Darin Morgan Scripts
Papucheins
structure of the Darin Morgan scripts. Problem is you have to
show some resourses to your teacher and I'm screwed with that.
I've searched the web for any article about him but almost every
page has closed now. Please if someone has any article about
Darin or his X-Files or Millennium scripts send them to me to
dvit...@hoy.net You'll get full credit.
I'll really appreciate it.
Dave
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Konrad Douglas Frye
>I'm working on my thesis for my college degree on the Narrative
>structure of the Darin Morgan scripts. Problem is you have to
>show some resourses to your teacher and I'm screwed with that.
>I've searched the web for any article about him but almost every
>page has closed now. Please if someone has any article about
>Darin or his X-Files or Millennium scripts send them to me to
>dvit...@hoy.net You'll get full credit.
Check out:
http://members.xoom.com/aowninja/darin_guide.html
and
------
Konrad Frye (k f r y e @ e s c a p e . c a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Or what? You'll release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with the
bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
LA...@la.com
scripts by better writers like Wong and Morgan, Alex Gansa or early
CC.
Papucheins <dviteris...@hoy.net.invalid> wrote:
>I'm working on my thesis for my college degree on the Narrative
>structure of the Darin Morgan scripts. Problem is you have to
>show some resourses to your teacher and I'm screwed with that.
>I've searched the web for any article about him but almost every
>page has closed now. Please if someone has any article about
>Darin or his X-Files or Millennium scripts send them to me to
>dvit...@hoy.net You'll get full credit.
>
trajan
'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
others...
I am appalled that one can actually get college credit for something
like this.
Just my opinion, of course.
Trajan
Kevin Patterson
X-Files." It's a collection of articles and essays about the show, and I know
they talk about Darin's episodes in some of them.
-Kevin
- - - - - - - -
Reviews of Feature Films and Genre Television:
http://members.aol.com/KTPattersn/index.html
Michele Jackson
trajan wrote:
>
> Or perhaps real playwrights, instead of TV shows, fer chrissakes! How
> 'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
> others...
>
> I am appalled that one can actually get college credit for something
> like this.
>
> Just my opinion, of course.
> Trajan
>
>
Back in 1983, I did a college paper on the works of Sonny Bono.
I remember we had to get subject approval from the instructor
first and he grudgingly gave me the ok but said he didn't think I
would have much material to cull from. Little did he know of the
depths of Sonny's unheralded talents. The solo album,
Innervisions, alone provided grist for pages of observation and
analysis. I ended up getting an A+. Of course, it wasn't a
thesis. It was just one of several assignments in my
English/Communications class. Michele
LA...@la.com
>Or perhaps real playwrights, instead of TV shows, fer chrissakes! How
>'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
>others...
>
>I am appalled that one can actually get college credit for something
>like this.
>
>Just my opinion, of course.
>Trajan
Well, I do not share your prejudice that legit theatre is necessarily
better than television. They can both feature great writing. I just
don't think Darin Morgan is any good.
LA...@la.com
something about TV writing, he or she would be better off studying
someone who actually knows how to keep the characters true to
themselves and who can write something that is not a parody (although
Morgan did surprise me with Clyde Bruckman - I still can't believe he
wrote it by himself).
MC
trajan wrote in message <38EC1926...@optonline.net>...
>Or perhaps real playwrights, instead of TV shows, fer chrissakes! How
>'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
>others...
First: L.A.Guy, a poster elsewhere in this thread, can go to hell. He is
entitled to his opinion, of course, but not to pretend that it is widely
shared. In my book, Darin Morgan is the best screenwriter alive today. And
he probably holds a similar position in a lot of other folks' books.
Second: D.M. is better than Arthur Miller. But that's not saying much. So
are dozens and dozens of other currently active screenwriters and
playwrights. I'll take the "Jose Chung" stories over pretentious, dull
claptrap like "After the Fall" any day. (Hmmm...maybe D.M. would start
writing again, if a lady who looked like Marilyn Monroe spurred him on...)
Third: I could probably say something similar about William Inge, although
I'm familiar only with "Bus Stop" and "Come Back Little Sheba," which isn't
enough of a sampling to judge the man's work fairly. I read the latter play
when I was, what, maybe 13. Even then, I realised that the metaphor in the
play's title was about as subtle as a meat cleaver. D.M. never offended me
on that level.
Fourth: Why pretend that only stage writers deserve to be taught in school?
When I was a student (more years ago than I care to recall), we were asked
on more than one occasion to read works by Rod Serling. I first encountered
"The Monsters on Maple Street" in class, not via a Twilight Zone re-run. And
while I recall that piece quite fondly, I'm fonder of all six D.M.
teleplays.
Fifth: For the original poster, who wanted online resources...
I suggest taking a look at this page, which highlights the differences
between the original scripts and what appears on screen:
http://members.home.net/laurawitte/xfscripts.html
Carrie DeDeo
: Or perhaps real playwrights, instead of TV shows, fer chrissakes! How
: 'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
: others...
: I am appalled that one can actually get college credit for something
: like this.
Well, if actual literary and cultural critics can publish articles about
The X-Files, why shouldn't an undergraduate thesis on the same subject be
just as viable an option? Beyond webpages (and Dave, I don't know how
your dept. is going to feel about that sort of source as compared to
actual published criticism), you would probably find the most academic
support for your project using the essays in Deny All Knowledge: Reading
the X-Files. I know there's quite a bit about Jose Chung in there. And
if you search the MLA bibliography, you should be able to find a handful
of published journal articles on TXF -- incl. one on epistemology in TXF,
which I ended up using for *my* thesis.
(To anyone who's still interested, final copy of said thesis will be up on
my webpage shortly. . . a few of you made the acknowledgments page.)
But, in response to Trajan, quite a few universities have cultural studies
depts., in which TV is a viable and necessary means of studying popular
culture. And even here, in a university where we don't, I know literature
majors writing theses on all sorts of films and even on comic books. Now,
of course, I'm in the English dept. and had to integrate actual canonical
works into my thesis (Frankenstein and some 17th c. broadside
ballads) to escape just the sort of condemnation you're posing. If you
ask me, it's sort of strange, since if you look at these ballads (which
had woodcut illustrations and detailed descriptions of "monsters" and were
sold in streets to the lower classes), they're in many ways the
predecessors of a popular culture work like TXF. I find it incredibly
odd, that some people refuse to recognize any new popular texts as worthy
of critical study while evidently forgetting that Shakespeare's own plays
were popular entertainment in their day.
C-A
Akakan
Carrie DeDeo <de...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in article
> I find it incredibly
> odd, that some people refuse to recognize
> any new popular texts as worthy
> of critical study while evidently forgetting that
> Shakespeare's own plays
> were popular entertainment in their day.
But not merely popular.
Which popular entertainments of today do you think will hold their value
four hundred years into the future?
Akakan
LA...@LA.Com wrote in article <38ec3d49....@news.pacificnet.net>...
> Well, I do not share your prejudice
> that legit theatre is necessarily
> better than television. They can both
> feature great writing. I just
> don't think Darin Morgan is any good.
What television writers do you think are better than DM?
I can't recall seeing anything on television better than CBFR.
LA...@la.com
>First: L.A.Guy, a poster elsewhere in this thread, can go to hell.
That's not a very nice thing to say :)
>He is
>entitled to his opinion, of course,
Well, thank you.
>but not to pretend that it is widely
>shared.
And how would you know? More to the point where did I say it was?
>In my book, Darin Morgan is the best screenwriter alive today.
A very small book I presume :)
>And
>he probably holds a similar position in a lot of other folks' books.
I'm not so sure about that. But he does have a lot of hype behind him
for sure.
>
>Second: D.M. is better than Arthur Miller. But that's not saying much. So
>are dozens and dozens of other currently active screenwriters and
>playwrights. I'll take the "Jose Chung" stories over pretentious, dull
>claptrap like "After the Fall" any day. (Hmmm...maybe D.M. would start
>writing again, if a lady who looked like Marilyn Monroe spurred him on...)
You mean he stopped? Alleluja!!!
>
>Third: I could probably say something similar about William Inge, although
>I'm familiar only with "Bus Stop" and "Come Back Little Sheba," which isn't
>enough of a sampling to judge the man's work fairly. I read the latter play
>when I was, what, maybe 13. Even then, I realised that the metaphor in the
>play's title was about as subtle as a meat cleaver. D.M. never offended me
>on that level.
It's not like Darin Morgan is subtle though...
>
>Fourth: Why pretend that only stage writers deserve to be taught in school?
That I do agree with you. It's snobism pure and simple.
swikstr
> What television writers do you think are better than DM?
> I can't recall seeing anything on television better than CBFR.
There were "Homicide" scripts that could certainly compete with DM's work
-- some (not all) of them definitely better in fact. Notably, Jim
Yoshimura's stuff, but there was also some fine work done by Tom Fontana
and Henry Bromell.
I can't say I agree with LAGuy's choice of early M&W, Gansa and early
Carter as better than DM. Okay, I'll give him M&W without arguing. But
Gansa's work (with the exception of "Conduit" and "Fallen Angel") was more
than a little uninspiring. I'd take "Humbug, CBFR, WotC and JCfOS" over
eps like "Ghost in the Machine" and "Born Again" any day. Carter's early
work was inconsistent sometimes as well. "The Erlenmeyer Flask" and
"Irresistible" were standout episodes, but "Space" and "The List" were
fairly lame.
DM may not have been the best XF writer in terms of his characterization of
our heroes, but his stories were consistent -- among the most entertaining
stuff I've ever seen on television.
-swik
Interested in an alt.tv.* newsgroup for ROSWELL?
Go to http://bullpen.simplenet.com for more information....
--
"Only human..."
-- Agent Jones,
"The Matrix"
trajan
point being that there are scores of better writers, who excel in film
and television: the multi-talented Mamet and Shepard. Dalton Trumbo.
Coppola ("The Conversation in particular").
Trajan
LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>
> trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >Or perhaps real playwrights, instead of TV shows, fer chrissakes! How
> >'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
> >others...
> >
> >I am appalled that one can actually get college credit for something
> >like this.
> >
> >Just my opinion, of course.
> >Trajan
>
> Well, I do not share your prejudice that legit theatre is necessarily
> better than television. They can both feature great writing. I just
> don't think Darin Morgan is any good.
>
> >
trajan
Carrie DeDeo wrote:
>
> trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> : Or perhaps real playwrights, instead of TV shows, fer chrissakes! How
> : 'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
> : others...
>
> : I am appalled that one can actually get college credit for something
> : like this.
>
> Well, if actual literary and cultural critics can publish articles about
> The X-Files, why shouldn't an undergraduate thesis on the same subject be
> just as viable an option? Beyond webpages (and Dave, I don't know how
> your dept. is going to feel about that sort of source as compared to
> actual published criticism), you would probably find the most academic
> support for your project using the essays in Deny All Knowledge: Reading
> the X-Files. I know there's quite a bit about Jose Chung in there. And
> if you search the MLA bibliography, you should be able to find a handful
> of published journal articles on TXF -- incl. one on epistemology in TXF,
> which I ended up using for *my* thesis.
I'm sure there's a lot written, all of which I have no use for. I
stand by my opinion: I can't believe a COLLEGE would give credit for
this. Or an analysis of Star Trek. Or any TV show.
>
> (To anyone who's still interested, final copy of said thesis will be up on
> my webpage shortly. . . a few of you made the acknowledgments page.)
And I'm sure it will be excellently done.
>
> But, in response to Trajan, quite a few universities have cultural studies
> depts., in which TV is a viable and necessary means of studying popular
> culture.
The original poster is not doing a cultural study. He (or she) is
doing a paper on narrative structure.
And even here, in a university where we don't, I know literature
> majors writing theses on all sorts of films and even on comic books.
Again, I am appalled.
Now,
> of course, I'm in the English dept. and had to integrate actual canonical
> works into my thesis (Frankenstein and some 17th c. broadside
> ballads) to escape just the sort of condemnation you're posing. If you
> ask me, it's sort of strange, since if you look at these ballads (which
> had woodcut illustrations and detailed descriptions of "monsters" and were
> sold in streets to the lower classes), they're in many ways the
> predecessors of a popular culture work like TXF. I find it incredibly
> odd, that some people refuse to recognize any new popular texts as worthy
> of critical study while evidently forgetting that Shakespeare's own plays
> were popular entertainment in their day.
