"let them read Smock"

Kate's lowbrow right now, I think you need to visit and laugh at the Pillsbury doughchrist (scroll down a second).

Mocking religion Art and *Doughboy* in one go - triple blasphemy!

Apparently the slack-jawed plebes who read Smock, a trendy art mag with "a modern art attitude," are in need of an introduction to the finer side of creative expression. The print publication's audience is comprised of "the ultimate art enthusiasts - fashionable, creative, upwardly mobile, affluent, well-travelled men and women who define themselves through a strong sense of design and style," according to its Web page aimed at advertisers.

Still, as featured in a 3/25 Ad Age story (On easel street: Canvas counts are up, by Adages author Richard Linnett), Smock is now expanding the horizons of its otherwise ignorant readers through a series of full-page "brand expressions," i.e. works created by "legendary artists" that center around an advertiser's brand. The advertiser pays for the media placement, the art is commissioned by Smock and the artist is free to sell the original work if desired. I guess that set-up keeps the artists from directly lining their pockets with the impure funds of advertisers.

A 60x48 oil-on-wood enamel rendering by Graham Gillmore entitled "Strike Out on Your Own" was included as a Lucky Strike brand expression in the Winter 2002 issue, for example.

The Smock staff is not attempting to disguise the reality of the situation: this is a good way to sell ads.

You can leave the idealism up to the artists. Take painter Anh Duong, creator of a full-page brand expression for the Diane von Furstenberg fashion-line. She denies the notion that, in Ad Age's words, "the expressions kill the integrity of the art and the artist." Instead, she contends, "Art tends to be too elitist. It is better to be more commercial and expose art to a larger audience."

Man, it's a good thing we commoners have kindly folks like Duong to guide us towards enlightenment. If it weren't for people like her and all those selfless Absolut ad artists, I may still be mistaking the cover of Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy for tasteful art.

Truthfully, I don't have anything against artists who do commercial work to supplement their income, just as I don't have anything against full-on commercial artists. Many people believe that art is art no matter the muse, be it a nude model or this year's Jaguar model. What gets under my skin is when artists like Duong are dishonest about why they're crossing into the chasm of commercialism. Obviously the trend-setting readers of Smock magazine don't require initiation into the world of art and culture. Why is it so wrong to acknowledge the need or desire for the extra money?

It's a good thing when "fine art" that is created for commercial purposes and actually targeted towards an otherwise ignorant audience opens up a few minds to artistic expression (barring anything done by Peter Max, of course). It's just so easy to mock artists who try to hide behind the drop cloth of evangelism.

I just wonder whether these sorts of artists would change their minds about the importance of exposing culture to the masses if approached by truly mass-market advertisers. Then again, maybe some of this so-called higher art is better left to be embraced by the Soho set. I don't think any of us needs to see the Pillsbury Doughboy nailed to a cross and suspended in a vat of urine.