I was just over at Creativity Online and saw a new monument to pomposity: a "Director's Cut" of a commercial.
I'm not saying the spot sucks, in fact, I'm not even going to comment on the spot. However, the idea of a director's cut of a commercial strikes me as absolutely ridiculous. Commercials don't exist without the imprimatur of the client. Their whole reason for being is to serve the needs, whims and caprices of a client. I'm sorry, but as far as end products go, directors don't get a vote.
It's different in film, because there's a paying audience that might actually pay to see a director's vision. But I can't imagine anyone outside of the sickeningly solipsistic fraternity of agency people caring a whit about the director's vision.
It's a commercial, for Crissakes.
-
Creativity Magazine is also culpable here. If we are ever to focus the industry on work that works, or at least work that actually runs, magazines must stop promoting the oh-so-cool fringes of our business. Maybe the reason magazines are dieing is that magazine editors kowtow to either sycophants or the lowest common denominator.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)