>
> C-A
I would not classify "Frankenstein" with broadside ballads. The
latter do not survive in the popular imagination. And you are right:
they are in many ways the predecessors of aspects today's popular
entertainment. I suspect that XF will fade fromm memory just as those
broadsides did. Don't get me wrong: I enjoy the XFiles. I simply
maintain that for the original poster's purpose, there are better,
more durable film/TV/theater writers than his urrent choice.
My own opinion, of course.
Respectfully,
Trajan
trajan
TD
Michele Jackson wrote:
>
> trajan wrote:
> >
> > Or perhaps real playwrights, instead of TV shows, fer chrissakes! How
> > 'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
> > others...
> >
> > I am appalled that one can actually get college credit for something
> > like this.
> >
> > Just my opinion, of course.
> > Trajan
> >
> >
>
trajan
MC wrote:
>
>(Snip)
Sorry, I have to disagree with you on all points!!
Respectfully,
Trajan
Michele Lellouche
>
>>
> First: L.A.Guy, a poster elsewhere in this thread, can go to hell. He is
> entitled to his opinion, of course, but not to pretend that it is widely
> shared. In my book, Darin Morgan is the best screenwriter alive today. And
> he probably holds a similar position in a lot of other folks' books.
Not in mine, either, so I join Trajan and LAGuy on this one...that's 3
of us!
I've always thought that DM was overrated as the "be all end all" of X
writing. Then again, I don't like Humbug, hate JCFOS, and still hate
the ending of Clyde Bruckman (don't ask what I thought when it aired).
WotC was probably the only one I really liked.
Michele
Deborah
I remember seeing a Rockford Files by Juanita Bartlett that was good enough
that I made sure to note her name. There were a few eps of Northern Exposure
that I found transcendent (don't remember the writer's names--my memory is
terrible). I'm really enjoying That 70ies Show--clever writing, and it makes
me think of All In the Family--how good it was at the time.
I guess it depends what you're looking for. I've been enjoying Sorkin
(Sports Night, West Wing). I have a love hate relationship with David Kelly.
I've really liked some of Bochco's work and the writer's who worked for Dick
Wolf. I know I'm leaving out lots of others, but there's a sampling.
I think some of the best writing around is happening on television. It's
different from films or plays.
Deborah
LA...@la.com
>MC wrote:
>>
>>>
>> First: L.A.Guy, a poster elsewhere in this thread, can go to hell. He is
>> entitled to his opinion, of course, but not to pretend that it is widely
>> shared. In my book, Darin Morgan is the best screenwriter alive today. And
>> he probably holds a similar position in a lot of other folks' books.
>
>Not in mine, either, so I join Trajan and LAGuy on this one...that's 3
>of us!
>
>I've always thought that DM was overrated as the "be all end all" of X
>writing.
It's always been hard for me to understand as, with the exception of
Clyde Bruckman, all his episodes are by and large big budget SNL skits
which have nothing to do with the usual tone of the show (let alone
his treatment of the characters)...
LA...@la.com
wrote:
>
>
>LA...@LA.Com wrote in article <38ec3d49....@news.pacificnet.net>...
>
>
>> Well, I do not share your prejudice
>> that legit theatre is necessarily
>> better than television. They can both
>> feature great writing. I just
>> don't think Darin Morgan is any good.
>
>What television writers do you think are better than DM?
Pretty much most of them. ;) Seriously, staying within TXF, early CC
was way better, all of Morgan and Wong before they left the first
time, Alex Ganza and Howard Gordon. Paul Brown who only wrote one ep
of TXF is an excellent writer.
>
>I can't recall seeing anything on television better than CBFR.
We sort of agree on CBFR. While I don't think it's a masterpiece, it
is the only Darin Morgan episode I find palatable. Still can't
believe he wrote it by himself... ;)
>
LA...@la.com
>DM may not have been the best XF writer in terms of his characterization of
>our heroes, but his stories were consistent
Not going back on the fact that we disagree on DM, but what do you
mean by "consistent"? How were his spoofs any more "consistent" than
other shows?
Carrie-Anne DeDeo
: Carrie DeDeo wrote:
:>
:> trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
:> : Or perhaps real playwrights, instead of TV shows, fer chrissakes! How
:> : 'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
:> : others...
:>
:> : I am appalled that one can actually get college credit for something
:> : like this.
:>
:> Well, if actual literary and cultural critics can publish articles about
:> The X-Files, why shouldn't an undergraduate thesis on the same subject be
:> just as viable an option? Beyond webpages (and Dave, I don't know how
:> your dept. is going to feel about that sort of source as compared to
:> actual published criticism), you would probably find the most academic
:> support for your project using the essays in Deny All Knowledge: Reading
:> the X-Files. I know there's quite a bit about Jose Chung in there. And
:> if you search the MLA bibliography, you should be able to find a handful
:> of published journal articles on TXF -- incl. one on epistemology in TXF,
:> which I ended up using for *my* thesis.
: I'm sure there's a lot written, all of which I have no use for. I
: stand by my opinion: I can't believe a COLLEGE would give credit for
: this. Or an analysis of Star Trek. Or any TV show.
How, then, do you define what a "COLLEGE" should give credit for? The
English dept. here isn't exactly wild about pop culture (in retrospect, I
should have majored in comp lit), but even they accepted my thesis
topic. You said in another post that you erred in mentioning just plays,
but what sets those plays apart from teleplays aside from the medium by
which the audience receives them? Would you be opposed to the study of
film as well as television? If so, you run the risk of writing off an
artistic medium that has been recognized as the site of great
achievement. If so, what differentiates films from a TV show like
TXF? It's long been said that 1013 produces a mini-film every
week. (Vince Gilligan, in fact, reiterated that statement when I spoke
with him last week.)
:> (To anyone who's still interested, final copy of said thesis will be up on
:> my webpage shortly. . . a few of you made the acknowledgments page.)
: And I'm sure it will be excellently done.
Thanks. Now as for my General Exams. . .
:>
:> But, in response to Trajan, quite a few universities have cultural studies
:> depts., in which TV is a viable and necessary means of studying popular
:> culture.
: The original poster is not doing a cultural study. He (or she) is
: doing a paper on narrative structure.
And television series have narrative structures, just like plays. In
fact, I would consider narrative structure in television worthy of study
simply because standardized elements of that structure have developed in
the medium in a comparatively short time -- structures which
differentiate, for example, drama from sitcom, soap opera from TV
movie. If we can study the five-act structure of Shakespeare, why not
study the four-act structure of a prime time drama?
: And even here, in a university where we don't, I know literature
:> majors writing theses on all sorts of films and even on comic books.
: Again, I am appalled.
Why? I'm still not certain you've expressed the root of your reaction
beyond the brief dropping of playwrights' names. If you're in a field
that seeks to study a society or members of a society -- be in
anthropology, psychology, women's studies, etc. -- how better to study
that society than by its cultural texts. Reading Pulitzer Prize-winning
authors is great, but the average person doesn't read those
authors. At the same time, s/he quite possible does watch The
X-Files. Now, you'll probably hate this too, but I wrote a paper last
year for a course on Cold War history using The X-Files popularity of a
means of exploring the American public's deep mistrust of government that
resulted from the actions of the US government during the Cold War. Yes,
there are other fictional works -- probably more culturally priveleged
works -- that could have also helped prove this point -- but at the same
time, The X-Files was relevant and helpful to the argument precisely
because it is a popular text.
: Now,
:> of course, I'm in the English dept. and had to integrate actual canonical
:> works into my thesis (Frankenstein and some 17th c. broadside
:> ballads) to escape just the sort of condemnation you're posing. If you
:> ask me, it's sort of strange, since if you look at these ballads (which
:> had woodcut illustrations and detailed descriptions of "monsters" and were
:> sold in streets to the lower classes), they're in many ways the
:> predecessors of a popular culture work like TXF. I find it incredibly
:> odd, that some people refuse to recognize any new popular texts as worthy
:> of critical study while evidently forgetting that Shakespeare's own plays
:> were popular entertainment in their day.
:>
:> C-A
: I would not classify "Frankenstein" with broadside ballads. The
: latter do not survive in the popular imagination. And you are right:
: they are in many ways the predecessors of aspects today's popular
: entertainment. I suspect that XF will fade fromm memory just as those
: broadsides did. Don't get me wrong: I enjoy the XFiles. I simply
: maintain that for the original poster's purpose, there are better,
: more durable film/TV/theater writers than his urrent choice.
So longevity is all that determines whether a text is relevant of
study? One of the main reasons that Frankenstein survives in our cultural
consciousness in the way that the broadside ballads does not is because of
popular culture's appropriation of the Frankenstein story in multiple film
adaptations (incl. CC's PMP). Not everyone remembers the broadsides,
certainly, but that fact too does not mean they are not worthy of critical
study. In fact, they show up in the Harvard English dept.'s recommended
(and enormous) undergraduate bibliography. (A fact I realized only
yesterday.)
As for "durability," some writers speak to a specific time. Does that
make them unworthy of study. As I mentioned earlier, TXF is certainly a
product of Cold War paranoia, just as the broadside ballads about
monstrous births were a result of the destabilizing influence on an
emerging scientific empiricism on the monolith of religious thought. We
as an audience don't have a need for the ballads, and four hundred years
from now, audiences may not have a need for TXF. Then again, even though
times change, stories survive -- and at root, I think the relationship
between Mulder and Scully gives the series a strong core from which to
attract future viewers. Unless you can read the future, you can't say any
better than I if TXF is "durable." And because of that inability,
longevity is an impossible and inappropriate way to serve as sole arbiter
of which current texts are worthy of critical analysis. In your
conception, we'd have to wait decades and even centuries before analyzing
any text, just to make sure it doesn't fade away.
C-A
MC
trajan wrote in message <38ED29E1...@optonline.net>...
MC wrote:
>
>(Snip)
Respectfully,
Trajan
Actually...I am going to disagree with myself on Arthur Miller.
See, I hadn't read "Death of a Salesman" since I was 16 -- roughly a couple
of decades ago -- at which time it made no real impression on me. But the
moment I pushed the send button on my earlier posting, I realised that that
it was perhaps unwise to trust a teenager's view of that play.
So I spent this morning at the good old Iliad bookstore here in North
Hollywood, re-reading what is considered Miller's masterpiece. NOW I get it.
Almost wish I didn't! The thing had a hell of an impact -- put me into a
day-long funk. I both look forward to and dread seeing it performed.
But you can't expect a 16-year-old to understand a piece like that. So I
hope you'll forgive my earlier foolish assessment.
I also took another look at "After the Fall." It's STILL pretentious and
dull.
And I still think Darin Morgan is a wit on the level of Mark Twain.
As for this "LA GUY" -- yeesh, not only does he think "early" Chris Carter
is a better writer than Darin (!!), he spends a lot of time on the
screenwriter's newsgroup trashing "The Sixth Sense." There, as here, he
expresses himself with all the grace of a barroom thug -- as though sheer
vitriol can transform a minority opinion into the party line. Maybe next
he'll pop on the classical music forum and shout insults at anyone who likes
Mahler...
swikstr
> swikstr <swi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >DM may not have been the best XF writer in terms of his characterization of
> >our heroes, but his stories were consistent
> Not going back on the fact that we disagree on DM, but what do you
> mean by "consistent"? How were his spoofs any more "consistent" than
> other shows?
I guess that was more than a little bit vague. I'd say consistent in terms
of quality (ironically, you probably agree with that but not the same way I
do <g>) and consistent in terms of tone. You can tell it's Darin's work
almost immediately when you see it. I can't say the same of Gordon/Gansa.
For example, I'd never guess that the two guys who wrote "Fallen Angel" are
the same ones who wrote "Ghost in the Machine."
Interestingly, what you see as a spoof in DM's work, I see as manner of
telling a story or making a point by treating heavier "dramatic" themes
with eye-opening levity. I happen to admire that kind of approach, but
that's me.
Actually, looking at XF writers and viewer opinion, Kevin Patterson has a
mini-poll going on his website. Vince Gilligan is leading the pack at
32%. CC and DM are nearly tied for second with 23% and 22% of the vote
respectively. Morgan and Wong are third with 18%.
(Thanks Kevin ;))
Michele Jackson
trajan wrote:
>
> Now I am seriously scared.
>
> TD
>
>
I mean, I don't think you can just blanketly rule out any subject
matter without looking at WHAT the course is trying to teach.
Literature classes teach literature, but many English and
Communication classes try to teach students how to write,
compare, recognize issues and research them, so really, the topic
becomes secondary to the way you develop your view of it. High
school is one thing, but college classes try to test the ability
to analyze, identify and critique, not just the basic reading,
writing and 'rithmatic. If you are learning to explore themes,
symbols, and structure I don't know why it would be improper to
use current tv, art or music to examine how those ideas are
expressed in popular culture. I can imagine many courses of
study, wherein great college papers could be written about the
commercials that air during the XF, much less the work of one of
the show's writers, though Morgan is not my favorite, either.
