Response to Gina

In her blog, Gina asked: So is all advertising bad in its manipulation? Are their any campaigns whose consumer control is actually a valuable employment of artistic communication? In my opinion, advertisement extends beyond art. Yes, maybe an add/campaign does influence the consumer and convey the emotions intended by marketing companies; but the intentions behind these adds do not stop with conveying a feeling. The motive for making consumers feel is to persuade them into buying a specific product and therefore financially benefits the company. Despite the emotional messages that may be portrayed, is the consumer actually learning anything? Does the consumer become a better person from feeling these emotions or buying this product? Perhaps, but if so, this process is definitely not directly due to the campaign; it is indirectly linked-- in a subjective manner-- to the emotions marketers attempt to control. So are there campaigns with artistic value of communication? I would have to say no. The emotion isn´t raw; it isn´t conveyed with moral intentions. The communication between companies and consumers is not indicative of sharing human experience; it is rooted in the fiscal. Perhaps some advertisements appear artistic, but I find it difficult to argue that their communicative qualities are solely to inspire or benefit the consumer without also financially--and therefore, selfishly and pleasurably--benefiting the creator.