I often think to myself while viewing advertisements, that if a company's name a logo weren't on it, that the piece might be able to be hung in a gallery and viewed as art. Advertising, however, from what I understand of it, does not simply appeal to the viewer's apparent emotions. Advertisements are often designed to connect certain feelings together underneath the surface. Take this Subaru advertisement up top for example. Upon first viewing, one might think of how pretty and perfect it looks. Possibly how cool the figure on the left looks and they might not view the connection between the two, that the figure on the left is meant to amplify the car's power. This lack of understanding on a conscious level might come about if images like this one are seen quickly, like on a billboard, television advertisement or an ad on a website.
Advertising has most definitely turned into a creative field, especially with advancements in digital photography and digital photo manipulation software. The most popular example of this would be Photoshop. Photoshop is where my skepticism of advertising as art really flourishes. The latest Photoshop includes the most advanced version of Auto Fill ever. Auto Fill algorithmically analyzes the picture and will take select sections of the picture out of it, filling in the spaces with what would have been there. Photographs seen now in advertising and all forms of mass media are rarely real, so for us to say that advertising is art is to say that pictures generated in Photoshop and relative programs are art too.
Q: Do you feel that photos manipulated digitally can still be taken as art?
No comments:
Post a Comment