Michele
Kevin Patterson
of TXF is an excellent writer. >>
Actually he wrote two -- "Ascension" and "Excelsius Dei."
Kevin Patterson
telling a story or making a point by treating heavier "dramatic" themes
with eye-opening levity. I happen to admire that kind of approach, but
that's me.
Actually, looking at XF writers and viewer opinion, Kevin Patterson has a
mini-poll going on his website. Vince Gilligan is leading the pack at
32%. CC and DM are nearly tied for second with 23% and 22% of the vote
respectively. Morgan and Wong are third with 18%.
(Thanks Kevin ;)) >>
Wow. People actually pay attention to that thing? <g>
In all fairness, it's been up there forever, and it can't filter out multiple
votes, so I don't know how much it really means. The Millennium poll on my site
is interesting though -- it has fewer votes, not surprisingly, but Morgan and
Wong were mopping up with something like 65% last time I checked, with Chip
Johannessen and CC next with something like 12% - 15% each.
LA...@la.com
><< Paul Brown who only wrote one ep
>of TXF is an excellent writer. >>
>
>Actually he wrote two -- "Ascension" and "Excelsius Dei."
>
>-Kevin
>
I stand corrected :) He also wrote a lot of very good Quantum Leap
Episodes.
petitesoeur
news:38ED293F...@optonline.net...
>
>
> Carrie DeDeo wrote:
> >
> > trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > : Or perhaps real playwrights, instead of TV shows, fer chrissakes! How
> > : 'bout Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller? Or Inge? Or so many
> > : others...
> >
> > : I am appalled that one can actually get college credit for something
> > : like this.
> >
> > Well, if actual literary and cultural critics can publish articles about
> > The X-Files, why shouldn't an undergraduate thesis on the same subject
be
<snip> I'm sure there's a lot written, all of which I have no use for. I
> stand by my opinion: I can't believe a COLLEGE would give credit for
> this. Or an analysis of Star Trek. Or any TV show.
<snip>> The original poster is not doing a cultural study. He (or she) is
> doing a paper on narrative structure.
>
> And even here, in a university where we don't, I know literature
> > majors writing theses on all sorts of films and even on comic books.
>
> Again, I am appalled.
And I am scared.
Some people replies to this thread are cause for consternation. In the
academy the "high art vs low art" is coming pretty much to a resolution.
One day everybody will wake up to the realization that the distinction was a
cultural construct made basically by a very small group of Old White Guys In
The August Halls of British Academia because they were scared stiff by the
aftermath of World War One. The world of their youth had been destroyed.
The Great War had not turn out to be another civilized gentlemanly outing.
The Rules Of Engagement had been ignored. Instead TPTB ran amok resulting in
the barbaric slaughter of thousands &thousands of young men and the
devastating destruction of their society's political, social & psychological
fabric. They were terrified that The Four Horseman Of The Apocalypse --
Darwin, Freud, Marx & Einstein -- had opened the floodgates which signaled
The End Of Civilization & Culture in the Western European World. Their
response was Medieval -- let's retreat into the Castle, pull up the
drawbridge across the moot, climb up the steps of the Ivory Tower and lock
ourselves in.
They created the notion of The Canon and spun some beautiful fairytales
about its magical workings. The Real World continued to crack and shatter
outside as the Roaring Twenties saw the fragile attempts @ true political,
social, economic & cultural emancipation started in Germany & Russia
quickly crumble and give way to the Rising Spectres of Fascism. The first
law that the Nazis made when they attained power was to deny the Jewish
people access to the cultural life of the nation-state.
In academia, on both sides of the Atlantic, they were able to keep the
drawbridge up and the Castle from being invaded by the Real World well into
the Sixties -- when they abruptly were awakened from their dreamy denial by
the clammering of their students: "If all is Peace & Prosperity what are
those sounds we keep hearing in the middle night? Are they screams &
gunshots? Why are our dreams filled with terror? The sky is obscured by
mushroom clouds, the green fields strewn with burned & battered Bodies."
And so I query once again:
In age when we no longer are able to hold on to a singular, linear sense
of reality -- physical, cultural & psychological -- why do we still expect
our stories to represent that kind of reality? Why are we surprised when
our best, i.e. most vital & pleasurable, stories & storytellers are
creating imaginary worlds of multiple, ambigious visions?
But this time I pose it as a rhetorical question and answer the question
with yet another question:
"Who wouldn't want to live without anxiety in this world of terrors?" --
T. Adorno
In the spirit of forthrightness demonstrated so admirably this week by DD as
he endures the horrors of an excuriating press junket, I lay my cards on the
table:
See I'm one of those loony academics who examines popular culture just as
seriously as other supposedly more legit aesthetic artifacts. Besides
running The Home Of The MulderGirls as a forum for ruminations about popular
culture, I write articles & present papers for 'serious' professional
journals & conferences. I'm writing my dissertation on a psycholanayltic
theory about art as a transitional phenomenom using the relationship between
the X-Files & the X-Philers as the basis for my research project.
I write stuff like this:
"Although we live in a singular physical reality, we exist in a multipicity
of realities. There is a profound gap between the revolutionary/radical
ideas as they
arise in the Real [physical]World, and the artistic/aesthetic response and
(re)presentation to those ideas in our Imaginative World of Art.
Eventually, there is an infiltration & assimilation into the Culture of Real
Life. The gap between these appearance of ideas in these three 'worlds' of
our existence mainfests as out of sync timelines which would explain our
continual struggle to get a gripe both on Art & Life. Then, in a sense, we
can consider all Art to be a form of Science Fiction -- reflecting how life
will be altered and shaped as radical ideas infiltrate the Real World."
You may not agree with my ideas but my only hope is that you consider the
viablity of engaging in a serious philosophical discussion vis-a-vis the
nature of reality as we grasp it through our interactions with the aesthetic
artifacts of Popular Culture, i.e. TV shows like The X-Files & Star Trek.
If you situate yourself historically, you acknowledge that you are a
casting a late 20th century cultural viewpoint out on to what remains of the
past. As we know physical reality through our sensory/perceptual experience
so to do we grasp the past through the present we inhabit. Until someone
comes up with a better eXplanation, for now it appears we find ourselves
living in a Heisenbergian Reality with the uncertain knowledge that the
very act of trying to comprehend interacts fatefully with the object of our
desire.
I do believe that The Truth Is Out There . . . Somewhere . . . perhaps
Everywhere
It's just that I believe Reason is a link between phenomena not a
description.
--- irene aka petitesoeur the mad rambler:
"Audiences know what to expect,
and that is all they are prepared to believe in." [Rosencrantz &
Guildenstern]
Let's Hear it For: Free Speech, Family Pets & Fatherhood!
The MulderGirls: Putting the virtue in virtual reality.
www.muldergirls.com/home.html
ABauer7333
college prof I thought I'd offer my two cents regarding the acceptance of
non-canonical texts (be they tv scripts, pop songs, or commercial graphics) in
academia.
Carrie DeDeo has done a great job of defending the relevance to TXF to several
cultural strains. What I ask my students to consider is the goal of their
project, what they are trying to communicate, which is of far more importance
than whether the object of their analysis/critique has been sanctified by TPTB.
I recently attended an academic paper on the Emerson Lake and Palmer song
"Triology." I hate this music, and feel its cultural lifespan is much shorter
than most 70s pop/rock, be it disco or punk, both of which had repercussions
far beyond the demographically-limited audience for English art rock. But I
quite enjoyed the paper. It was delivered with style and verve, and made some
points that my students could relate to, and which were reflected in the
"serious" repertoire they are studying.
I often feel that attacking the object of study is a smokescreen intended to
deflect from what it is we are trying to do with our scholarship. If our
entire careers were devoted to simply granting an academic imprimatur to
canonical works (i.e., to making value judgments about cultural products), they
would be as culturally irrelevant as any of the "products" they chose to
ignore.
Dr. B
http://members.aol.com/abauer7333/personal.html
The MulderGirls: We put the virtue in virtual reality.
It's not just a nickname, it's a website. http://www.muldergirls.com/
Carrie-Anne DeDeo
Well said, Michele. Furthermore, I'd just like to clarify that when I
referred to the Literature Department in a previous post, I was talking
about *Comparative* Literature. In that case, books certainly come into
play, but so do other texts -- texts which include film and television for
comparative analysis to more traditional literary texts.
C-A
trajan
Michele Jackson wrote:
>
> trajan wrote:
> >
> > Now I am seriously scared.
> >
> > TD
> >
>
> I mean, I don't think you can just blanketly rule out any subject
> matter without looking at WHAT the course is trying to teach.
> Literature classes teach literature, but many English and
> Communication classes try to teach students how to write,
> compare, recognize issues and research them, so really, the topic
> becomes secondary to the way you develop your view of it. High
> school is one thing, but college classes try to test the ability
> to analyze, identify and critique, not just the basic reading,
> writing and 'rithmatic.
That is true. This is just so far from my college experience that I
have trouble accepting it.
If you are learning to explore themes,
> symbols, and structure I don't know why it would be improper to
> use current tv, art or music to examine how those ideas are
> expressed in popular culture. I can imagine many courses of
> study, wherein great college papers could be written about the
> commercials that air during the XF, much less the work of one of
> the show's writers, though Morgan is not my favorite, either.
> Michele
My horror at this is simply my personal opinion. Your opinion is
equally well-reasoned and valid. I simply can't help my visceral
reaction. :)
Regards and respect,
Trajan
trajan
MC wrote:
>
> trajan wrote in message <38ED29E1...@optonline.net>...
>
> MC wrote:
> >
> >(Snip)
>
Thank you for having the courage to take a second look. I was going
make the same point, that most of these works were not intended for 13
or 16 year olds. How many of us have learned to HATE certain
literature simply because it was forced down our throats before we
were mature enough to appreciate subtleties?
Regards,
Trajan
trajan
Trajan
trajan
petitesoeur wrote:
>
> trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:38ED293F...@optonline.net...
> >
> >
> > Carrie DeDeo wrote:
> > >
> > > trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
I suppose the difference in our views is at least partially one of
perspective: you analyze popular culture and I help, in my small way,
to create it. When you're in the trenches actually doing it it
becomes VERY hard to take it seriously. You'd be amazed to know what
really goes on in those conference rooms!
Regards and respect,
Trajan
LA...@la.com
>
>
>petitesoeur wrote:
>>
>> trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:38ED293F...@optonline.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > Carrie DeDeo wrote:
>> > >
>> > > trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>
>I suppose the difference in our views is at least partially one of
>perspective: you analyze popular culture and I help, in my small way,
>to create it. When you're in the trenches actually doing it it
>becomes VERY hard to take it seriously. You'd be amazed to know what
>really goes on in those conference rooms!
But would conferences between novel writers and editors any better.
Remember, Balzac was paid by the word (and you can tell he was - I
can't believe his prose is regarded as good).
>
>Regards and respect,
>Trajan
>
trajan
And it is often hard to tell the difference.
TD
LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>
> trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >petitesoeur wrote:
> >>
> >> trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >> news:38ED293F...@optonline.net...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Carrie DeDeo wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>
> >
trajan
is no other purpose. To treat them as "art" is absurd. I'm in the
business and I can vouch for that. Not a single ad man I know would
disagree.
Magpie
>
> Exactly. There's good stuff done for $$ and good stuff done for art.
> And it is often hard to tell the difference.
Personally, I love watching creative people work around
obstacles set up by the format they're working in. In
writing mass market features, I've still found little
ways to put in things I like while sticking to the
very rigid formula. Haven't managed to create any great
art yet, but other MM authors have gotten at least a
little closer than I have.
I think when the subject of pop culture being used in
classrooms comes up people picture two different
things. Some people think immediately of the interesting
stuff written using these works as subjects and refuse
to cut them off because of a random decision to not
accept something because it was a script for TV instead
of the stage. Others immediately picture the kid who
wanders into the video store looking for Great
Expectations with Gwyneth Paltrow because they want
to get out of reading the book. Both scenarios are
real.
There is, imo, a disturbing trend toward making school
more "interesting" for "modern" students by not handing
them anything that isn't immediately recognizeable. I
have no problem with a person analyzing PMP as if
it's Frankenstein, but if that person can't read
Frankenstein and understand it too, their education
has really failed them. Otoh, if that person is
so dependent on approved texts that they can't
say anything about PMP at all, their education doesn't
seem to have done them much good, imo--they've
missed the best part, where you apply what you've
learned to everything you enjoy.
-m
> > >> > > trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >I suppose the difference in our views is at least partially one of
> > >perspective: you analyze popular culture and I help, in my small way,
> > >to create it. When you're in the trenches actually doing it it
> > >becomes VERY hard to take it seriously. You'd be amazed to know what
> > >really goes on in those conference rooms!
> >
> > But would conferences between novel writers and editors any better.
> > Remember, Balzac was paid by the word (and you can tell he was - I
> > can't believe his prose is regarded as good).
--
The MulderGirls: We put the virtue in virtual reality.
It's not just a nickname, it's a website:
http://www.muldergirls.com/
P.A. Berman
> And it is often hard to tell the difference.
Why is it necessary to differentiate? If it's good stuff, why can't it be
done for money and also be art? Is it fair to draw a line between art and
commerce? Shouldn't artists be compensated? And, is the artist's
motivation for creation really relevant?
If you make beautiful stuff, you should get paid, and that should not
degrade what you produce. It's not too easy to make art while one starves,
nor do I think it's fair to disqualify something as art just because one is
paid for it. A good deal of what we now consider "art" was financed by
someone.
-pab-
Kevin Patterson
And it is often hard to tell the difference. >>
Why is it important to tell the difference? Either it's a good story (or
painting, or piece of music, etc.) or it isn't. I honestly couldn't care less
*why* somebody created something if I find it interesting.
-Kevin
trajan
TD
"P.A. Berman" wrote:
>
> > Exactly. There's good stuff done for $$ and good stuff done for art.
> > And it is often hard to tell the difference.
>
trajan
Trajan
Kevin Patterson wrote:
>
> << Exactly. There's good stuff done for $$ and good stuff done for art.
> And it is often hard to tell the difference. >>
>
Deborah
> TV commercials are carefully crafted to convince and persuade. There
> is no other purpose. To treat them as "art" is absurd. I'm in the
> business and I can vouch for that. Not a single ad man I know would
> disagree.
>
> Trajan
But don't you think sometimes the outcome exceeds the creators intentions,
that sometimes the work takes on a life of its own? I don't know if I really
want to argue that ads are art, but occasionally there will be one with a
moment of beauty or moment of truth. And yeah, I know it's done to make me
unhappy with my life, long for something that's missing, feel like I can't
be whole without their product, but what does it say when you remember the
beauty of the commercial but forget what it was selling? There are a couple
car commercials now with great music and great images that evoke very strong
feelings, but I can't even remember which cars they are selling. I do
remember the music however.
Pre-historic paintings were created for gain. :0)-- They were probably an
attempt to evoke magic to either lure animals or defend hunters from their
ferocious spirits or celebrate the power of the hunters. That art was for a
reason and yet look how beautiful those images are. While the beauty of the
commercials may not quite cross the threshold into art, they can inform the
eye and ears, the psyche to accept the esthetic language they speak. We see
it there and we begin to see it in other places as well. (And I'm sorry, I
work at a school of art and design and even though I know how cutthroat and
high stress those design jobs --and advertising jobs can bee, I also know
the people who work on them have dreams and images and things they want to
do, explore, bring to light. It's hard because they must serve their client,
work in certain parameters, but you'll still see their craftsmanship,
attention to detail and even some of their spirit. Sometimes it peeks
through and you can see their personal vision looking back at you.)
I feel somewhat the same about television shows, about TXF, but I think
there is more of an attempt to create something, express something, and I
suppose because it is a commercial venue they are selling. What I find
fascinating about popular culture is to figure out what the hell they are
selling and if they really mean to sell what they are selling. Hope that
made sense. One of the things I always try to figure out about films or TV
shows is why were they made. Yes, I know a lot of people want to make money
but why this story, why this kind of art direction or music or portrayal.
Why tell a story like Sixth Sense? Yes, it's a ghost story and people like
ghost stories, but the ghost stories that usually make money aren't like
Sixth Sense. If the producers were playing the odds, they would have had
more special effects, a sex scene or two, and the little boy in jeopardy.
Instead, what we got was a kind of spooky To Kill A Mockingbird.
I heard a short piece on Sunday night's production of Fail Safe. It will be
broadcast live, in black and white and the commentator--who couldn't review
the show because it hasn't aired yet, talked about the way television is
trying to recapture its lost market by reaching back into the past of
television. He used the Millionaire show as an example too. I know these
projects get approved by networks because they want to make money, but it's
not that simple. The creative people choose these ideas and if indeed these
new "old" looking projects are given the green light because some network
execs are convinced they might be a golden egg laying goose, it still points
to the public's longing for whatever this recreation of the past represents.
Deborah
petitesoeur
trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:38EE7B83...@optonline.net...
>
>
> petitesoeur wrote:
> >
> > trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:38ED293F...@optonline.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Carrie DeDeo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
>
> I suppose the difference in our views is at least partially one of
> perspective: you analyze popular culture and I help, in my small way,
> to create it. When you're in the trenches actually doing it it
> becomes VERY hard to take it seriously. You'd be amazed to know what
> really goes on in those conference rooms!
>
> Regards and respect,
> Trajan
>
Well analyzing popular culture is only one of the things I do. Sometimes I
help make it also, but for most of my professional life I've been involved
in the making of "high art" products. And the same thing goes -- when
you're in the trenches doing it its hard to take it seriously. I'm sure I'd
be amused by what goes on in the conferences rooms but probably not
amazed -- I doubt its very different from what goes on in the halls of
academia, in rehearsal studios or on film sets. People always seem to turn
to be people no matter who they are or what they spend their time doing.
Incredulous activity & behavior is common to all workplaces. Its one of the
great paradoxes of Life -- its magnificent diverseness matched by its
remarkable similarities. Sounds like a premise for a TV show -- yeah I think
it *is* one -- "Wonderland."
I guess that's why I've always loved the French phrase: plus ca change, plus
c'est la meme chose. And my bottom line motto for dealing with the
pecularities of life has always been: Do it seriously but don't take it
seriously.
--- irene aka petitesoeur the mad rambler:
"Down with Everythi..." ("Jules et Jim")
trajan
> > TV commercials are carefully crafted to convince and persuade. There
> > is no other purpose. To treat them as "art" is absurd. I'm in the
> > business and I can vouch for that. Not a single ad man I know would
> > disagree.
> >
> > Trajan
>
> But don't you think sometimes the outcome exceeds the creators intentions,
> that sometimes the work takes on a life of its own? I don't know if I really
> want to argue that ads are art, but occasionally there will be one with a
> moment of beauty or moment of truth. And yeah, I know it's done to make me
> unhappy with my life, long for something that's missing, feel like I can't
> be whole without their product, but what does it say when you remember the
> beauty of the commercial but forget what it was selling? There are a couple
> car commercials now with great music and great images that evoke very strong
> feelings, but I can't even remember which cars they are selling. I do
> remember the music however.
And you remember that they were selling cars, not pastrami. So far so
good! "Taking on a life of its own" is another way of saying we've
done our job: written to the creative brief, linked a strong unique
selling proposition with a unique feeling proposition, and come up
with a memorable execution...basically we did everything we could to
push your hot button and it worked. Bingo, we all get big bonuses.
And you know which commercials paid off:
Coke is it. I can't believe I ate the whole thing. Where's the
beef? When it absolutely, positively, has to get there...
And the most wondrous of all, by my personal goddess, Shirley
Polykoff:
ONLY HER HAIRDRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE (for Clairol)
> > Pre-historic paintings were created for gain. :0)-- They were probably an
> attempt to evoke magic to either lure animals or defend hunters from their
> ferocious spirits or celebrate the power of the hunters. That art was for a
> reason and yet look how beautiful those images are.
Can't say anything about this; I have no relevant knowledge of ancient
cave paintings!
While the beauty of the
> commercials may not quite cross the threshold into art, they can inform the
> eye and ears, the psyche to accept the esthetic language they speak. We see
> it there and we begin to see it in other places as well.
I would argue the reverse: that commercials deliberately borrow key
images and languages from the world to deliver the message in the most
memorable way possible.
(And I'm sorry, I
> work at a school of art and design and even though I know how cutthroat and
> high stress those design jobs --and advertising jobs can bee, I also know
> the people who work on them have dreams and images and things they want to
> do, explore, bring to light.
All in service of the creative directive, which is an outgrowth of the
marketing objectives. And by the way, ad work is stressful but NOT
cutthroat. You'll never find a more interesting bunch of creatives
anyhwhere...not a whining artistic prima donna in the lot. :)
It's hard because they must serve their client,
> work in certain parameters, but you'll still see their craftsmanship,
> attention to detail and even some of their spirit. Sometimes it peeks
> through and you can see their personal vision looking back at you.)
And that's what we get paid for. If it isn't there, we get fired. By
the client and the agency! (PLUS it has to test better than any
commercial they've ever done!)
>
> I feel somewhat the same about television shows, about TXF, but I think
> there is more of an attempt to create something, express something, and I
> suppose because it is a commercial venue they are selling. What I find
> fascinating about popular culture is to figure out what the hell they are
> selling and if they really mean to sell what they are selling. Hope that
> made sense. One of the things I always try to figure out about films or TV
> shows is why were they made. Yes, I know a lot of people want to make money
> but why this story, why this kind of art direction or music or portrayal.
> Why tell a story like Sixth Sense? Yes, it's a ghost story and people like
> ghost stories, but the ghost stories that usually make money aren't like
> Sixth Sense. If the producers were playing the odds, they would have had
> more special effects, a sex scene or two, and the little boy in jeopardy.
> Instead, what we got was a kind of spooky To Kill A Mockingbird.
Even in ads you have to start somewhere: in the mind, with some spark
of creativity. Advertisements are just a bit more direct about the
purpose. I didn't see the Sixth Sense, so I can't comment about that.
>
> I heard a short piece on Sunday night's production of Fail Safe. It will be
> broadcast live, in black and white and the commentator--who couldn't review
> the show because it hasn't aired yet, talked about the way television is
> trying to recapture its lost market by reaching back into the past of
> television. He used the Millionaire show as an example too. I know these
> projects get approved by networks because they want to make money, but it's
> not that simple.
Yes, it is that simple! (At least from my perspective.) :)
The creative people choose these ideas and if indeed these
> new "old" looking projects are given the green light because some network
> execs are convinced they might be a golden egg laying goose, it still points
> to the public's longing for whatever this recreation of the past represents.
I would say it points to a desire on the part of the audience to
recapture a sense of dramatic authenticity that pre-recorded TV has
not provided in a long time. The trends are read very carefully by
networks and agency media departments before go-aheads are given.
"Fail Safe" wouldn't get a green light if the agency couldn't
guarantee sponsors beforehand, regardless of why the creotor chose to
pitch it.
>
Thank you, Deborah. This has been an interesting discussion. I hope
you have as exciting a time in advertising as I've had, should you
choose that career.
Regards and respect,
Trajan
trajan
Ain't that the truth!
Trajan
petitesoeur wrote:
>
> I sent this already so if it posts twice I apologize.
>
> trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:38EE7B83...@optonline.net...
> >
> >
> > petitesoeur wrote:
> > >
> > > trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > > news:38ED293F...@optonline.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carrie DeDeo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I suppose the difference in our views is at least partially one of
> > perspective: you analyze popular culture and I help, in my small way,
> > to create it. When you're in the trenches actually doing it it
> > becomes VERY hard to take it seriously. You'd be amazed to know what
> > really goes on in those conference rooms!
> >
> > Regards and respect,
> > Trajan
> >
>
> Well analyzing popular culture is only one of the things I do. Sometimes I
> help make it also, but for most of my professional life I've been involved
> in the making of "high art" products. And the same thing goes -- when
> you're in the trenches doing it its hard to take it seriously. I'm sure I'd
> be amused by what goes on in the conferences rooms but probably not
> amazed -- I doubt its very different from what goes on in the halls of
> academia, in rehearsal studios or on film sets. People always seem to turn
> to be people no matter who they are or what they spend their time doing.
> Incredulous activity & behavior is common to all workplaces. Its one of the
> great paradoxes of Life -- its magnificent diverseness matched by its
> remarkable similarities. Sounds like a premise for a TV show -- yeah I think
> it *is* one -- "Wonderland."
>
> I guess that's why I've always loved the French phrase: plus ca change, plus
> c'est la meme chose. And my bottom line motto for dealing with the
> pecularities of life has always been: Do it seriously but don't take it
> seriously.
