Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjulius | Hacker News Reader

It encourages consumerism for the sake of consumerism and enables excessive e-waste. Sony has put forth plenty of effort since then to convince you that you've needed yet another new and shiny TV to replace the Bravia, and will continue to do the same.

I truly don't understand the idea of praising a commercial that exists solely to sell you something we could probably, reasonably, be making and selling a lot less of. We only keep going "because growth". When's enough? This is gross.

Edit: And after watching the video, it's extra jarring to me to feel the warm fuzzies it gives you, and then realize, "It's not asking me to be a good person or do something that's gonna match the feeling this commercial is giving me, it just wants me to buy something it's gonna want me to replace eventually". Ick. Get the fuck out of my emotions like that.

View on HN

I feel like this is a very myopic perspective. It can be both art and a commercial at the same time and appreciable for either or both. As time progresses, it becomes more art than commercial because the commercial utility has expired.

Commercials are interesting as they are a way to support artists financially. Many artists make a living in commercials while also getting a chance to exercise a creative profession.

Conceptually it isn't that much different than church commissions during the Renaissance.

As an artist, with a ton of artist friends, I wrestle with this idea very frequently. I understand the necessity for those who take that path, and I don't judge them for it (huge Jose Gonzalez fan, btw). Yet the ick remains.

I would confirm the ick with my euro perspective.

It’s a pattern I’ve noticed with Americans, this bundling up art with the capitalism. Commercial/Ad work can be a lot of fun and a good living for any artist, but it’s just not fucking art. It’s such a cringey pattern - that somehow makes commercial work into chivalrous patronage.

That being said - cool ad! Fun to make and probably good money! Would love to work on something like that! But. Not. Art.

So you are going with the "No True Scotsman" argument against commercial art?

I don’t think I believe in the term “commercial art” - it’s “commercial artwork”.

My spouse is doing artwork for a beer company right now and she would throw the chair at me like in that Orange Country TV Show meme if I tried to insinuate that this is her “art”. It’s not art it’s artwork, it’s labor, it’s a job, it’s for a boss.

This is where the ick is from - nice artwork can be commissioned, can be labor intensive and require talent. But it’s not truly the distillation of the artists process that art is.

Commercial art? No, can't be art. Illustrations? Only if unpublished during the artist's lifetime. Commissions? Certainly not. Political art? No, just no. Religious art? Are you kidding me?!

Any arbiter of the arts will find that these handy guidelines readily facilitate the elimination and/or downsizing of unnecessary galleries and other non-art collections.

Boo - All I did was confirm the ick while acknowledging that we can, in fact, enjoy a cool thing for what it is - an ad.

See, that’s the thing about this POV that the term “art” is placed on some sort of pedestal and then all the other forms are then compared against it. “How dare you say [other thing requiring effort] is not art!”

Art !== artwork

An element of art is that it functions for its own relationship between artist-work and maybe somewhat the viewer or participant. It’s neither better or worse, it’s just something separate from all of those ideologies. It just is, they just make it. They place it in museums so we don’t have to bump into each others’ egos.

I will reiterate my belief: it’s foolish to wrap up art with corporate, religious or institutional patronage.

I think you've explained your belief. But a definition of art that dismisses Michelangelo, Da Vinci, et al. seems unlikely to resonate with many artists, art historians, or art galleries/museums.

On the music side, we'd have to dismiss The Beatles, Bach, Mozart, and probably most of the greatest composers and musicians of all time.

Or 19th century poster art. Many people collect reproductions (or originals if they can afford it) of advertising posters by people like Firmin Bouisset. Yes, they are ads, but they are also beautiful long after the products they were advertising are no longer available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmin_Bouisset

I visited the Mucha museum in Prague and was surprised by how many of his works were advertising posters. On one hand, I don't care for advertising: on the other hand, it brought us these wonderful works that we admire a century on, divorced from their original context, so I can't really deny their artistic potential.

Marketing is just raising awareness for things you might enjoy. I don't think it has to be that deep.

They are doing marketing to get me to buy things. You are doing marketing to get me to NOT buy something.

The iPhone enabled everyone to see consumer buying cycles in that most people don't go buy the 11-12-13-14-15-16, they go 11-16 and 13-17 and the like. It's the same with all products. Most people don't buy every single new model, unless they are an enthusiast, in which case who are you to say what someone's hobbies are?

> Marketing is just raising awareness for things you might enjoy.

If that were all it is, there wouldn't be much problem.

Marketing is also creating a demand where there wasn't one before and exploiting psychological weaknesses to prompt actions not necessarily in a person's best interest.

"creating a demand where there wasn't one before" Yes, 100% if it's a new product, there was no demand for it.

"exploiting psychological weaknesses to prompt actions not necessarily in a person's best interest" This is any sort of communication with malintent.

See I don't get that at all. I don't find it selling me something - it's from TWENTY YEARS AGO. It's just a video of 250,000 bouncy balls flying down a hill at 100mph. It's a cool sight. It's something that, if I was 10 and had access to that many bouncy balls, I'd be plotting myself.

Where do you draw the line on consumerism for physical to digital experiences? Is it worthwhile to experience the web given the high cost to build, maintain, and access it?

I've bought one TV in my life (I'm pushing 43) and it's a Bravia. Ten years old, too, and I have no intention of replacing it while it works. Sony makes nice stuff. Expensive, but nice. I still remember the ad fondly.

Yeesh

Reply on news.ycombinator.com