art vs. advertising
i had intended to write about the trip to utah and new york. about mike standing out in some cold, dusty, field along the roadside, clutching his cramping leg with the drool beginning it's course. three hours later, we were fighting for space on the bathroom floor, bare feet on the cold tile, hands on porcelain, trying to avoid my diahhrea that had missed the bowl.
vomiting is such violent business.
and then there was lannie and erin and addison. then new york. walking central park, the upper west-side on a sunny november day. reid, singing stevie wonder songs. the beginning of a new film. but then i arrive home to this debate on my wife's website, and feel as though i must weigh in. so here goes. (i suggest you read her posts and at least some of the comments before continuing on)
what bothers me most, is to discover that so many of her readers say that the rampant advertising in our culture (and namely on blogs in this case) doesn't really bother them. i find this apathy to be frightening and sad, for this is in my opinion at the root of many western problems, and the decline of true democracy in the united states. it is precisely this disconnect, greed, and selfishness that leads to the loss of our freedoms.
(actually, i think the easiest way, will be if i mention briefly the issue, and then list my thoughts on the matter.) so it turns out that many people are accepting advertisements on their blogs from corporations. my wife began discussing why she is not okay with this, and an interesting (or sad if you ask me) debate has ensued.
1. integrity. the integrity of any artist/magazine/newspaper/television show etc., is inherently compromised when they gain funding from advertising. period.
2. there is a vast sea of difference between "endorsing" a product of your own freewill, and being paid to do so. i shouldn't have to explain this, so i won't. selling things that you have created and advertising products from multinational corporations are extremely different things.
3. what began as a free medium for art and communication (the blog) will potentially become a place where commerce resides? a place where corporate america is free to play? bullshit. not on my blog. i feel that the instant i let corporations peddle their wares in my house, it is no longer my house.
you know what, screw it. i just read more of the comments on keri's site and i'm out. winded. i just fail to comprehend how so many people comment that it doesn't matter. that us, especially the artists of the world, shouldn't care about corporate involvement in our art. it's criminal. should we let the government in too? perhaps picasso shouldn't have painted guernica, for why should he have cared? (perhaps that's too disconnected)
i guess at the root of all this is the simple fact that i don't like advertising. aside from all of the socio-political implications, i find that it is ugly, distracting, and just plain annoying. i frankly cannot think of a single instance of advertising, or more succinctly, a new form of, or place in which advertising has begun to rear its head in the last decade that i am happy with. personally, i wish all of it would go away. the billboards, the ads in the men's room, on the conveyer belt dividers at the grocery store, in the airport, etc., etc., etc.....why if i despise this thing so much, would i want to contribute to it? while some have criticized my wife for "thinking she's better than others," because she doesn't believe in this, frankly isn't relevant. it has nothing to do with that. it is a simple fact of fighting that which one believes to be a negative force in the art world.
ultimately, i feel that we are in a really dangerous place historically speaking. perhaps that's silly, for i can only imagine that the people of every generation have felt the same thing, that they had their own battles to fight. but in this case, i feel as though i have an obligation here. i have an obligation to stand up for what i believe in and attempt to take back some of this world that is being so rapidly taken by corporate america. while i have little to no control over when and where coca-cola advertises, i can certainly keep them out of my art. and this all comes from a guy who wants so badly to make a living with his art, but will be leaving his house in a matter of minutes to go substitute a 7th grade science class, incessantly telling them to shut up.
so i leave you with a thought for those who say that this doesn't effect them. about three years ago, in the front of an ADBUSTERS issue, there was a page full of corporate logos. it asked the reader to identify how many he/she could. on the next page, there were photos of plants and trees, and it asked the same of the reader. it then showed the statistics of how many people could name most if not all of the logos and almost none of the trees. sadly, though i knew many of the trees, i certainly knew more of the logos...and this comes from a man who doesn't buy or subscribe to any "corporate magazines" (adbusters and the sun don't count as neither of them have ads) and who doesn't watch television (and hasn't for fifteen years or so). contrast this with the moment when i showed my grandfather the two pages. he knew 90% of the trees and 10% of the logos.
in the end, you could ask yourself a question: if your favorite artists and writers had blogs, would they allow corporate advertising on them, so that they could sit home all day and make art? a brief list below. what do you think? (i vote no on all of them)
jim harrison.
gabriel garcia marquez.
pablo neruda.
egon schiele.
thom yorke.
glen gould.
pablo picasso.
ernest hemingway.
tom robbins.
georgia o'keefe.
you get the point. perhaps this would have come out more eloquently if i had more time to write. i could sit around reaping the rewards from my ads, writing all day. drinking coke.