>
> --- irene aka petitesoeur the mad rambler:
> "Down with Everythi..." ("Jules et Jim")
ABauer7333
<< And you remember that they were selling cars, not pastrami. So far so
good! "Taking on a life of its own" is another way of saying we've
done our job: written to the creative brief, linked a strong unique
selling proposition with a unique feeling proposition, and come up
with a memorable execution...basically we did everything we could to
push your hot button and it worked. Bingo, we all get big bonuses.
And you know which commercials paid off:
Coke is it. I can't believe I ate the whole thing. Where's the
beef? When it absolutely, positively, has to get there...
And the most wondrous of all, by my personal goddess, Shirley
Polykoff:
ONLY HER HAIRDRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE (for Clairol)>>
Such a great point Deborah about serendipity and the profit motive! For this
native Cheesehead feels that the "Behold the Power of Cheese" is in some odd
way one of the most sublime moments ever to appear on tv. Sue me, but it
represents a cultural milestone for my tribe, whatever its intended market or
generative purpose.
Dr. B
http://members.aol.com/abauer7333/personal.html
The MulderGirls: We put the virtue in virtual reality.
It's not just a nickname, it's a website. http://www.muldergirls.com/
P.A. Berman
> Sorry if I was unclear. That was my point.
I'm confused, then, b/c according to what Kevin and I are saying, then there
are commercials that definitely could be art. It doesn't matter if the
purpose of a work is blatantly to sell something. If it's beautiful and
moving, why can't it be considered art?
For instance, I'm crazy about those VW commercials. esp. the one that uses
Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" and the one where the stereo is eerily in synch
with the street scene. Those are like mini-videos, beautifully shot,
interesting, thought provoking even. Am I going out to buy a VW? No, but I
enjoy and admire the commercials as tiny moments of loveliness amid a sea of
crap.
Someday hence commercials, like videos, will probably be considered art.
And why not? The entire genre of comedy was once considered trashy and
beneath consideration by serious scholars. Time has a way of changing
people's perspectives on these things.
-pab-
LA...@la.com
>> Exactly. There's good stuff done for $$ and good stuff done for art.
>> And it is often hard to tell the difference.
>
>Why is it necessary to differentiate? If it's good stuff, why can't it be
>done for money and also be art? Is it fair to draw a line between art and
>commerce? Shouldn't artists be compensated? And, is the artist's
>motivation for creation really relevant?
You're totally right. It's the usual snobism that says that artist
can't possibly be interested in money. Its extention can be found in
all the subsidy schemes around the world, which show that too many
self-proclaimed "artists" want to be paid but not have to deliver to
the public.
LA...@la.com
>Well analyzing popular culture is only one of the things I do. Sometimes I
>help make it also, but for most of my professional life I've been involved
>in the making of "high art" products.
The very distinction smacks so much of pseudo-intellectualism. Glad
you put quotation marks :)
>And the same thing goes -- when
>you're in the trenches doing it its hard to take it seriously. I'm sure I'd
>be amused by what goes on in the conferences rooms but probably not
>amazed -- I doubt its very different from what goes on in the halls of
>academia, in rehearsal studios or on film sets. People always seem to turn
>to be people no matter who they are or what they spend their time doing.
>Incredulous activity & behavior is common to all workplaces. Its one of the
>great paradoxes of Life -- its magnificent diverseness matched by its
>remarkable similarities. Sounds like a premise for a TV show -- yeah I think
>it *is* one -- "Wonderland."
>
>I guess that's why I've always loved the French phrase: plus ca change, plus
>c'est la meme chose. And my bottom line motto for dealing with the
>pecularities of life has always been: Do it seriously but don't take it
>seriously.
>
>--- irene aka petitesoeur the mad rambler:
>"Down with Everythi..." ("Jules et Jim")
LA...@la.com
>TV commercials are carefully crafted to convince and persuade. There
>is no other purpose. To treat them as "art" is absurd. I'm in the
>business and I can vouch for that. Not a single ad man I know would
>disagree.
And just because they do not take themselves too seriously, we're
supposed to take the word of pseudo-intellectuals as to what is art.
Art is what you think of as art.
LA...@la.com
>
>All in service of the creative directive, which is an outgrowth of the
>marketing objectives. And by the way, ad work is stressful but NOT
>cutthroat. You'll never find a more interesting bunch of creatives
>anyhwhere...not a whining artistic prima donna in the lot. :)
Then you've never seen the "creative" people defend their turf against
the "non-creative" people in an ad agency ;)
>I would say it points to a desire on the part of the audience to
>recapture a sense of dramatic authenticity that pre-recorded TV has
>not provided in a long time. The trends are read very carefully by
>networks and agency media departments before go-aheads are given.
>"Fail Safe" wouldn't get a green light if the agency couldn't
>guarantee sponsors beforehand, regardless of why the creotor chose to
>pitch it.
Hmm. It was George Clooney and the conversation probably went
something like this:
GC: I wanna make that live black and white remake
Suit: Are you out of your mind?
GC: And I'll be in it.
Suit: How much money do you need?
ABauer7333
<< I'm confused, then, b/c according to what Kevin and I are saying, then there
are commercials that definitely could be art. It doesn't matter if the
purpose of a work is blatantly to sell something. If it's beautiful and
moving, why can't it be considered art?
For instance, I'm crazy about those VW commercials. esp. the one that uses
Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" and the one where the stereo is eerily in synch
with the street scene. Those are like mini-videos, beautifully shot,
interesting, thought provoking even. Am I going out to buy a VW? No, but I
enjoy and admire the commercials as tiny moments of loveliness amid a sea of
crap. >>
Yeah, I always adored Nick Drake and it's beautiful--but immensely jarring--to
hear Pink Moon in a car commercial (or to hear the Buzzcocks, for that
matter--truly bizarre).
But there are other disturbing issues--none of these artists are mentioned,
their voices and music compensated (we assume, although who gets the money in
Drake's case is anyone's guess), but no credit is given, not the merest
fraction of a second wasted to post a name or title in the corner (it would
distract from the object being sold).
I'm far from historical materialism in outlook, but I have to admit when the
artists are no longer around to sell themselves out, this disturbes me.
Michele Jackson
Magpie wrote:
>
> Others immediately picture the kid who
> wanders into the video store looking for Great
> Expectations with Gwyneth Paltrow because they want
> to get out of reading the book. Both scenarios are
> real.
>
Ha, I pity the pupil who tried to use "Clueless" as a shortcut
through "Emma."
> Otoh, if that person is
> so dependent on approved texts that they can't
> say anything about PMP at all, their education doesn't
> seem to have done them much good, imo--they've
> missed the best part, where you apply what you've
> learned to everything you enjoy.
>
> -m
>
And if a derivative work, no matter what its quality, gives you a
different way or new reason to explore the original material,
that can't be a bad thing. You better believe that I don't spend
a lot of time reading Dante, not my thing. However, the last
couple of XF quite indirectly prompted me to revisit Paolo and
Francesca's fatal love.
To me, all roads lead to Hitchcock, but TXF even more than
others. Hitch consciously echoed Dante's theme that love equals
destruction. In film after film, deliberately patterned some
aspect of his movie couple with Paolo and Francesca, either by
posing them in clinches meant to imitate Rodin's sculpture of P &
F (sharing "the kiss" that took them to the gates of hell),
playing Tchaikovsky's Francesca da Rimini during a climatic
moment, or simply by having the twisted "love" end in death or
pain. When CSM was undressing Scully and then redressed her, I
thought of Vertigo and the way Stewart did the same thing to
Novak. When she pretended to drown, Stewart (or Scottie)
undressed her as she faked unconsciousness. Later he redresses
her, trying to make her into the image of his lost love.
Hitchcock has said that people think that having a man dress a
woman is the opposite of having him strip her naked, but that
basically it was the exact same thing. I think he's right. One
act can be just as demoralizing as the other. In Vertigo, it
certainly was, especially since Stewart undressed Novak for a
caring enough reason (she was soaked) and redressed her for a
very selfish one (to fuel his own obsession).
In the store, when the saleswoman is bemused at the way Stewart
is picking out Novak's clothes, the thing he happens to pick for
her is a black dinner with a square neck. Obviously the length
and sleeves Stewart chose for Novak were different from what CSM
picked for Scully, but one thing certainly made me think of the
other.
Then, we get Chimera and its use (well, Amman dangled if not
exactly "used" them) of mirrors. I couldn't avoid the comparison
to Vertigo's use of doubles and mirrors, the shared theme of
failed illusions. We have that moment in Vertigo where Novak and
Stewart are in front of the mirror, but she's not looking at her
reflection. She's looking at him for approval and HE's the one
looking at the mirror in disappointment. He sees and hears the
real woman in front of him, but glimpses the promise of his Dream
Woman in the mirror. He's distressed because he can't reconcile
the two. His Pygmalion tricks can't transpose the flesh and
blood person into the idealized image behind the glass, beyond
his reach. He wanted the perfect woman just like Ellen wanted
the perfect family in Chimera. Their goals were both ultimately
unattainable. When Ellen sat there catatonic and non-responsive
on the sofa, I was reminded of Vertigo's Scottie and how the
doctor said he was suffering from melancholia and guilt.
Even counting his westerns, I think it would be hard to find a
film where Stewart was as callous as he was in Vertigo. Novak
wasn't honest or innocent, but what if she had been? What if
she'd stood there without sin herself and asked Stewart if he
would love her if she changed her hair from red to blonde and
under those circumstances, Stewart had lied and said yes? The
insensitivity, the pain he was willing to inflict to chase his
dream was startling. Recall his rage when hypocritical rage when
he learned that someone had beat him to the punch and made Novak
over first and, worse, done a better job than he. Of course,
Stewart was not unsympathetic. He was both manipulator and
manipulated, victim and victimizer, which was reminiscent of the
newsgroup discussions re Ellen and the Sheriff.
When Stewart and Novak kissed it was shot just like the Rodin
statues' kiss. Lips engaged, but bodies tentative, removed, the
man's torso especially stiff. Thinking of it made me wonder how
Mulder and Ellen's kiss would have been staged. Perhaps, it
would have told me whether Amman was thinking of Hitchcock or
Rodin or Alighieri Dante . . . Even where the link is tenuous
and arbitrary, it's often fun to examine the connection between
the popular and the classic. I'd think college would be one of
the better places to do that. Michele
P.A. Berman
> But there are other disturbing issues--none of these artists are
mentioned,
> their voices and music compensated (we assume, although who gets the money
in
> Drake's case is anyone's guess), but no credit is given, not the merest
> fraction of a second wasted to post a name or title in the corner (it
would
> distract from the object being sold).
Not true. You can find all the credits for all the VW commercials on
www.vw.com along with how to buy the music. That's how I found out about
Nick Drake, and now I'm a fan, so for me, those commercials led me to
discover music I otherwise would never have known about. And they do post
their URL on many of their commercials, so the authorship is not totally
obscured.
-pab-
trajan
TD
ABauer7333 wrote:
>
> Deborah wrote:
>
> << And you remember that they were selling cars, not pastrami. So far so
> good! "Taking on a life of its own" is another way of saying we've
> done our job: written to the creative brief, linked a strong unique
> selling proposition with a unique feeling proposition, and come up
> with a memorable execution...basically we did everything we could to
> push your hot button and it worked. Bingo, we all get big bonuses.
> And you know which commercials paid off:
> Coke is it. I can't believe I ate the whole thing. Where's the
> beef? When it absolutely, positively, has to get there...
>
> And the most wondrous of all, by my personal goddess, Shirley
> Polykoff:
>
> ONLY HER HAIRDRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE (for Clairol)>>
>
> Such a great point Deborah about serendipity and the profit motive! For this
> native Cheesehead feels that the "Behold the Power of Cheese" is in some odd
> way one of the most sublime moments ever to appear on tv. Sue me, but it
> represents a cultural milestone for my tribe, whatever its intended market or
> generative purpose.
>
trajan
LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>
>
> Then you've never seen the "creative" people defend their turf against
the "non-creative" people in an ad agency ;)
I sure have. And I've been on both sides, as both marketing and
creative! It's not a whining slugfest, I guarantee you. Everything
is gauged against pre-approved objectives.
>
> >I would say it points to a desire on the part of the audience to
> >recapture a sense of dramatic authenticity that pre-recorded TV has
> >not provided in a long time. The trends are read very carefully by
> >networks and agency media departments before go-aheads are given.
> >"Fail Safe" wouldn't get a green light if the agency couldn't
> >guarantee sponsors beforehand, regardless of why the creotor chose to
> >pitch it.
