I recently went to the Grayson Perry exhibit at the British Museum.
As we went round I had to ask my wife what we were looking at.
Is it any good?
Cathy said it was wonderful, she loved it.
I asked why.
She said what he was doing was incredibly skilled for a start.
Cath used to do pottery herself.
She also said she was knocked out with his sense of design.
Cathy is an art director.
For me it was just a lot of pots.
And then more pots.
I’d look at the pots and wonder what all the fuss was about.
So I’d read the piece of paper on the wall next to it, telling me what it was about.
And I thought the paper was better than the pot.
But the point was, the pot didn’t work on its own.
Not without the explanation.
And that goes against all my training.
Everything I do has to work totally on its own.
And in a very short space of time.
That’s advertising.
We don’t get to stand next to it explaining it.
So for me, anything that needs explaining is a failure.
It’s a bit like having to read the body copy.
That might have been okay 100 years ago.
People read copy because there was far less media.
They bought a newspaper or magazine and read every word in it.
There was no competing television, or radio, or internet, or DVDs, or games consuls, or social media, or texting, or emails.
Nowadays we get a split second to arrest the audience.
And, if we manage to do that, another second to detain and persuade them.
If they don’t understand it, they don’t carefully read the explanation.
They just flip past it.
There’s far too much other stuff going on to worry about it.
It’s like standing in Oxford Street in the rush hour being quietly enigmatic.
Waiting for someone to ask you why you’re doing it.
Lots of luck.
You’ll wait all day.
But that’s the environment we work in.
It’s not an art gallery.
In an art gallery people have already decided they’re interested before they enter.
So they want to find out about it.
So they’re grateful for the explanation next to the work.
And, in that context, the explanation has a value.
But it’s not a context I’m comfortable with.
To me it will always feel lazy.
As if the art itself can’t do the job.
And I was having this discussion with my wife, as we looked at Grayson Perry’s work.
And my wife reminded me of a TED talk by Richard Seymour.
Richard gives an illustration of the added dimension of ‘feeling’.
Rather than just understanding.
First he shows a picture of a crude drawing of a flower and a butterfly.
He asks you how it affects you.
Is it pretty, is it charming, or is it just not a very good drawing?
Then he tells you that actually that drawing was the last physical act in this world of a little 5 year old girl called Heidi.
She had cancer of the spine and died immediately after finishing that drawing.
Now he asks you to look at it again and see if it affects you differently.
And, of course, the information totally changes what you see.
Now it’s incredibly poignant and heartbreakingly beautiful.
The information increases the effect of the drawing many times over.
And, when my wife put it to me like that, I could at least appreciate the validity of an explanation in certain situations.
An art gallery for instance.
But it’s further proof to me, that what we do isn’t art.
And where we work isn’t an art gallery.
Hallo Dave, my struggle as a copywriter is this. Sure, I know people have no time to read copy. However, when I look at a purely visual poster-type ad, and it makes no sense to me and the many others I ask, it freaks us that there is no copy to explain what we don’t get. So, for me, it’s better to have copy, for those who want to know more. Than for people who want to know more – but have no place to turn to. Thank you.
Robin. - 30 January 2012 3:18 am
A very thought-provoking piece, Dave. But you seem to be saying that copy isn’t important any more, or at least isn’t that important. And that’s quite a radical thing for a copywriter to be saying in my opinion.
Or do you mean that rather than the copy supporting the artwork, or the artwork supporting the copy, they have to be equal partners, working together to achieve a greater purpose? Or is it that they have completely different jobs to do and should be able to work separately, or at least on different levels?
Steve Jones - 30 January 2012 3:21 am
Very thought provoking piece Dave.
Whether it’s art or ads, it either grabs me by the balls or it doesn’t.
I saw a painting in Lennox Cato’s Gallery in Edenbridge recently of
Rochester Castle in the mid 1880′s
It was fascinating because it was detailed and yet the paint
looked as if it had been laid on by a trowel.
It was a place thought I knew well yet didn’t
because it told me something I didn’t know.
What life in Rochester was like 150 years ago.
It was a great painting because it captured a moment in life just like a camera.
It was a bad ad because I couldn’t read the artist’s signature.
It was good marketing because if I had the money to buy it I’d have had to go in and ask who painted it, and then the dealer could have sold it to me.
A few years ago I read all the copy on an ad for a Barbour coat.
Why?
Because it was written in an “interesting and compelling way” as Jeremy Sinclair would say.
The headline trapped me just like yours do.
It read:
“I wouldn’t be alive today save my Barbour”
It was about a mariner who’d fallen into the sea.
His coat saved his life by keeping him warm while the rescue party arrived.
The art direction was pedestrian
but the ad was brilliant,
because that happened 20 years ago
and the P.O.S. material it was produced on had been in the shop window much longer.
Attention is a funny thing.
Alternately:
I saw Turner’s painting of Norham Castle in the Tate.
One whole room devoted to it.
Absolute knockout!
I saw exactly the same painting in Washington State Museum.
Dull as ditchwater.
The difference?
How it was lit.