Posted by jeff pitcher at November 9, 2005 08:26 AM
....................................
glad to see you support keri and that you agree that our society has become apathetic in regards to many of these issues. i have followed the debate on keri's site and can't believe some of the comments. i agree wholeheartedly with what both you and keri feel on this issue. thanks for sharing your voices on this issue.
Posted by: kristen at November 9, 2005 09:39 AM
Man, I agree with you. And I'm also idealistic. I don't like apathy. I don't like ads. But then I think you've got to choose your battles. And I think in the grand scheme of things, you staying home to make art would be a much bigger victory than the loss suffered from putting ads on your blog. And, aren't popular blogs kind of rare? There are millions of blogs out there but somehow (because you're interesting and have worked hard and whatever other reasons) people have found and enjoy yours and Keri's. I'm riveted by your art and writing. And I think you should be compensated. Simple as that. I know it's a personal content choice each blogger has to make but I wish I could vote to have companies pay you money for what you do. (What if Crush paid you $2000 a month to call it abovetheorangecrushtrees.com? Oh come on you know you'd take the money and laugh all the way to the bank each month because its just so absurd.) When you guys went on your bike ride I would've loved to see you get some kickass sponsors so you wouldn't have had to suffer so hard. That was art to me what you guys did. Jack Kerouac stuff. And your journal entries were amazing. You put yourself out there and were greeted with the surprise of meeting people you hadn't dreamt of meeting and experiencing new sensations etc.. I kind of lived vicariously through it. It's the dream of a lot of people I'm sure. The cross-country trip. And I got so mad at the jerks who would post and try to give you grief! But anyway, you wound up riding across the country and accomplished your goal anyway without much free gear. The hard way. Now ironically since you've already proved you could do it, companies would probably be more likely to give you supplies for a second trip. Maybe even pay you to do a commercial for them. Schwinn or some outdoor gear company? It could be amazing! :) And a few people at home watching the commercial might say, "oh here's that annoying commercial with those bike riders again"...but it would more importantly probably get a bunch of people to start riding bikes. There's a positive and a negative side to it, no? Now that I write that - I think ads should be seen as just bad art. Not just aesthetically but you know, symbolically. They just happen to be the best solution figured out so far to get info about goods and services to the most people at once. I know we as artists don't like ads because we resent art albeit "bad art" being used to promote corporations who have bad practices. But I think we should keep making art and strive to make corporations more ethical and accountable instead of ignoring and not participating. It kind of looks like ad-free bloggers are in the minority, so how will we have a rebellion? Ads will probably always be around because they're symbols and convey a lot of information quickly and with little effort. We should try to in any way possible change their meaning by choosing wisely who we support. When the company becomes more ethical, its symbol will start looking much better - - and the more ethical ceo's (hopefully)(is it possible?) will probably be less likely to plaster the world with their ads. Until then we should take money from cow milk producers and buy soy milk. And -- if we see ads in our neighborhood that we don't like, we can paint over them when no one's looking. ;)
p.s. I want it known that I write this in a friendly way and not to be a jerk. I'm not the type of person who disagrees just to disagree but I'm not a yes man either. I do agree with what you're after but think it can be accomplished in a different way. Anyhoo, I enjoy visiting your site and checking out what's up. Oh and I'd like to see your movie, it sounds very cool. All the best to you! :)
Posted by: M at November 9, 2005 04:24 PM
I have really enjoyed following both yours and Keri's blogs and I'm honestly surprised at the how big a topic this has become and that the word "hypocrite" has entered into the discussion. It seems to me that this is entirely your blog and, ergo, your choice.
You don't like advertising, so you won't support it on your blog. No big deal, move on people. Where you decide to obtain your income from is entirely your decision. If you decided to sell one of your songs for a car commercial, (I'm not suggesting you would), it wouldn't make the music you wrote any less brilliant or inspired. It would just be less yours and more the car company's and you would be a set amount richer financially. The important point, is that it would have been your decision for your reasons and true friends would support you regardless.
I love advertising. I feel that some (definitely not most) advertising is an art form. Keri has said that she is a believer in 'guerilla art' such as chalk on a sidewalk. I enjoy 'guerilla advertising'. Finding a unique way to send out my message that will catch your eye in a way you haven't seen before.