>
> Hmm. It was George Clooney and the conversation probably went
> something like this:
>
> GC: I wanna make that live black and white remake
>
> Suit: Are you out of your mind?
>
> GC: And I'll be in it.
>
> Suit: How much money do you need?
Absolutely. Here's the rest of the conversation:
GC: $20 million.
Suit: OK. Let me run it by the agencies and see if I can line up the
sponsors. They're in, it's a go, George!
TD
trajan
ABauer7333 wrote:
>
>
>
> But there are other disturbing issues--none of these artists are mentioned,
> their voices and music compensated (we assume, although who gets the money in
> Drake's case is anyone's guess), but no credit is given, not the merest
> fraction of a second wasted to post a name or title in the corner (it would
> distract from the object being sold).
>
Just an FYI: talent is negotiated very carefully in advertising. And
it's big money, don't kid yourself! We get catalogs of struggling and
famous artists, musicians, models, etc. who WANT to to ad work.
Screen/print credit on the page is NOT an issue for these people.
They know we're not selling THEM, we're selling product. They make a
ton of dough and get to put the piece in their portfolio to sell up to
their next job, be it commercial or "creative." That's their
motivation.
As to who gets the money: with the exception of standard broker's
fees, the $ goes to the artist. (Talent repping is not a predatory
business. 10-15% off the top is no different from literary agent,
hard goods brokering, publishing or any other rep business.)
> I'm far from historical materialism in outlook, but I have to admit when the
> artists are no longer around to sell themselves out, this disturbes me.
>
>
Then don't blame the ad people: blame the estates of the artists who
send out catalogues of the artist's available materials.
Regards,
Trajan
trajan
to my reponse to the original poster, when I said I couldn't believe
colleges gave credit for such things as he/she was doing. If you
think commercials are art, so be it.
"P.A. Berman" wrote:
>
> > Sorry if I was unclear. That was my point.
>
> I'm confused, then, b/c according to what Kevin and I are saying, then there
> are commercials that definitely could be art. It doesn't matter if the
> purpose of a work is blatantly to sell something. If it's beautiful and
> moving, why can't it be considered art?
>
> For instance, I'm crazy about those VW commercials. esp. the one that uses
> Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" and the one where the stereo is eerily in synch
> with the street scene. Those are like mini-videos, beautifully shot,
> interesting, thought provoking even. Am I going out to buy a VW? No, but I
> enjoy and admire the commercials as tiny moments of loveliness amid a sea of
> crap.
>
petitesoeur
news:20000408015620...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
> Deborah wrote:
>
> << And you remember that they were selling cars, not pastrami. So far so
> good! "Taking on a life of its own" is another way of saying we've
> done our job: written to the creative brief, linked a strong unique
> selling proposition with a unique feeling proposition, and come up
> with a memorable execution...basically we did everything we could to
> push your hot button and it worked. Bingo, we all get big bonuses.
> And you know which commercials paid off:
> Coke is it. I can't believe I ate the whole thing. Where's the
> beef? When it absolutely, positively, has to get there...
>
> And the most wondrous of all, by my personal goddess, Shirley
> Polykoff:
>
> ONLY HER HAIRDRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE (for Clairol)>>
Wouldn't work now though -- You dye your hair ultra-violent to be sure
everyone knows. And its pretty obvious that all of us born-again red-heads
have been hitting the bottle, too! We want the world to know that we're
shelling out money to make ourselves into gorgeous dames. <g>
> Such a great point Deborah about serendipity and the profit motive! For
this
> native Cheesehead feels that the "Behold the Power of Cheese" is in some
odd
> way one of the most sublime moments ever to appear on tv. Sue me, but it
> represents a cultural milestone for my tribe, whatever its intended market
or
> generative purpose.
> Dr. B
> http://members.aol.com/abauer7333/personal.html
The Gap dance commercials are by far the best dance/films being made in
America. I was totally grooving on them -- up until this last set: the
"West Side Story" rip-off which I find revolting.
--- irene aka petitesoeur the mad rambler
"Her name is Irene and it is night. Don't go any further with it.
There's nothin' good about it."
Let's Hear it For: Free Speech, Family Pets & Fatherhood!
The MulderGirls: Putting the virtue in virtual reality.
www.muldergirls.com/home.html
P.A. Berman
> fees, the $ goes to the artist. (Talent repping is not a predatory
> business. 10-15% off the top is no different from literary agent,
> hard goods brokering, publishing or any other rep business.)
I'm guessing that the reason Dr. B was wondering who would get Nick Drake's
$ is b/c he's dead and has been since the 70's. He was young, too, I think
with no kids. So the money might go to some other family member, but I
think that's why the musing as to who authorized the use of his music and
who's getting paid.
> Then don't blame the ad people: blame the estates of the artists
> who send out catalogues of the artist's available materials.
It's not a matter of blame, but I totally concur with Dr. B's feelings of
dismay about dead artist's music being used for cheesy commercials. There
is a material difference between the Nick Drake VW commercial, which is
reverent and beautiful, and for example, the stupid M&M commercial using
Jimi Hendrix's classic "Foxy Lady." I makes me NOT want to eat M&Ms ever
again.
-pab-
Deborah
ABauer7333 <abaue...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000408015620...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
> Deborah wrote:
I didnt' write this, but I enjoyed reading it. :o)
<< And you remember that they were selling cars, not pastrami. So far so
good! "Taking on a life of its own" is another way of saying we've done our
job: written to the creative brief, linked a strong unique selling
proposition with a unique feeling proposition, and come up with a memorable
execution...basically we did everything we could to push your hot button and
it worked. Bingo, we all get big bonuses. And you know which commercials
paid off: Coke is it. I can't believe I ate the whole thing. Where's the
beef? When it absolutely, positively, has to get there...>>
>> And the most wondrous of all, by my personal goddess, Shirley Polykoff:
ONLY HER HAIRDRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE (for Clairol)>>
> Such a great point Deborah about serendipity and the profit motive! For
this native Cheesehead feels that the "Behold the Power of Cheese" is in
some odd way one of the most sublime moments ever to appear on tv. Sue me,
but it represents a cultural milestone for my tribe, whatever its intended
market or
> generative purpose.
> Dr. B
Uh, that was Trajan replying to me, but I remember that Clairol ad. Doesn't
it drive you nuts when you are humming a song and suddenly realize it's from
a commercial. I have to say one ad had an unintentional effect on me. It's
the car ad where the kids are driving to a party on a beautiful moonlit
night (in a convertible). They get to the party and then decide to keep
driving. I have no idea what the car was but I bought the Nick Drake CD that
had the song they used in the ad: Pink.
Deborah
Deborah
Deborah
much.)
> > But don't you think sometimes the outcome exceeds the creators
intentions, that sometimes the work takes on a life of its own? I don't know
if I really
> > want to argue that ads are art, but occasionally there will be one with
a moment of beauty or moment of truth. And yeah, I know it's done to make me
> > unhappy with my life, long for something that's missing, feel like I
can't be whole without their product, but what does it say when you remember
the
> > beauty of the commercial but forget what it was selling? There are a
couple car commercials now with great music and great images that evoke very
strong
> > feelings, but I can't even remember which cars they are selling. I do
remember the music however.
> And you remember that they were selling cars, not pastrami. So far
sogood! "Taking on a life of its own" is another way of saying we've
> done our job: written to the creative brief, linked a strong unique
selling proposition with a unique feeling proposition, and come up
> with a memorable execution...basically we did everything we could to push
your hot button and it worked. Bingo, we all get big bonuses.
> And you know which commercials paid off: Coke is it. I can't believe I
ate the whole thing. Where's the
> beef? When it absolutely, positively, has to get there...
> And the most wondrous of all, by my personal goddess, Shirley Polykoff:
> ONLY HER HAIRDRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE (for Clairol)
I forgot about that one. I love those shows where they run old commercials.
I'd love to see the hair spray torture tests of the late sixties.
Well in a way I suppose we are in agreement. Pushing my hot button was not
such a bad experience for me and it didn't make me want to buy a car, even
more specifically the car being advertised.
It does celebrate the cultural mythology about cars and the American soul,
and promotes that way of life. I suppose that's what they are really
selling? It's not so much we buy their car but just that we associate cars
with freedom and fun? I am a product of American consumer culture--as are
most of us. But I have enough sophistication, as I think many do, to realize
they are selling. I guess I hope that insulates me from subliminal
persuasion to buy the product while I am still able to enjoy the brief
moment of poetry they are using to persuade me. I mean what is poetry but an
attempt to convince the "customer" of a different way of seeing? To promote
the author's vision.
I put what I'll call lyrical advertisement in a different category from the
amusing ones or one-liner ones (though some argument could be made for those
I suppose. I'm just not the person to do it). What strikes me about the more
lyrical or poetic ads is their beauty. They could have chosen to sell their
product in a more annoying way, a way where the product actually sticks in
your mind (i.e. Mentos or Herbal Essence), those commercials that make you
race to the remote to switch the channel but the images and products are
still indelibly etched in your mind. I know the lyricism is a tactic aimed
at a specific demographic, but the beauty survives nonetheless.
> > > Pre-historic paintings were created for gain. :0)-- They were probably
an
> > attempt to evoke magic to either lure animals or defend hunters from
their
> > ferocious spirits or celebrate the power of the hunters. That art was
for a
> > reason and yet look how beautiful those images are.
> Can't say anything about this; I have no relevant knowledge of ancient
> cave paintings!
The same could be said of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. It was a commission
and designed to "sell" a vision of religion, but Michelangelo put his stamp
on it (at times to the chagrin of his patrons).
Edward Hopper was an illustrator and yet his haunting, lonely paintings
have become part of the collective canon of images that support the
mythology of America (Nighthawk Cafe).
I've been purchasing a great collection of Graphic Design books that
features different eras: Italian Art Deco, Deco Espana, Japanese Modern,
French Modern, Streamline, German Modern, Deco type. All the plates are of
advertising copy, and most of them are incredible. They are meant to sell,
but not only do they sell products they sell ideas, visions of the future,
political ideologies, visions of how we wanted our lives to be. They also
tell a story about who we were and who we wanted to be. I don't see that
televisions commercials are any different except they move. Just as there
was crappy design in the twenties and thirties that is neither celebrated
nor remembered, there are TV commercials like that. But here are these
beautiful books and I'd like to think someday some of these wonderful ads
will be "published".
Remember the Coca Cola ads of a couple years ago that were montages of
vivid photography (I know, there were many), but the one with the juggler,
the fire eater, the woman taking a photo, men dancing, etc. --I have it on a
video tape of a show I recorded. I rarely watch the show, but occasionally I
will go back and look at that commercial. It's not only beautiful, it has
some startling images that as stills could hang in any art gallery.
In a way this art has a certain freedom you don't see in fine art. I don't
know how to describe it, but it's freed from the pretensions of having to be
taken seriously and that allows a greater range of expression. Figurative
art has been considered "out" in the art world for awhile (though I think
it's making a comeback). Any kind of traditional, representative painting
has not been at the forefront of critical success.
Designers don't have to pay attention to that. They can use figures and the
abstractions of fine art, they can collage images from other sources
(because the myth of originality does not dominate the process) to get to
where they want to go. I'm around a lot of artists who are concerned with
the environment or deconstructive philosophy. Some of them have written
material they expect you to read to understand their art. Even the texts are
often impenatrable. Also, there's a lot of art about art. You can't get it
if you don't know the esoteric sources. That art may speak to a cultural
elite (at least they are good at pretending they get it) but to most folks
it might as well be a Lewitt white cube or Rothko black painting (btw-I like
both Lewitt and Rothko). Designers go straight for the gut, the eye, the
mind. Their mission is to be understood and the best do it with a grace that
transcends the products they sell. They have a better opportunity to capture
the zeitgeist, the essence of the times. I think that's why TXF became
popular and I also think it's one of the reasons it's time is winding down.
>> While the beauty of the commercials may not quite cross the threshold
into art, they can inform the
> > eye and ears, the psyche to accept the esthetic language they speak. We
see it there and we begin to see it in other places as well.
> I would argue the reverse: that commercials deliberately borrow key
images and languages from the world to deliver the message in the most
> memorable way possible.
I don't think those two ideas are mutually exclusive. I have a theory that a
lot of what is being produced now both in advertising and television and
films is being designed by people who took art history, and have a good
liberal arts education. I remember when I saw the opening credits to the
film Seven, I realized the designer had to have seen Joel Peter Witkin
photos. He adopted the style if not the subject matter (though the film had
some similar JPW subject matter). Sorry, just a stray thought.
