian artists. Levi’s and Dewar’s have recently collaborated with painters and performing artists, commissioning either graffiti or music depending on how they want their brand identity to translate into artistic forms. Louis Vuitton has commissioned sold-out collections by maverick Japanese artist Takashi Murakami, and Absolut has elevated artistic collaboration into an art form of its own, commissioning pieces by Warhol, Basquiat, Subodh Gupta, Keith Haring, RoseMarie Trockel and several others. These works form part of traveling exhibitions and there are concrete plans to establish an Absolut Museum in Stockholm. 

It’s evident even from this very limited set of examples that artists and advertisers have been striking bargains for some time now. The artist gains an opportunity to interact with new audiences and engage with new forms. The brand acquires cultural currency and legitimacy – extremely valuable in an age where more and more brands like to think of themselves as purveyors of content, not products.

Authors have also pointed out the structural similarities between the markets for art and advertising. In Renaissance Italy, for instance, artists and patrons drew up contracts specifying the size, content, color schemes and the date of completion of paintings. These contracts often codified minutiae, with artists specifying just how much time they would spend on the work, as opposed to the time spent by apprentices. Often, patrons would demand that a certain quantity of indigo or gold leaf be used in the work, and the artist would correspondingly have to account for purchases, weights and produce proofs of payment. Knowing this, the art markets of today - crowded with auction houses, per-square-foot rates and artists who are less personality and more ‘brand’ – seem like an evolution rather than a departure from (or betrayal of) the past. And both kinds of art markets – past and present – bear a startling similarity to the agency-client relationship.

Parallels have been also been drawn between the motives of Renaissance patrons and present-day advertisers. According to game theorists, patrons in Italy used commissions to ‘signal’ status and make statements regarding religious and political affiliations. Art was an investment, made with a view towards building a personal and familial reputation. This reputation could then be drawn on to facilitate business and social relationships and to tide families over crises caused by slander or scandal. In a sense, both the 15^th century Italian noble and the modern-day brand owner are pursuing the same ends – both seek to create a distinct identity and build equity. They are signaling certain attributes towards long-term ends.

Having established that art and advertising have more in common than one would assume, I’d like to propose a rather more controversial thesis. If art and advertising can be used collaboratively, to fulfill similar ends, is it possible to think of advertising as art? 

Which brings us to the question – what is art?

The answer to this question is constantly evolving. Developments in science and technology, shifts in ideology and society have conspired to consistently challenge ideas about what constitutes art. Contemporary art is digital, video, performance-based, mixed-media, installations, typographical, abstract. The conventional markers of art – paintings, frames, clearly defined sculptures and identifiable themes – are increasingly difficult to find. We are living in the age of art as idea, concept and engagement.

And what, then, is advertising?

Advertising  too is changing – going viral, becoming high-tech, aspiring to become embedded in lives and conversations, aiming for ‘shareability,’ blurring the lines that separate ‘creativity’ from ‘commerce’ and ‘consumers’ from ‘companies.’ We are living in the age of advertising as content and experience creation with a view towards building brands and driving sales through engagement.  

This overlap - the pursuit of engagement - between art and advertising mirrors another seismic shift which raised questions about the nature of art and the legitimacy of new artistic forms – the emergence of photography and film. I find it useful to reference Walter Benjamin’s seminal essay discussing the impact of mechanical reproduction on art

According to Benjamin, art had always derived its ‘aura’  from tradition and ritual – after all, many great works of art started their lives as cult or religious objects. Moreover, their power lay in their authenticity and uniqueness – being one of a kind, being original. But photography liberated art from this need for authenticity – after all, any number of prints could be taken from a single negative. Who was to say that one print was more authentic and therefore invested with more power than the other? 

Films went one step further. They were art forms created for popular, rather than individual consumption, allowing audiences to experience motion, images and sound. Through the use of mechanical equipment, films created mass illusions that seemed real.

Cumulatively, photography and film divorced art from the ritual and the personal. I propose that advertising in its current form takes art full-circle, bringing it back into the realm of the ritual and re-establishing a personal relationship between the object and the audience.

Why do I say this? Firstly, because irrespective of our preoccupation with reach, numbers and ROI, advertising is ultimately personal. While all brands seek approval from the many, the basis for this approval is personal engagement, built with individual consumers who then make choices about sharing/ embedding the brand within their social contexts.  The brand might ultimately address a large audience, but this journey begins by winning over a few influencers, one handful at a time.

Secondly, advertising endows an object (in this case the product or the brand) with ritual qualities. Ads spin narratives around products and brands. These narratives are intended to shape perceptions, elicit emotional responses and evoke meaning and feeling. The ultimate aim is to make the product or the brand an indispensible part of the individual's routine and personal schema. It is just that the rituals in question are of a different order - not traditional religious rites but everyday contemporary behaviours - drinking a favorite brand of coffee, staying at a particular hotel, investing with a specific mutual fund, working with a certain organization, even day-dreaming about being able to buy the 'IT' bag.

It is advertising and branding that endow these decisions with significance. After all, in a world in which one can assume a base level of quality and product parity, what is the difference between drinking Lavazza or Nescafe? The difference is that by choosing between them, a consumer is buying into different promises, different experiences. And when this selection is made on a regular basis, the product or brand becomes part of the consumer's personal schema - the framework of thoughts and behaviors through which she negotiates the world. And isn't that precisely what rituals help us do?

I'm making some bold and contentious claims, and I'm aware that my argument is far from water-tight. But it's also time to look at advertising in the eye, see it for everything that it is. Yes, advertising is always creativity in the service of commerce. But it is also culture, ritual, story-telling and object-making. Advertising can tell us about where the world is going, help us distinguish ourselves from one another, aid us in making our decisions. It is creativity put to work. There's no denying that advertising is problematic, complicated, frequently irresponsible (occasionally manipulative) and aesthetically questionable. But it is undeniably a product of its times - an imperfect art, speaking to imperfect people, in an imperfect world.