art versus science, the ad debate

homogenization. repitition. processes and systems.
guru-ism.
grunt work. boredom. loneliness.
sheep, and probably donkeys, too.
sameness.
And above all, doing things that way just because that's the way they're done.

these are the things ad math is intended to accomplish. (plus some resultants)

Ok, that all sounds like total bullshit, I know. If I were you, I'd be rolling my eyes right about now, too. So don't feel bad.

I've been toying with the looming art vs. science battle for online media supremacy.  ROI, ROI, ROI, process, process, process. It all makes too much sense, but I fear all the process removes the focus from the one place it should be. The people. And what CRM, customer tracking and all the rest can't tell me is why I just smiled, why I told my friend, why I chose pink over blue. On some level it can tell me what I'm more likely to buy, but that information is mostly generalized and reactionary. It's hypothetical and ultimately inefficient.

So, the only choice that remains is to expect a consumer to raise their hands. But, fuck, I'm unlikely to raise my hand for more than a few products. The market can only take so many apples, so many fiskars, so many whatevers. Somewhere fanatical support just runs out, and reach still remains the issue. And there, math wins.

It's easy to say it's a balance of both, even if it's true (and it is). Unfortunately, it may not be possible to create a culture that embraces algorithms as much as it does creativity. If I had to choose one, it'd have to be art, mainly because if science was the only king, we probably would be even more overwhelmed with spammy direct mail.

If you had to pick one, which would it be?

Comments

[Tim Jackson]

Do I really have to answer this? Really?

I'm for art every time. It's my thing, my love, my raison d'etre... however, as I have gotten a little older (and a lot greyer), I have learned to balance the two better. I understand the relationship between art and science far better now. I still lean way over towards the art side, but I see value in numbers and what they "might" mean.

Personally, I try to connect on that very basic gut/ emotional level. I find that to be more of who I am and more of what works for me and what I do.

But I could be wrong; 50% of the time, I'm half-wrong.

[Kevin Hillstrom]

I spent the majority of my career determining who should receive spammy direct mail using geeky mathematical algorithms.

I will also be the first to say that there is a balance between art and science that must be mastered.

Going with science results in not ever making any changes, which bankrupts a company via a long, slow death.

I've seen the downside of going with art --- the end result being that a company has wild swings of unbridled success and crippling failure.

So, we need both!

[Cam Beck]

Far be it for me to break your rules, but I imagine if we really looked at it from a scientific perspective, we would realize that art is a necessary component, and thus could not be excluded. And if we had the capacity to scientifically measure it, we'd discover why art works the way it does.

In other words, the two are completely codependent. One cannot exist apart from the other and be effective. The real question is if we have the language to describe it. I'm pretty sure we don't at this point, or if we do, it's not located in one place, with one person.

[Moda di Magno]

ART ART ART.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Last night I attended the unveiling of the new Center for The Creative Economy at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. It used to be about the industrial arts, Philadelphia being an old manufacturing capital (I think the last to die was Scotts Paper).

Now we are the hotbed for the sciences: Penn U. leading the pack, the biotech industry, DuPont and AstraZeneca (both in DE, but so close), J&J, Merck and the chemical cousins Rohm and Haas and Arkema (used to be Atofina), plus the National HQ of the Chemical Heritage Foundation.

But -- there's always a but -- we have the Kimmel Center, the Philadelphia Dance Co., the University of the Arts, a renaissance of the theatres in Center City and small independent ones in the 'burbs, The Museum of Art, the museum of National History, the Rodin Museum, the Franklin museum, etc.

You get the point. Last night, the guest speaker was Richard Florida, author of The Creative Class. Is it both? So it seems. Once I have a chance to catch up with myself, I will post about the content of his talk. I was skeptical going in; I am now beginning to see some merit to his points. More at ConversationAgent.com next week...

[Paul McEnany]

Tim- I had the sneaking suspicion you'd swing closer to the art side of the pendulum. And, you got me beat, 25% of the time, I'm 80% right. Wait...

Kevin- Well, you know you're right! It's still difficult for both to exist in perfect balance. Companies, like people, just tend to lean one way or the other, I think.
Thanks for coming by!

Cam- You just made my head explode. :)

MdM- Yes!

VM- I'll be looking forward to the post! And, I see your point, and I really like it. One feeds the other. Thinking feeds thinking, no matter the variety. Now that's a good one...

[Tim Jackson]

Cam- I've got the words, but I'm not sharing them yet. I have to finish my doctoral papers first. Then I'll share.