> >(And I'm sorry, I work at a school of art and design and even though I
know how cutthroat and
> > high stress those design jobs --and advertising jobs can bee, I also
know
> > the people who work on them have dreams and images and things they want
to do, explore, bring to light.
> All in service of the creative directive, which is an outgrowth of the
marketing objectives. And by the way, ad work is stressful but NOT
> cutthroat. You'll never find a more interesting bunch of creatives
anyhwhere...not a whining artistic prima donna in the lot. :)
I'm only going by what former students who work in design shops tell me
(they are young, just out of school). I bow to your experience.
Yes, these designers put their creativity into marketing, but do you not
think so-called fine artists are under those same pressures and many of the
ones who make it have either given themselves over to creating marketable
art or found a way, a gallery, someone to market their vision? You look at
artist's like Julian Schnabel or David Salle who commanded extraordinary
prices in the 80ies for relatively mediocre work, and you know they had
someone who knew how to sell them.
In some cases what is sold is the mythology of the artist's life. The art
establishment creates a market. I'm not saying that's evil or wrong, just
that in some respects it's not too different from what designers do, except
designers and ad agencies are more direct. We live in a capitalistic
society. If you want to be a success you have to sell. If you just want to
be an artist, better have a day job (I work with a lot of teacher/artists,
have several waiter/artist friends). Who makes it and who doesn't in the art
world these days is only peripherally connected to the actual quality of the
art. I'm not saying that the artists who become famous aren't good, but
there are a lot of artist's whose work will never be recognized who turn out
work just as good if not better.
snip
> > I heard a short piece on Sunday night's production of Fail Safe. It will
be broadcast live, in black and white and the commentator--who couldn't
review
> > the show because it hasn't aired yet, talked about the way television is
trying to recapture its lost market by reaching back into the past of
> > television. He used the Millionaire show as an example too. I know these
projects get approved by networks because they want to make money, but it's
> > not that simple.
> Yes, it is that simple! (At least from my perspective.) :)
And because they are chosen, you believe that erases any creative/artistic
merit from the work? Maybe I'm not understanding correctly. Yes, the
projects are picked by executives because someone convinced them it would be
successful, but a lot of the people working on the creative end care more
about the project than the mere fact they could sell it. If that weren't
true, we'd never see anything wonderful or moving or soulful would we? The
fact that it's chosen doesn't automatically remove all the deeper creative
content from the project. It still can have an impact on the viewers, just
like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel--done for profit, designed for a patron,
but moving nonetheless.
>> The creative people choose these ideas and if indeed these new "old"
looking projects are given the green light because some network
> > execs are convinced they might be a golden egg laying goose, it still
points to the public's longing for whatever this recreation of the past
represents.
> I would say it points to a desire on the part of the audience to recapture
a sense of dramatic authenticity that pre-recorded TV has
> not provided in a long time. The trends are read very carefully by
networks and agency media departments before go-aheads are given.
> "Fail Safe" wouldn't get a green light if the agency couldn't guarantee
sponsors beforehand, regardless of why the creotor chose to pitch it.
Yes, I'm sure you are right about this. It's an interesting phenomenon to
me. If you are working in television, you'd better know it's a business
primarily designed to sell something.
> Thank you, Deborah. This has been an interesting discussion. I hope you
have as exciting a time in advertising as I've had, should you
> choose that career.
> Regards and respect,
> Trajan
LOL! Well I'm a little old to switch careers now. I'm a mere Visual
Resources Curator (I run the slide library), but it keeps me close to art
and artists, most specifically art students. Art students are wonderful.
They keep me stimulated and keep my mind active--and sometimes, I even like
their art.
Thanks for the conversation Trajan. It's a pleasure to get your insights
from what we at the Art Institute call the Real World. I know I tend toward
the idealistic, so perhaps Art College is the best place for me.
Deborah
Deborah
<LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
news:38eed4b6...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net... "petitesoeur"
<petit...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >Well analyzing popular culture is only one of the things I do. Sometimes
Ihelp make it also, but for most of my professional life I've been involved
> >in the making of "high art" products.
> The very distinction smacks so much of pseudo-intellectualism. Glad you
put quotation marks :)
We had a course taught here called "High and Low Art". It was inspired by
the MOMA show of the same name. There's a wonderful catalog with great
essays on the topic.
Deborah
Deborah
<LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
news:38eed58c...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
snip
> Hmm. It was George Clooney and the conversation probably went
> something like this:
> GC: I wanna make that live black and white remake
> Suit: Are you out of your mind?
> GC: And I'll be in it.
> Suit: How much money do you need?
LOL! You made me spurt coffee out of my nose.
I'm going to watch Fail Safe and tape TXF.
Deborah
Deborah
P.A. Berman <rubys...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8jHH4.7304$y4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> re: Pink Moon
You can find all the credits for all the VW commercials on www.vw.com along
with how to buy the music. That's how I found out about
> Nick Drake, and now I'm a fan, so for me, those commercials led me to
discover music I otherwise would never have known about. And they do post
> their URL on many of their commercials, so the authorship is not totally
obscured.
> -pab-
I bought the CD too! I didn't know VW credited the artists. I heard Nick
Drake on World Cafe on NPR. I'd never heard of him till the VW ad.
Deborah
petitesoeur
<LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
news:38eed4b6...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
> "petitesoeur" <petit...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >Well analyzing popular culture is only one of the things I do. Sometimes
I
> >help make it also, but for most of my professional life I've been
involved
> >in the making of "high art" products.
>
> The very distinction smacks so much of pseudo-intellectualism. Glad
> you put quotation marks :)
Well, of course, I'd use quotation marks -- I'm the one who doesn't believe
that the high/low art distinction is useful. However, this does not mean
that I think everything is of the same kind. The world is full of all kinds
of stuff serving various & sundry purposes -- different strokes for . . .
Value -- you can either go with the pricetag or you can workout your own
accounting system. Mine is fairly simply. My major 'requirement' for good
art resides in its ability to give me immediate sensory pleasure. Next on my
list of
requirements is -- give me food for thought. The third requirement is -
leave me with material for good conversation.
However, variety is the spice of life -- there are times when I want brain
candy or just background accompaniment. That why the gods created
"Baywatch" & "The Weather Channel," isn't it? :-)
--- irene aka petitesoeur the mad rambler
"Her name is Irene and it is night. Don't go any further with it.
There's nothin' good about it." [Fire Walk With Me]
Deborah
snip
>for example, the stupid M&M commercial using
> Jimi Hendrix's classic "Foxy Lady." I makes me NOT want to eat M&Ms ever
> again.
> -pab-
I'm afraid my M&Ms addiction is too strong to overcome any esthetic
repugnance.
Deborah :o(
Konrad Douglas Frye
><LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
>> Hmm. It was George Clooney and the conversation probably went
>> something like this:
>> GC: I wanna make that live black and white remake
>> Suit: Are you out of your mind?
>> GC: And I'll be in it.
>> Suit: How much money do you need?
>LOL! You made me spurt coffee out of my nose.
>I'm going to watch Fail Safe and tape TXF.
LAGuy isn't that far off.
Head over to http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com and read about Harry
Knowles's set visits. They're priceless.
------
Konrad Frye (k f r y e @ e s c a p e . c a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Allez Cuisine!" - Chairman Kaga
---------------------------------------------------------------------
P.A. Berman
> Drake on World Cafe on NPR. I'd never heard of him till the VW ad.
>
> Deborah
Isn't Nick Drake wonderful? His voice is so textured and moving, and that
commercial is sublime. The Pink Moon commercial was on after "En Ami" so I
taped it, and I've watched it more times than I've rewatched the episode.
Those 30 seconds were so evocative of driving a convertible with your
friends on a summer night. Possibly my favorite commercial ever.
I also like the fact that VW has a website where you can find out who the
artists are and get yourself the CD. They've probably turned scads of
people on to Nick Drake, so aside from selling cool little cars, they are
also promoting beautiful music by a little-known but talented musician. So
there is some intersection between commerce and art, right there.
-pab-
trajan
its finest.
Regards,
Trajan
trajan
"P.A. Berman" wrote:
>
> > As to who gets the money: with the exception of standard broker's
> > fees, the $ goes to the artist. (Talent repping is not a predatory
> > business. 10-15% off the top is no different from literary agent,
> > hard goods brokering, publishing or any other rep business.)
>
> I'm guessing that the reason Dr. B was wondering who would get Nick Drake's
> $ is b/c he's dead and has been since the 70's.
Didn't know that. Sorry to hear it.
He was young, too, I think
> with no kids. So the money might go to some other family member, but I
> think that's why the musing as to who authorized the use of his music and
> who's getting paid.
Then don't blame the ad people: blame the estates of the artists
> > who send out catalogues of the artist's available materials.
>
> It's not a matter of blame, but I totally concur with Dr. B's feelings of
> dismay about dead artist's music being used for cheesy commercials. There
> is a material difference between the Nick Drake VW commercial, which is
> reverent and beautiful, and for example, the stupid M&M commercial using
> Jimi Hendrix's classic "Foxy Lady." I makes me NOT want to eat M&Ms ever
> again.
>
> -pab-
Cheesy? Perhaps those ads were simply not directed at you. But point
taken.
Trajan
trajan
Trajan
Deborah wrote:
>
> <LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
> news:38eed4b6...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net... "petitesoeur"
> <petit...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> > >Well analyzing popular culture is only one of the things I do. Sometimes
> Ihelp make it also, but for most of my professional life I've been involved
> > >in the making of "high art" products.
>
> > The very distinction smacks so much of pseudo-intellectualism. Glad you
> put quotation marks :)
>
LA...@la.com
>
>
>LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Then you've never seen the "creative" people defend their turf against
> the "non-creative" people in an ad agency ;)
>
>I sure have. And I've been on both sides, as both marketing and
>creative! It's not a whining slugfest, I guarantee you. Everything
>is gauged against pre-approved objectives.
I was thinking more interms of watching the "creative" people fight to
keep an empty office they don't use against intrusion by
"non-creative" types actually using it for a week...
>> Hmm. It was George Clooney and the conversation probably went
>> something like this:
>>
>> GC: I wanna make that live black and white remake
>>
>> Suit: Are you out of your mind?
>>
>> GC: And I'll be in it.
>>
>> Suit: How much money do you need?
>
>Absolutely. Here's the rest of the conversation:
>
>GC: $20 million.
>
>Suit: OK. Let me run it by the agencies and see if I can line up the
>sponsors. They're in, it's a go, George!
Somehow, I don't think ad agencies have such power or that CBS would
need to consult anyone to know they can sell something with George in
it.
>
>TD
>
LA...@la.com
>
><LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
>news:38eed58c...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
>snip
>> Hmm. It was George Clooney and the conversation probably went
>> something like this:
>
>> GC: I wanna make that live black and white remake
>
>> Suit: Are you out of your mind?
>
>> GC: And I'll be in it.
>
>> Suit: How much money do you need?
>
>LOL! You made me spurt coffee out of my nose.
You're welcome :) That was my goal ;)
>
>I'm going to watch Fail Safe and tape TXF.
>
>Deborah
>
>
Magpie
> > Deborah wrote:
> > << And you remember that they were selling cars, not pastrami. So far so
> > good! "Taking on a life of its own" is another way of saying we've
> > done our job: written to the creative brief, linked a strong unique
> > selling proposition with a unique feeling proposition, and come up
> > with a memorable execution...basically we did everything we could to
> > push your hot button and it worked. Bingo, we all get big bonuses.
> > And you know which commercials paid off:
> > Coke is it. I can't believe I ate the whole thing. Where's the
> > beef? When it absolutely, positively, has to get there...
> > And the most wondrous of all, by my personal goddess, Shirley
> > Polykoff:
> >
> > ONLY HER HAIRDRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE (for Clairol)>>
>
> Wouldn't work now though -- You dye your hair ultra-violent to be sure
> everyone knows. And its pretty obvious that all of us born-again red-heads
> have been hitting the bottle, too! We want the world to know that we're
> shelling out money to make ourselves into gorgeous dames. <g>
>
> > Such a great point Deborah about serendipity and the profit motive! For
> this
> > native Cheesehead feels that the "Behold the Power of Cheese" is in some
> odd
> > way one of the most sublime moments ever to appear on tv. Sue me, but it
> > represents a cultural milestone for my tribe, whatever its intended market
> or
> > generative purpose.
> The Gap dance commercials are by far the best dance/films being made in
> America. I was totally grooving on them -- up until this last set: the
> "West Side Story" rip-off which I find revolting.
