Friday, April 07, 2006

A comment at Discourse.net
Shyamalan is a lousy filmmaker (and I'm far from alone in thinking that) but what is interesting if only in a small way is that the advertisement is now the tag-line at the end of a 60 second movie. Ads, via the form of rock videos, have become a new form [format] for art. It's not a big move, just a slow evolution (and not an advancement). I said the same thing in a comment in the post you linked to the last time. McCracken tries to make more out of it but there's not much more to say.

Art and economics even as partners are opposed. Art offers description before definition. it doesn't name experience, it merely describes it (though every description has bias) Advertising as illustration names before describing, so that the audience is led passively to a conclusion. That's why TV ads run "between" episodes or scenes. Now that ads have developed their own formal independence, the advertising 'content' comes at the end of 'ads' that have become plays within plays. It's interesting but a new format is not a new kind of art. Old wine in new bottles, no more no less.

Prosecutors and philosophers of law don't understand art but defense attorneys do. Philosophers and prosecutors say" "The accused has committed murder"
The defender says: "What do you mean when you say 'murder'?"
Some may hate them for it but they get people off that way. And McCracken doesn't understand what they do or how they do it. He has engineers' disease: the assumption that all communication, and therefore all art as a subset, is a series of statements and propositions.
And that kind of Posnerite crap pisses me off.
Like all good philosophy, art undermines propositions and then walks away.
explanation later.

And the Burger King ads are much more complex, and much more interesting.

No comments: