Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world

TOP STORY:

RSS Feeds:All posts by this author|All comments for this post
Art and Copy Review, Sundance 2009

Art and Copy Review, Sundance 2009

Paul Moore
By Paul Moore posted 1 year ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

On the surface, Art & Copy is a tribute to legendary creative minds in advertising, and the process through which they made their most iconic ads. From taglines that became pop touchstones like “Just Do It” and “Got Milk?” to how Mac, Budweiser and Volkswagon went beyond their product and became “lifestyle brands,” the charismatic advertisers share how it happened from their point of view, which smacks of self-mythologizing. Not only does the director, Doug Pray, appear to completely buy the mythology presented, but when the film raises moral and ethical questions about advertising, I’m not sure he realizes the questions are even there.

The documentary follows a simple structure. An advertising legend (Hal Riney, George Lois, Dan Wieden, David Kennedy, Mary Wells, Rich Silverstein, Jeff Goodby, Lee Clow among others) tells a story or expounds on creativity. Between each story is a meditative sequence that harkens back to Koyaanisqatsi: billboard scaffolding, a city highway, a satellite being constructed –the real concrete and steel lattice work advertising travels to get to us. Usually, over these images a disturbing statistic pops up like, “We receive 5,000 advertising messages a day.” Often, the images include workaday drones putting up billboards or sitting at banks of computers monitoring satellites. Then there’s a statistic revealing how absurd post-modern life has gotten like,  “Children receive a zillion advertisements before they’re potty trained.” Paradoxically, these statistics are always followed by another ad executive sitting in an architectural masterpiece of a workspace talking about the power of creativity and how they harnessed it to the betterment of the world.

After a while, it becomes apparent that Pray’s desolate shots of satellites, billboards, highways and cables with the creepy statistics superimposed continually beg a question that won’t be answered: And do you, rebel/artist/advertising billionaire, feel complicit in creating this consumer madness? This massive spider web where we’re sold stuff from the time we open our eyes to the time we close them?

Although the question is not so subtly raised, it is obviously averted. In defense of the film, there is an insinuation that bad advertising has polluted the world and degraded consumers, but good advertising–the kind we’re talking about here–is basically art. Case in point: Nike’s Just Do It.

Nike wanted to sell sporting equipment that assists in a healthy lifestyle. Altruism, capitalism and creative genius align to make Just Do It. All of the sudden, people aren’t just buying Nike, they’re leaving abusive relationships, going back to school, changing jobs because they decided to “Just Do It.” Now, would these people have gone on to just do it–whatever it is–without Nike’s ad? Probably. Did Nike make billions by becoming an aspiration for a lifestyle rather than a pair of shoes that wasn’t significantly better than their competition? Definitely. Is the world a better place because Nike was able make shoes represent the life you want instead of the life you have? Well, that’s a question this documentary continually steps up to ask, then avoids.

Unlike Art & Copy, Beautiful Losers is a doc I reviewed last year wherein the artists actually ask themselves whether using their creativity to sell stuff is moral. In fact, wrestling with the question is part of their process of going from juvenile artist/rebels to grown ups. It’s troubling that in Art & Copy the altar of the artist/rebel has become so sacred that when questions about the ethics of one’s work become unavoidable, the worshippers simply won’t acknowledge them. These advertisers don’t ask hard questions about what they’ve created. It’s an elephant in the room which has been ignored for so long, that even though it seemed to be standing in the very editing room for this documentary, nobody acknowledged it.

Add your comments

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

  • kai said

    your argument seems to be that art & copy seems to glorify rather than justify the art that advertisers create. I would agree with that statement. however, it is a bit presumptuous to think that a successful creative professional would feel the need to confront the legitimacy of his or her profession. The questions you seem to think need asking are part of a bigger picture and the suggestion that the advertising community is responsible for a consumer driven culture has no place in this documentary. art and copy explores a complex profession where art fuses with psychology and abstract meanings are attached to common objects. these advertisers are not ignoring some elephant in the room. for a lifetime they have fully committed to a profession and lifestyle than many do not understand. you cant challenge the ethics of a professional based on the flaw of an economic system. frosted flakes wouldn’t need tony the tiger in a communist state. there would be no epic battle between ronald mcdonald and the king if the united states were socialist. to challenge the ethics of advertising is to challenge the structure of modern business. in my opinion, if one of these glorified artist/rebels is expressing the passion and excitement they have for an industry to which they have clearly devoted their lives, they have answered your question by ignoring it.

    advertising in not the only industry in which creativity serves an agenda. obamas inauguration sported a vast cast of musicians, photojournalists take selective samples to serve the purpose of the article, journalists craft words to “inform the public”.

    the same copywriters and art directors that create an ad that sells sugarry cereal to kids also create a PSA that encourages a meth addict to seek help.

    if none of my points ring true or for some reason you still feel that these creative professionals on a pedestal must explain themselves…

    dont hate the player, hate the game

  • Bill the Hillbilly said

    There wouldnt be a game if the players agreed that to play the game is pure irresponsibility. Its a complete copout. I didnt create the game so therefor I am not responsible for the problems associated with it. I bet lawyers everywhere sleep guilt free at night clinging to this abomination. “I didnt make the criminal justice system a joke–I just help perpetuate it.” I suppose professional athletes arent to blame for being poor role models and money grubbing whores either. “Hey…the people pay the ticket prices–so its their fault for contributing to our gluttony.”

    These ad guys are extremely creative and intelligent manipulators. They have excelled at their craft. They should not however be idolized for it. They should be condemned for selling out to the all mighty dollar. How much money do you need? Why not take your talents and do some good with it? Why not make public service announcements that really show how important education is. Or how its important to vote correctly. Why not use your talents to show the general public how immoral 90% of the politicians are out there and help initialize a change?

    Free will. They had a choice. They chose to dupe the public for the sake of an extra buck.