Might I inquire that when it comes to art - what you believe its usage and utility are so that I may view your prism of "truthfulness" the requirements that a thing must satisfy to fulfill its role as art in accord with its usefulness and utility
On 7/7/09 11:38 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: In my reply, I mentioned the Breck Girl. I want to clarify how I perceive advertising or commercial art. First, the images are embedded in several "frames" of usage and utility. The artist at all times has a free hand to make the image in any way, but the sponsor insists that, mostly related to its persuasive power and to some extent related to the art director's perception of style and "ambience" or such. This is not much different in kind from the working relationship between patron and artist, between Pope Julius and Michelangelo or the burghers of Calais and Rodin, etc. Getting back to my notions of the truth conditions of art (described in another email message), when an advertisement is viewed as meeting its utilitarian purpose, then the illustration-picture is When the utility of the picture is not an issue, then the illustration can be viewed through the prism of "nontruthfulness," i.e., as ar --
