You Don’t Have To Pick One: Combining Creative Ideals
Flipping channels late at night the last couple of weeks, I’ve been running across a commercial for an advertising firm promoting the work they’ve done for local businesses. The ad simply consists of the president of the ad firm looking straight into the camera and presenting the singular question that local businesses have a choice when looking for firms to help promote them. Do they want a commercial that will make them money, or do they want a commercial that will win awards? He then presents his firm as the one that will make your business money, and subtly reinforces the point by raising his hand, which is holding a fist full of cash, and shaking it at the screen. The ad’s concept is simple and effective. Effective at enraging me every time I see it, because it perpetuates a stereotype that many, many people have of the creative world.
The idea is a simple one, and one that is seen in all walks of the creative industry. Money will be made if you appeal to the broadest audience possible, and it will be better for the bottom line at the end of the day. A broad appeal doesn’t always mean that it’s of poor quality, because quite often creative work that’s done with broad strokes can be quite appealing and very effective, but it does mean that the creative bar is set for the lowest common denominator, and that ambition will take a back seat to known commodities. For the sake of this argument, I’m going to label this the “Paul Blart Aspiration”.
The reason that the “Paul Blart Aspiration” gains traction with the general public is because “award winning work” is often associated with a self indulgent creative vision and frequently results in a low return on investment. And while it may be lauded by people who bestow accolades, it doesn’t catch on with the consciousness of a mainstream audience, and can often alienate the audience that’s attempting to be courted. While I’m a big fan of the following work, I also sat with my parents as they watched it on my recommendation and were very close to disowning me for ever pressing play on the DVD player, so I think it’s safe to call this the “Magnolia Effect”.
While there are certainly more than enough examples of both approaches above (other possible titles were the “Two and Half Men Corollary”, “Anything by David Lynch Approach”, and the “Michael Bay Explosion”), the idea that the two are exclusive of each other is creatively lazy. And everyday, the web is proving that the two ideals can live side by side beautifully. That’s something that we can’t take for granted.
We are able to work each day within a medium where creativity is constantly rewarded, and where there isn’t necessarily a line between mainstream and prestige sites. Certainly the content being presented can create classification, but overall, elegant, sophisticated work, often representing a new creative direction or utilizing an unique technology implementation, are both lauded critically and result in increased site traffic. It’s win-win.
How long will this last? I don’t think anyone can set a timetable, but it’s the responsibility of the creative and development community to keep this marriage of ideals consistently moving forward, and that should be easy, because that desire is the fuel which gets us into the office everyday.
Assuming, that is, we didn’t stay up too late getting upset at local TV ads….
On a related note, I was able to witness an evolution of taste in my girlfriend that I’d like to refer to as the “Having Re-watched Mulholland Drive Years Later, I Kinda Get It Now and No Longer Want to Throw the Television Out the Window Afterward Transition”. So, there’s that.
Also, what would you call something that proves “that the two ideals can live side by side beautifully”?
Posted on September 15, 2009 by Laurel Hechanova
I think the closest that I was able to come for something that proves “that the two ideals can live side by side beautifully” was the “Steven Soderbergh Combo Meal”. While not an actual specific work, he’s someone who can do both the big budget movie well, and then turn around and shoot a film with no budget and still excel. What he doesn’t do is confuse the two and try to make big budget arty (as long as you don’t bring up “Che”), or try to glam up a low budget film just to bring in an audience. He makes his creative intentions clear up front and then follows through.
And “Mullholland Drive” almost got me kicked out by a couple of roommates who watched it after I so highly recommended it when I first moved to the city. I need to stop recommending entertainment to people before I lost all of my friends and family.
Posted on September 15, 2009 by Jeremiah Worth
“Also, what would you call something that proves “that the two ideals can live side by side beautifully”?”
I’d call it “The Dark Knight Effect” - creative, character driven, and it had explosions. Billions in revenue and lauded by critics.
Posted on September 16, 2009 by greg
I think director Quentin Tarantino does the side by side very well; revenge side by side with art.
Posted on September 18, 2009 by Angela M. Rogers