Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:21:44 +1000
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: re:  Ethics as a figure of nihalism]


Yes, the agencies and media take in the money, but they and the sponsors of ads conduct another aggravation called polling to determine whether people are watching the ads.  Perhaps keeping the brand name in the public eye is more important than specifics about the product.  I think most advertising is very competitive and necessary or a company loses market share to competitors.  Monopolies like Microsoft are an exception.  Microsoft advertises very little on TV or in newspapers except when they're bringing out an updated version of Windows that often adds more problems than it fixes.

As to the questions about art, I think the answer to each is "no". Viewers decide for themselves what is art.  Just as no one can believe "for you", no one can appreciate art "for you". That's my opinion. I saw a great many statues sculpted in stone by unknown Egyptian artists thousands of years ago, which were (to me)  great art, although quite different from the much newer classically beautiful Greek statues from about  fifth century B.C.  Also great art.

As to TV art, photography and TV technology has improved so much in recent years that a guided tour of an exhibition is enjoyable.  So is a visit to the Metropolitan's web site at

http://www.metmuseum.org/

There is so much available that it takes time to understand the system and find what you are looking for.  You can easily find other museums in the U.S. and Europe, but none that I've found compare with the met in quality or quantity of good works.

To avoid TV ads I routinely tape, play back and fast forward all the ads of some programs.

Occasionally I see a  funny ad I enjoy.  There was one of unemployed cartoon sheep.  The sponsor's sleeping pill cost them their job jumping fences and being counted.  Also some line drawings are so extremely simple and effective and creative I must watch them 

best regards,
Hugh