So I was not intending to post about fashion advertisements again, but when I received my February issue of NYLON magazine, I found a section devoted to what I was referencing in my first post. This will not be a reiteration of that post, but a reflection on it. I will try to incorporate some art history to back up artists and their influence on advertising.
First, the images, since they express the point clearly without words:
The magazine photos deftly incorporate styles and techniques the artists – Gustav Klimt, Roy Lichtenstein, Jackson Pollock, and Rene Magritte- used in their works. Below are examples of their artworks, respectively, to give a broader contextual view. The images used are Klimt’s The Kiss, Lichtenstein’s Girl with Hair Ribbon , Pollock’s Convergence, and Magritte’s High Society.
Unfortunately, apparently WordPress only allows one giant block of images, not separate ones, which is completely ridiculous and goes against the points I wanted to make in this post, and probably future ones. Oh well, I guess I will have to adapt to their form as everyone must adapt to the different emerging technologies. Nothing is perfect, and maybe someone can give me feedback if WordPress is changing this or not.
Anyways, back to business. So if you look down at the bottom of this post and notice some of the fashion ads have ads for similar products next to them. This is by no means revolutionary. However, one must question if it is a reflection on the actual fashion of today or if we are being primed to believe these accessories are not just picked to illustrate the point the magazine is trying to express. Obviously, it is probably the latter. Intention does not create meaning, after all.
I want to talk a little about art history and its effect on and also influence by the advertising industry. I will focus mainly on the Pop Art period. Pop Art was a movement in America in the late 1950s. It is a direct reflection of the seemingly new incessant bombardment of advertising at the time. When most people hear the words Pop Art, they think of Andy Warhol. Warhol, in the 1963 article , “What is Pop Art?”, by Gene Swenson, draws the connection between pop art and advertising. He says, “…like the shoe I would be drawing for an advertisement was called a ‘creation’ but the drawing of it was not.” He is saying that both forms can be considered art. In the same article, Roy Lichtenstein, when asked what is pop art, responds, “I don’t know- the use of commercial art as subject matter in painting. I suppose… it is an involvement with what I think to be the most brazen and threatening characteristics of our culture, things we hate, but which are also so powerful in their impingement on us.”
I think the two art forms are inseparable. Why should they be so different, after all? Both are creations of the mind, both have potential to be widely disseminated to audiences, both kind of “sell-out” in a way to create a profit. Although advertisements are much more “in your face” and art is supposed to be pure creativity, don’t both forms have characteristics of the other? If you would once again turn your attention below to the images, I have found Roy Lichtenstein- inspired images for Tide ads. Also, to further illustrate my point, I found a good article, albeit long, comparing Magritte to advertisements, here.
