Art is a Gift

JKD argues that commercials can be art. To my way of thinking, art must be a gift. It is a gift freely given from the author to either a known audience (stage) or to an unknown audience (landart). But it is at base and at best--a gift. I present you with this thought. Commercials are caustic for the simple fact that they use the trappings of art (Weiden Kennedy excels at this, as does the gap--using fine choreography) but they are not art. They are artistic.

By stealing the language and the tools of art they seek to rob art of its ability to adequately critique commercials. The envelop and devour the very poison that might serve to separate them from art. Like a weed with an adapatation to Weed-be-gone.

The difference is that the "gift" a commercial gives is more of a barter. In exchange for feeling like an informed, atypical consumer (one who "sees through the silliness of commercials") you are expected to trade your loyalty. In exchange for being cool enough to understand the irony, or the word play or the myriad visual references in every good commerical...you are expected to return the favor...with loyalty and monetary support. It is an expectant favor. A Claes Oldenburg sculpture doesn't expect you to relinquish your love of Rodin. You can love it more, but it never asks that you become "brand loyal." It nevers cajoles you into believing and maybe even declaring--"Oldenburg the choice of a new generation." Rather it presents itself as a gift, freely given. It may demand of you your thought, it may take from you your comfort with the world as you know it. But again, it's a free exchange. Its motives if not its message are clear.

The expectation, the motives that a commercial tries to hide is why it fails as art. It is a friend that pays a compliment only with the expectation that, owing to the ideals of polite society, a return volley is owed.