The other day a friend and I were arguing about whether TV ads ever have their own internal artistry, separate from the art of the sale.
The loyal son of an adman, I acknowledged it happens rarely, but claimed that it does happen, and cited the old 15-second Lifesavers video poem (the first of the two contained in the following video):
And then Nike came out with this ad, yesterday.
Readers, do you have any other examples for my friend Paul?
fran melmed says
appealing to our sympathies through a deceased father? i think this nike ad is in horribly bad taste.
f
Karl Roche says
crass, more important things in the world than this multi-millionaire
Kent says
Bad taste, crass; I agree with fran and Karl … but that doesn’t mean it’s not art.
I’d probably define art a bit more broadly than you or your friend, David, and say that it happens more frequently than you suggest. In fact, it seems to me a common problem with advertising in modern times is that it focuses too much on the “internal artistry” and not enough on “the art of the sale.”
David Murray says
Yeah, I’m not defending the taste of the ad–just putting forth its artistry. The wide-angle camera, the black and white, the dead look on Woods’ face–it’s arresting.
Paul says
so what, who cares? a golfer’s dead overbearing dad talking to him from where? heaven? the 19th hole? a nike sweatshop? just discussing this stuff seems like masturbation, albeit artful masturbation, to me. think i’ll go masturbate for real instead. speaking of which, isn’t tiger playing at the mastur’s today? do they allow women at that cuntry club yet? do you think his dad is watching him — golf, not masturbate?
Jason says
Given that Earl Woods was apparently a womanizing philanderer himself, the ad is just stupid.
Tom Keefe says
I watched both examples, and see art in the Life Savers ad, and propaganda in the Nike ad.
The difference, to me, is that the Life Savers ad ties together the emotions of “truth”–the beauty of a setting sun, the joy of experiencing a child’s awe and wonderment, while eating a Life Savers.
The Nike ad tries to link a taken-out-of-context recording and photograph, to try to obtain an emotional response. But we know that his father never had a conversation with Tiger about these affairs. This changing of reality to create an artificial “exchange” that never took place is propaganda: “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person,” according to Webster’s online dictionary.
I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether this propaganda helps or hurts Tiger and Nike.
Steve C. says
Wow . . . that is a real ad for Tiger?
I am in Hong Kong, and my sleep is all screwed up, so admittedly I’m maybe not hitting on all cylinders . . .but when I saw that ad, I thought it was a spoof. I thought someone did it to mock the guy.
It’s a real ad? Good Lord in heaven.
Steve C.
Steve C. says
Wow . . . that is a real ad for Tiger?
I am in Hong Kong, and my sleep is all screwed up, so admittedly I’m maybe not hitting on all cylinders . . .but when I saw that ad, I thought it was a spoof. I thought someone did it to mock the guy.
It’s a real ad? Good Lord in heaven.
Steve C.
Steve C. says
Wow . . . that is a real ad for Tiger?
I am in Hong Kong, and my sleep is all screwed up, so admittedly I’m maybe not hitting on all cylinders . . .but when I saw that ad, I thought it was a spoof. I thought someone did it to mock the guy.
It’s a real ad? Good Lord in heaven.
Steve C.