Why not? You’re broadening the distinction. “Commercial intentions” can mean a whole host of things other than advertising. I don’t see what that has to do with my belief that commercial advertising =/= art, no matter how creative it is. Whitman’s motives may have accompanied him to the grave, but can we not call an advertiser’s motives into question given context and, again, the inherent drive to sell?
I doubt if journalist, school teacher, hospital orderly, government clerk, and habitual New York City stroller Whitman spent a day of his adult life barefoot. And he idolized Lincoln, although he worried that giving African Americans the right to vote was going too far.
Levi’s is occasionally good at the subversive messaging. Back in the late 80s /early 90s I had a Levi’s T-shirt with the phoenix from the Irish nationalist movement on it under the word FREEDOM. No reference to where they’d gotten the image or what it was supposed to mean; so unless you knew its origin you’d have never guessed. I suspect someone in their graphics department just snuck it through, but you never know.
Oh, I think he would have appreciated seeing sweaty boys running around in nothing but jeans.
Because most artists are trying to make money from their work, including many who aren’t above doing advertisements, and because you can still create and discuss ads using criteria that are applied to other kinds of art.
And yet here we are, discussing the artistic elements of the commercial. So what makes it “not art?” It’s not art for art’s sake, I’ll give you that much.
Of course you can call them into question.
I like the ad. The reading is powerful and while the imagery could be stronger, as an ad, it definitely stands out from the rest of the ads on television. Arguably, this itself, would make the ad a success.
As for commercials being art - I guess it would be debatable whether this ad would be considered a piece of art, but I think the best commercials ARE art. If we consider art to be something that engages us and is used to reflect our cultural values and aesthetics, I think commercials would be a clear medium of art. I think a great example would be the Macintosh 1984 ad.
I think that discounting commercials because they’re made to sell consumer products is self-defeating since you would be limiting entire mediums. Music videos, after all, are only there to sell music, movies can be made to sell toys, and even pop art itself tends to blur the line between commercialization and pure artistic integrity.
Aren’t movies made to sell toys pretty brutal, as movies?
Walloon, I was indeed kidding about Whitman going barefoot. My apologies if that wasn’t clear in the expression.
I’ll add more later on but I’ve had a very busy day. This is the sort of conversation I’ve been looking to have with friends and relatives but I’ve yet to be met with counter-arguments this substantial. Thank you, Marley23 and TTT.
Same to you, HISSNLISSN. It’s probably a subject that deserves a thread of its own. I hate commercials on general principle because I find them so annoying, but then again, I hate Damien Hirst and I still think he’s an artist. And not just because people pay craploads of money for his work.
No link to the full text of the poem?
I think it’s an interesting take - it isn’t supposed to make you feel inspired about manifest destiny, it’s supposed to make you kind of nervous and apprehensive. It’s under a cloud, kind of fearful. I haven’t decided if I like it or not.
Oh, now I’m disappointed that that is NOT Walt Whitman’s actual voice?
It is an awesome commercial and I never get tired of watching it, even though I don’t quite know what it means.
Didn’t I read somewhere it was playing in theaters before the movie, and afterwards, in the silence, someone yelled out, “dude! It’s only pants!” 
You need to have friends and family like mine who will nitpick you to the death about any substantive arguments made about anything! 
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “pretty brutal,” but if you mean that they’re crude works that shouldn’t qualify as art, I would agree with you that in general, most blockbusters made to sell toys are generally not worthy to be called art, IMHO. Then again, you have the Pixar movies which sell truckloads of toys and I wouldn’t hesitate to call those art. I’m sure however, that there are people out there who would say I’m wrong on either or both of those statements. It seems to be a slippery concept.
End hijack.
Zsofia, I actually found the America (Go Forth) to be much more ominous than the O Pioneer ad in the same series.
SURFACE NOISE! Never saw it in the wild, but it’s my new favorite ad.
I’m not really interested in weighing in on the artistic merits of this commercial, but I do appreciate it for getting me to reaquaint myself with Whitman’s work. I also like how different it is from other commercials. Usually for me they are little more than background noise but this is one I actually enjoy watching each time.