We've been having 'Art vs. Advertising' arguments since the 60's, with Warhol. He argued that advertising IS art. And his idea sold. A lot. In fact, although the argument itself has faded, the iconography is still strong, his brand is still effective and his merchandise is still circulating the globe. People are still going to the galleries to see it and while not entirely impressed with the work, they will most likely get a four-colour head shot and a matching T-shirt.
So there you have it. Art became advertising and art became a brand along with artists. Much like movie stars, the artist is the brand and will more often then not, create work that fits into that brand in order to strengthen the brand image. After all, galleries also have to have a brand setting them apart form other galleries, and their brand depends entirely on the brand of the artists they carry. Artists have a responsibility to their gallery, and to their brand.
When a person goes to the store to get a bottle of Coca-cola, they want to be able to find it. They want to be able to walk down the isle and see that old logo on the shelf. It's the same with art. People like to be in the know. We naturally want to feel smart and to understand things. Having art that we recognize, or easily fits into a brand, makes us feels smart.
Feeling smart makes us more comfortable with the idea of buying that piece of art because not only will we feel smart, but if it's a widely recognized brand, we are confident that when other people see this art that they will think we're smart and cultured as well.
But if we don't understand the art and it doesn't fit into a brand, we can't sell the idea that we're smart. People wont buy it. Aha! A double meaning. We need to buy that we're going to he smarter by having this, before we buy the painting.
