One thing that threw me a little bit was the use of “text” to signify any form of artwork. That seemed odd, especially in connection with ads, which are debatable as art. But whatever, I can insert “work” for “text”.
Almost all ads (within print, electronic and television, that is) have some artistic basis. But very rarely would I consider them art. It takes a lot to impress me. Plus, I am one of the worst kinds of people to target with advertising: non-competitive (not a social-climber or consumer of social-status items), non-materialistic, creative and innovative (meaning I figure out what I need and come up with ways to make it), educated, skeptical, and artistic. I like ads for their ability to convey information with images and words, but that is about it.
I recently saw a TV commercial for some kind of alcohol that made me go, “Oh wow! That was really well done!” Since I don’t drink, I didn’t pay attention to the brand (not their goal, I’m sure) but I loved how they snagged design elements from Gatorade and iPod commercials and added their own twist.
It was cool reading about the Orwell “1984” connection to the Apple commercial. I’m excited to see the commercial when I have access to a high-speed connection.
I just looked at the websites submitted by Katie. The first one was totally interesting! It gave a couple good theories about why women are posed in such bizarre ways in magazines. This has bothered me for years!
I’ve always been fascinated with people and have spent hours drawing, painting and photographing them. As an artist, I like to have a good collection of reference material to help me tweak my images and to help make comparisons and corrections. For this purpose, I have binders of photos ripped out of old magazines.
Despite dozens of innovative, emotionally and intellectually engaging ads and photographs, the avalanche of repetitive “dorky”, “overt” or “contrived” pictures has frustrated me.