Writing and Art Direction.
Potty!
Kev - 30 January 2012 9:29 am
Dave,
When I vacated in Manhattan I noticed something peculiar. When I walked down, up, across the same New York street I used to see something different, something more each time.
Is it not possible to view an ad in the same way or do we always have to ‘see it’ from the get go. Could we not possibly see more or gain a different experience every time we view it.
john p woods - 30 January 2012 10:14 am
Herbert Simon the economist once said
What information consumes is rather obvious.
It consumes the attention of its recipients.
Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention… The only factor becoming scarce in a world of abundance is human attention.
A great read on this topic and how our ‘swedes’ work
http://brainrules.net/attention
Jeremy - 30 January 2012 10:36 am
@ J P Woods – Think that’s what BBH used to do with their commercials. Sir John reasoned – rightly – that since a spot would be seen so many times, why not ‘layer’ it. That way, the viewer could look forward to something new each time (s)he saw a spot. (Instead of getting bored.)
Robin. - 30 January 2012 10:44 am
I guess we understand more when we know the history or context of something. As my wife reminds me – “She’s only 4 Jim.”
Jim - 30 January 2012 11:18 am
Robin and Steve,
Here are two of my favourite posters.
One is just a picture, one is just words.
They are both impactful, powerful, and memorable, and neither of them need body copy to explain what’s going on.
http://goo.gl/kcgtk
http://goo.gl/czsri
Dave Trott - 30 January 2012 12:00 pm
Dear Dave,
Aren’t you deliberately missing the point of the show (the Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman) to make a point of your own? You don’t mention any of the other artefacts from the British Museum in the show, Grayson’s curating: the choice and presentation of them is part of a well-rehearsed position in the arts
I would agree with you about the quality of the pots and the toe curling archness of the Alan Measles business. But, in this context Grayson’s work is there to illustrate the function of the artist and demonstrate how (to Grayson at least and he does make a good case for his argument) that function/ role has not changed for a very long time. Ie the artist, through careful and direct manipulation of materials, represents, sometimes comments on and celebrates the society from which he/ she/ they come from. Grayson’s larger point is, I think, that the process through which all this happens (the Craft), is as much the subject as the end result.
If you are interested, I have written more about this in comparison to a traditional painting
http://whitemarkarts.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/twenty-second-approach-to-het-steen-1636/
all the best
Mark White
Mark White - 30 January 2012 12:14 pm
Dave, was this post meant 2 be called ‘Lazy Art Directors’ but then Gordon walked in2 the room as u were typing it?
Grilla Login - 30 January 2012 4:01 pm
Nice thought Grilla.
But the only words Gordon reads are on menus and wine lists.
Dave Trott - 30 January 2012 4:05 pm
Dave, even Voltaire would have chewed on
Foie Gras with Sauternes or
Boeuf en Brioche with Chateaneuf du Pape…
Kev - 30 January 2012 7:09 pm
Awful lot of body copy to explain the headline, Dave. Mind you, I’d like to see the games consuls…
Tom - 30 January 2012 9:04 pm
When it comes to books and film, ‘book people’ don’t seem to get it that adaptations have to be paired down to the most critical elements for it to work effectively on screen.
‘The best copy is the least copy’ – Dave Trott
john p woods - 30 January 2012 10:49 pm
“It’s like standing in Oxford Street in the rush hour being quietly enigmatic.”
This is exactly how I feel about being single – another symptom of an aggressively marketed society perhaps.
Ed - 31 January 2012 12:38 pm
That’s a very poignant comment Ed.
Dave Trott - 31 January 2012 1:37 pm
oh david
i thought there wasn’t any copy in ads because we don’t employ people who can write it anymore.
o’d
john o'driscoll - 31 January 2012 7:25 pm
Thanks for Saatchi’s fly ad, Dave. Years back, at the height of the no-copy insanity, I challenged art directors in the agency to do a no copy version of the fly ad. Also challenged them to make no-copy versions of the ‘this square is black’ poster. No one really succeeded. I think because of the way ads are approached?
Robin. - 1 February 2012 3:20 am
That’s right John
We are walking into the future backwards.
Kev - 2 February 2012 5:50 pm
Surely the art of good copywriting is knowing when to leave words out, as well as when to put them in…
Brian Chapman - 6 February 2012 2:30 pm
Go beyond that which you know.
It’s all about how it makes you feel.
When I’m “In the moment’ with a painting
I’m not consciously placing paint on canvas.
I don’t even think about what colour I’m using
or what size brush or where the brush is going
because at this stage it should all be automatic anyway.
Now I’m free.
I’m pushing the edge of uncertainty forward.
I don’t know where I’m going
but I can sense I’m on the right path,
just like I am writing this now.
It’s the same with writing.
If it feels great
chances are it looks great.
If it feels shit
chances are it is shit.
People lack trust in their innate ability just to do it.
let rip.
grab a canvas and just paint.
grab a pen and just write.
make your mark.
good or bad
it doesn’t matter.
As Nike used to say:-
“Just do it”.
Kev - 8 February 2012 10:10 am