I always give a product more of a chance if it has a good
commercial. I know it's been made to sell me a product,
but I appreciate the job the advertisers have done. That
pets.com sock puppet makes me laugh even when I haven't
seen him for days, for instance. If a commercial bugs
me, I won't buy the thing even if I do like it. If I
end up not liking a product that has a good commercial,
hey, at least they did their job--they got me to try
it when I might not have.
-m
--
The MulderGirls: We put the virtue in virtual reality.
It's not just a nickname, it's a website:
http://www.muldergirls.com/
Magpie
>
> A vindication of advertising!! New career launched! Capitalism at
> its finest.
And I would feel guilty if I didn't mention the best use
of advertising technique in my life--Schoolhouse Rock,
created by an adman trying to "sell" each number so that
his son could learn his multiplication tables (and finally,
so could I!) and moving on to grammar, history, science
etc. He's even said that if his background were just
in music and not advertising, they probably wouldn't
have been as effective, because he knew how to write
to convey information quickly in a way it would be
remembered. Three is a magic number. I got six.
Verb: that's what's happening.
I think Deborah is definitely right about comparing
the way people work when they're creating "art"
or creating a commercial product. You're still using
the skills you've learned in your particular craft
to move the listener or viewer. I work at a magazine
where we tell true stories and give the experience
a specific meaning, which is similar to selling
an idea in a commercial. It's just got a different goal.
Deborah
Konrad Douglas Frye <NOkfr...@escape.ca> wrote in message
news:iJKH4.3559$TC1....@news1.mts.net...
> >> something like this:
> >> GC: I wanna make that live black and white remake
> >> Suit: Are you out of your mind?
> >> GC: And I'll be in it.
> >> Suit: How much money do you need?
> >LOL! You made me spurt coffee out of my nose.
> >I'm going to watch Fail Safe and tape TXF.
> LAGuy isn't that far off.
That's what made it so funny. I liked Trajan's caveat too.
BTW, just saw RTM. I read somewhere or hear DD say in an interview that the
project had originally been offered to Clooney. I'm so glad DD took it. He
was perfectly cast, especially with Driver. I really like Bonnie Hunt.
Deborah
Deborah
> A vindication of advertising!! New career launched! Capitalism at its
finest.
> Regards,
> Trajan
I think I agree. Since we see so much of Capitalism at its worst--it's nice
to notice the benefits. :o)
Deborah
Deborah
> I'd be interested on how to obtain that catalog.
>
> Trajan
Kirk Varnedoe and Adam Gopnik. Museum of Modern Art, New York
Published in conjunction with a show of the same title (see subject line).
Copyright 1990. ISBN 0-67070-354-4 (MOMA paperback). I believe Abrams also
had it in hardback.
I especially liked the chapter on Graffiti.
Deborah
LA...@la.com
>
>Konrad Douglas Frye <NOkfr...@escape.ca> wrote in message
>news:iJKH4.3559$TC1....@news1.mts.net...
>> "Deborah" <tins...@prodigy.net> writes:
>>
>> ><LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
>> >> Hmm. It was George Clooney and the conversation probably went
>> >> something like this:
>
>> >> GC: I wanna make that live black and white remake
>
>> >> Suit: Are you out of your mind?
>
>> >> GC: And I'll be in it.
>
>> >> Suit: How much money do you need?
>
>> >LOL! You made me spurt coffee out of my nose.
>
>> >I'm going to watch Fail Safe and tape TXF.
>
>> LAGuy isn't that far off.
>
>That's what made it so funny. I liked Trajan's caveat too.
Well, thanks again :)
ABauer7333
on
www.vw.com along with how to buy the music. That's how I found out about
Nick Drake, and now I'm a fan, so for me, those commercials led me to
discover music I otherwise would never have known about. And they do post
their URL on many of their commercials, so the authorship is not totally
obscured.>>
That's great to kinow. I have to admit to being prejudiced by the NYTimes
article on this topic a Sunday or two ago. I discovered Drake over 20 years
ago and there's nothing like him so, yes, it's great that he's reaching a new
audience (and not one created by the more sensational aspects of his life and
career, which is how I first came to know the music).
>>
Dr. B
http://members.aol.com/abauer7333/personal.html
The MulderGirls: We put the virtue in virtual reality.
It's not just a nickname, it's a website. http://www.muldergirls.com/
ABauer7333
> fees, the $ goes to the artist. (Talent repping is not a predatory
> business. 10-15% off the top is no different from literary agent,
> hard goods brokering, publishing or any other rep business.)
I'm guessing that the reason Dr. B was wondering who would get Nick Drake's
$ is b/c he's dead and has been since the 70's. He was young, too, I think
with no kids. So the money might go to some other family member, but I
think that's why the musing as to who authorized the use of his music and
who's getting paid.
> Then don't blame the ad people: blame the estates of the artists
> who send out catalogues of the artist's available materials.
It's not a matter of blame, but I totally concur with Dr. B's feelings of
dismay about dead artist's music being used for cheesy commercials. There
is a material difference between the Nick Drake VW commercial, which is
reverent and beautiful, and for example, the stupid M&M commercial using
Jimi Hendrix's classic "Foxy Lady." I makes me NOT want to eat M&Ms ever
again.
-pab-
>>
Thank you pab. That is exactly what made me queasy. I am not saying "there
oughta be a law." I'm saying as a musician, I will probably only support
products who identify the music they're using, or treat it with respect.
I can't think of many that don't; the M&M ex. is classic though.
Magpie
> The Gap dance commercials are by far the best dance/films being made in
> America. I was totally grooving on them -- up until this last set: the
> "West Side Story" rip-off which I find revolting.
Irene, I as just in a video store and thinking of you. A
woman came in with her daughter, who looked about ten.
The girl was very excited, running upstairs to get the
movie she wanted. But it was out.
Girl: (very disappointed) Why is it out?
Mom: ::sigh:: Well, everybody wants to see it now.
Gee, can you think of why "everyone"
would want to see WEST SIDE STORY lately? Yes,
it was the Gap ads. Remember, they might be selling
Gap jeans and khakis, but they're selling WSS
right along with it (and giving dancers jobs
to boot!).:-D
-m
--
The MulderGirls: We put the virtue in virtual reality.
It's not just a nickname, it's a website:
http://www.muldergirls.com/
ABauer7333
>
>
>
> But there are other disturbing issues--none of these artists are mentioned,
> their voices and music compensated (we assume, although who gets the money in
> Drake's case is anyone's guess), but no credit is given, not the merest
> fraction of a second wasted to post a name or title in the corner (it would
> distract from the object being sold).
>
Trajan wrote:
Just an FYI: talent is negotiated very carefully in advertising. And
it's big money, don't kid yourself! We get catalogs of struggling and
famous artists, musicians, models, etc. who WANT to to ad work.
Screen/print credit on the page is NOT an issue for these people.
They know we're not selling THEM, we're selling product. They make a
ton of dough and get to put the piece in their portfolio to sell up to
their next job, be it commercial or "creative." That's their
motivation.
As to who gets the money: with the exception of standard broker's
fees, the $ goes to the artist. (Talent repping is not a predatory
business. 10-15% off the top is no different from literary agent,
hard goods brokering, publishing or any other rep business.)
> I'm far from historical materialism in outlook, but I have to admit when the
> artists are no longer around to sell themselves out, this disturbes me.
>
>
Then don't blame the ad people: blame the estates of the artists who
send out catalogues of the artist's available materials.
Regards,
Trajan >>
Of course. But Drake had committed suicide long before ARPANET was even off
the ground. Did I blame ad people? I'm just saying I would personally be
impressed by a citation on the ad itself--would add a certain cachet
But then I'm probably not in anyone's preferred demographic <g>
Dr. B
http://members.aol.com/abauer7333/personal.html
The MulderGirls: We put the virtue in virtual reality.
It's not just a nickname, it's a website. http://www.muldergirls.com/
Dr. B
http://members.aol.com/abauer7333/personal.html
The MulderGirls: We put the virtue in virtual reality.
It's not just a nickname, it's a website. http://www.muldergirls.com/
Deborah
snip
> But then I'm probably not in anyone's preferred demographic <g>
> Dr. B
Maybe we could start a club-- the demographic most unwanted!
Deborah
trajan
LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>
>>
> I was thinking more interms of watching the "creative" people fight to
> keep an empty office they don't use against intrusion by
> "non-creative" types actually using it for a week...
>
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, so I guess I'll say
nothing.
>
> Somehow, I don't think ad agencies have such power or that CBS would
> need to consult anyone to know they can sell something with George in
> it.
They consult. They may go ahead anyway, but they do consult.
TD
trajan
Trajan
trajan
ABauer7333 wrote:
>
>
>
> But then I'm probably not in anyone's preferred demographic <g>
>
> Dr. B
>
You're probably right! I'd hesitate to a focus group with 10 of
you... :)
Now, I personally had nothing to do with the VW commercials, but I
find this interesting:
Here I am defending advertising, and I find myself becoming intrigued
by your citation of a musician I wasn't even familiar with, BECAUSE OF
A TV COMMERCIAL! Now that's a real "round trip," wouldn't you say?
Ah, how wondrous the wheels of commerce! I shall go forth and
(re-)discover this artist, and remember who I owe it to.
Trajan
ABauer7333
<< The Gap dance commercials are by far the best dance/films being made in
America. I was totally grooving on them -- up until this last set: the
"West Side Story" rip-off which I find revolting.
--- irene aka petitesoeur the mad rambler
"Her name is Irene and it is night. Don't go any further with it.
There's nothin' good about it." >>
Sorry to hear that you feel that way! I think the WSS commercials are
brilliant. I guess I can't see why you call it a rip-off---but I'm not a
dancer! And you have a lifetime of experience! So I guess this shows that we
all bring our backgrounds to bear even in judging something as deceptively
simple as a 30 second advertising spot.
Michele Lellouche
>
>
>snip>
>
> I always give a product more of a chance if it has a good
> commercial. I know it's been made to sell me a product,
> but I appreciate the job the advertisers have done. That
> pets.com sock puppet makes me laugh even when I haven't
> seen him for days, for instance. If a commercial bugs
> me, I won't buy the thing even if I do like it. If I
> end up not liking a product that has a good commercial,
> hey, at least they did their job--they got me to try
> it when I might not have.
>
the diver who's really a pole vaulter! (I also love the "beauty of
sport" with the synchronized swimmers). And that sock puppet, the Gap
(as a skater, I really grooved on the Xmas ones). OTOH, most promos for
TV shows are just awful.
Michele
Akakan
trajan <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in article
<38EF42B1...@optonline.net>...
>
>
> LA...@LA.Com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Then you've never seen the "creative" people defend their turf against
> the "non-creative" people in an ad agency ;)
>
> I sure have. And I've been on both sides, as both marketing and
> creative! It's not a whining slugfest, I guarantee you. Everything
> is gauged against pre-approved objectives.
What planet do you work on?
Creatives generally want to do things that are cool, for purely aesthetic
reasons.
Account people try to bend creatives to meet marketing objectives, which
are defined as the ill-informed whims of senior execs on the client side.
Account people and the clients work together to manipulate the numbers
after the fact, to make the right people look good (or bad, depending).
That's the story of, that's the glory of, advertising.
LA...@la.com
advertisers they do in June. It's pure pandering to the ad buyers
that really menas nothing except as an exercise in ego massaging. One
of the things I don't like about this business.
trajan
media planners? How else are they going to be able to know what to
buy for whom? The buys are made months in advance of season
premieres. The buyers/planners HAVE to know that early.
Trajan
trajan
years. Can't speak for your own experiences, though. Maybe you
should change shops!
Trajan
trajan
>
> > >
> (snip)
> What planet do you work on?
>
> Creatives generally want to do things that are cool, for purely aesthetic
> reasons.
>
> Account people try to bend creatives to meet marketing objectives, which
> are defined as the ill-informed whims of senior execs on the client side.
>
> Account people and the clients work together to manipulate the numbers
> after the fact, to make the right people look good (or bad, depending).
>
This has not been my experience at all, and I've been doing it for
over 20 years. If it's yours, maybe you should think about changing
shops! (Or careers!) :)
Trajan
LA...@la.com
>Do you mean the networks introducing the new season's offerings to the
>media planners? How else are they going to be able to know what to
>buy for whom? The buys are made months in advance of season
>premieres. The buyers/planners HAVE to know that early.
Yes. I mean that they make it a big to do with stars on stage and all
that crap, while what they really need is a tape of the pilot (and
even that won't tell them that much...)
>
>Trajan
>