I enjoy reading your viewpoints, always eloquently put and I think, "I would love to sit down with a beer and argue the afternoon away with this guy."
It's your blog, your way, that's what makes it worth reading.
marty
Posted by: marty at November 10, 2005 05:28 PM
I'm with you. I'm tired of it in my face everywhere I turn around. I can't use my computer without some huge pop-up blocking the screen. I don't have time for that. I'm advertised to on buses, in bathroom stalls, and now on blogs. It fills my head with garbage. I put this on Keri's blog, but what proves to me that advertising has become a life force in itself is that my 4 year old son knows characters (batman, spiderman, etc.) that he has never seen, but the logo and brand is on EVERYTHING so that when we go to the store to buy a shirt, he of course wants to know what all these pictures are (that I refuse to buy) and is drawn to them.
I think it is a little disturbing to think of how they study us, our psyche and how our brain works, then use that to influence our purchasing. I do not believe for a second that these ads do not affect me, my thinking and my purchases. I have found myself at the grocery store about to buy something and an ad will pop in my head that I consciously didn't remember. It is scary, I guess to them that is success, but it frightens me.
Posted by: Jodi at November 11, 2005 08:25 AM
I wonder if a really great bike manufacturer, guitar maker or even Apple wanted to pay you to advertise their products if you would not accept their money? I think it is the misalignment of the company's values with your own that might be so offending. Before The Great Sitting, you and Mike solicited hundreds of companies for sponsorship and in turn you offered endorsement. In fact there are chapters in the book devoted to the process of dealing with those companies. If the book makes money it will be a fine irony wouldn’t you say? I think we’re all selling something, hopefully things we believe in. If you did accept revenue for advertising you could always donate a percentage of it for your own causes. Look at Bono. Whose money does he turn away? I object to companies who use their support of good causes or hip art to cleanse their reputations. You can be ethical and partake in the consumer-based dollars. You do it with integrity, on your terms.
Posted by: Randi at November 11, 2005 10:44 AM
I agree wholeheartedly; ads turn me off totally. I was so distracted by the ad's on Dooce's website (mentioned by Keri) that I didnt have the heart to actually -read- anything on her site before I closed the window.
Your artist list is interesting, as there are 101 artists who I think -would-, albeit in a different genre to those you picked - Jessica Galbreth, Amy Brown, Madonna (infact, I can't think of any singers which I think wouldn't advertise on their website)...
(Would Andy Warhol's works count as advertising?!)
Posted by: Catherine at November 11, 2005 12:26 PM
Mmm...I have been following the discussion on Keri's site and am supportive of her sentiments.
My point here is that...(while I understand she has deleted the more abusive emails so we haven't seen that side of it) it seemed to me that most 'post-ers' have been supportive, both of keri and her ideas...but it seems like you are giving undue energy and attention to those who disagreed.
Giving energy to an "us against them" stance belittles the mass of support that keri's thoughts garnered and also, sends people further into their entrenched ideas. There is a middle way, I think.
Posted by: Helen at November 13, 2005 12:54 PM
Hi Jeff,
I am one of the posters on Keri's site that said I didn't mind the advertising. Sort of. The proliferation of advertising has always bothered me, and while I used to be quite militantly against a lot of things, advertising included, in years since I have come to accept that we live in a capitalist society. Anyone who wants to run a successful business needs to spread the word that they're out there, and that includes artists and other small business owners who need to sell their work to survive. When you say "I hate advertising", are you disregarding, say, Andrea Scher's choice to put an ad in the back of Bust? (I'd never have found her jewelry or her amazing site if it weren't for those ads. Or about your site, for that matter.)
Really, the only point I was trying to make was that it's a personal choice to visit a blog with lots of advertising--I find it more difficult to get very upset about that because we choose whether we want to go there. I don't choose to get inundated during my daily walk, or while I'm grocery shopping, or trying to cross the bridge. It's a multifaceted issue, true, and I'm not defending greedy corporations (though I may laud them on my website for creating products I enjoy using; noted) for shoving their message down their throats, but neither would I be so hasty to condemn the efforts we make to put food on the table, and without advertising, I would be out of a job and so would a lot of other worthy people.
Posted by: Kelly Peeples at November 18, 2005 01:21 PM
I probably should have added that while I enjoy her writings, I wouldn't call dooce "art". Maybe that's the difference.
Posted by: Kelly at November 18, 2005 04:25 PM
