Imogen Wethered – 20th January 2012
Right so I am debating between whether I am by nature an art director or a copywriter.
So I thought I would use this blog post to discuss the history and theoretical arguments of the eternal tension that has existed between the two forms of expression. I know its a little long but it really is very interesting because at a time it was a very very intense debate between theorists and artists as they tried to define the dominance of one art form over the other.
The debate all began around the ancient Roman sculpture of Laocoon. The sculpture depicts the scene from Virgil’s The Aeneid, in which Laocoon the high priest of Troy desperately tries to rescue his sons from the two sea snakes before is subsequently being killed. In the 1700s Johann Joachim Winckelmann, the first ever art historian, wrote about this piece explaining that the subtle and only very slightly anguished expression on Laocoon’s pained face conveys the ‘noble simplicity’ and ‘heroic grandeur’ that was typical in the work of the ancient Romans.
However, this point was completely opposed by the later German philosopher Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in his ‘An essay upon the limits of painting and poetry’. In this work Lessing greatly triumphs the skill of writing over that of ‘painting’ (a term he uses to refer to all forms of visual art). He explains that of course a sculpture could not show the true extent of the pain and anguish experienced by Laocoon in Virgil’s text, because ‘painting’ was limited to being a spatial, passive and outward thing for people to only look upon, he states that depicting the full extent of the scene’s drama would subsequently make the work ugly and unsightly.
Lessing highly defends writing, explaining that it is a more active, emotionally engaging medium because it is temporal so it unfolds deep within the readers emotions and internal ideas. He explained that writing could tell a story and engage the reader in showing the history and development of a person or object, whereas painting could only ever show an object in its current passive state. Using the terminology of war Lessing even condemns painting for attempting to ‘encroach’ upon writing’s ‘boarders’ and borrow its elements. He criticises paintings attempt to copy writing by trying to become temporal and internal through the use of symbolism to express a deeper meaning within its passive external surface.
Basing his ideas around John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost the later Philosopher Edmund Burke then defended Lessing’s ideas, in his appraisal of the exciting and apprehensive use of the sublime in writing, compared to the use of passive delicate beauty that was depicted in painting. (as discussed in one of my past SCAB posts http://schoolcommunicationarts.com/18112011-2/)
Writing and painting were defined to be very separate and to posses very different qualities.
Burke and Lessing’s ideas, however, were then met with an onslaught of artist’s attempting to prove that painting could be temporal and it could raise fear, apprehension and emotions within its viewer. This response is most predominantly seen in the work of Henry Fuseli, who depicts the most sublime and terrifying scene from Milton’s Paradise Lost of the meeting of Satan, Sin and death arguing at the gates of hell. He even blacks out deaths face in order to engage the viewers imagination and internalise the scene within their own ideas. William Blake was also key in demonstrating that painting, like writing, could be symbolic and have a deeper surface meaning.
So what do I feel these arguments represent in advertising and in the importance of the copywriting and art direction trades?
Well firstly advertising clearly shows that the two intertwined and used intelligently can become a very powerful medium. The creation of a brand’s name into a visual logo of some is the most important and primary way to create a place for it in the customers mind. So in the same way that writing can become more powerful when translated visually, art work become more powerful when it incorporates temporal and emotional elements: In our first term one of our main assignments was to asses the semiotics and symbology in an adverts visual components, in order to understand how it added to the emotion and mood of the advert.
Both components together can tell a very powerful and emotionally engaging story, for in an advert, such as the John Lewis Christmas Advert, the appeal of visuals wouldn’t be complete without the heart wrenching song or the written sign off at the height of the adverts emotional appeal.
However, I do to some degree find that visuals are much more memorable, for example I have the full image of Fuseli’s painting imprinted on my mind, but I can’t even remember one word from Milton’s poem (although to be honest whilst reading it I found his jumble of ‘sublime’ descriptions made it impossible to really have a clue of what the hell was supposed to be going on). Yet, despite feeling that visual elements can be more memorable in most adverts it seems that if the copywriter is skilled enough to write the most succinct and intelligently structured line then the Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘stickiness factor’ sets in and its equally imprinted in your mind as well as your ears.
So in conclusion, I am still undecided and any thoughts would be much appreciated, for example if you couldn’t understand a word I was saying and think I should rule out copywriting then please tweet me to tell me so.
