“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;” [Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28]

Shakespearean scholars maintain that Macbeth is reflecting on the pettiness and fleeting nature of existence. I would suggest that this soliloquy can also work well as a poetic excuse for avoiding one’s to-do list.

The month of January seems to be characterized by the tragic tug-of-war between the noble intentions of Accomplishment and the compulsive stubbornness of her younger sister Procrastination. In fact, one of the variables used in calculating Blue Monday (the most depressing day of the year) is the failure to make good on New Years resolutions.

Herewith a smattering of videos and articles on the theme of action and delay designed to further impede your productivity.

On Procrastination

Procrastination

Johnny Kelly produced this addictive animated film for his Masters in animation at the Royal College of Art. A decidedly insightful and terrifyingly true celebration of distraction.

Later

An in-depth New Yorker piece on why we procrastinate, and what it can tell us about ourselves.

On Accomplishment

Getting Creative Things Done: Fitting hard thinking into a busy schedule

Behance’s brilliant 99% blog often has excellent articles on creative process and insights. This quick piece gives tips on how to produce high-quality work, regardless of how crammed your Calendar is.

Three Ways to Help People Get Things Done

Author and pundit Seth Godin outlines some tactics that can help enable your employees to accomplish great things.

Banksy’s recent film ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is an interesting and eye-opening piece of work, not only as a documentary but as commentary on a kind of modern art. And I’m not just referring to street art – I mean branded art.

A number of talented street artists have been hard at work establishing their brands in very public places – from stenciled celebrity paintings, tiled mosaics à la Space Invaders to a classic London phone booth sculpture. This has attracted significant attention from “real” art buyers and placement in reputable galleries that ordinarily champion the like of Chagall and Warhol. You know you’ve hit it big when your piece is on a Sotheby’s block and Brangelina shows up to your art show.

Street art’s leap from a perceived “desecration of public space” to respected mainstream creative endeavor got me to thinking about its parallels with advertising. Thierry Guetta, the unofficial star of “Exit Through the Gift Shop” may be a slightly deranged shopkeeper with no artistic background on the surface, but nonetheless formulaically established himself as a successful street artist virtually overnight. His shrewd ability to shape behaviour makes him – at least in my eyes – a bit of a marketing maestro. Guetta observed that instantly recognizable images evoke an emotion and response, and so created a credible street art persona – Mr. Brainwash – who curated a massively successful art show that featured hired artists. Over the course of the film, we come to learn that MBW had more to do with hyping the show than developing its original content. His approach: identify classic images that are most likely to inspire a response from his target community (Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, the Campbell’s Tomato Soup can) and let the hired help do the rest. His art was spinning bad press into PR, and turning cheaply commissioned art into millions. The result was a public demand so great, that he was forced to extend the show. He is still rocking today.

What other parallels exist between street art and advertising? To my mind, it’s hard to discount the passionate response for and against each. Take Shepard Fairey, for instance, the man whose iconic rendering of Obama became the visual locus of the campaign. Despite being a Time magazine cover, Fairey’s Obama work still sparked a legal battle with the Associated Press, who claimed that the root photograph used to create the Obama image is their intellectual property. Recently, AP bowed to the notion that elevating their source material to the realm of art could be mutually beneficial, and has initiated a controlled collaboration with Fairey. However, the point is still well made. On one hand, you have the public who are learning to embrace the graphic style and the grassroots spread of street art. On the other hand, you have corporations who will refuse to see past the “graffiti” or copyright aspect of this form of art. Similarly, advertising has a passionate following of those who live and breathe great creative executions – and those who can’t see past the “sell.”

A quick search online reveals that the movement to embrace street art is well underway. From graffiti furniture to street art baby shoes – these are just a couple of examples of the public’s blossoming appetite. Imagine if advertising was regarded as artful enough to generate demand for it to be printed on clothing, mounted on walls (outside of boardrooms) or made into a lamp.

Fundamentally, both street art and advertising exemplify pop art  with a purpose. And while there are certain examples of high artistry in advertising, we can still afford to take a cue from the iconic cleverness of some of today’s best street artists. To do this requires a lot of confidence  on the part of our clients and our creative teams, to be sure. But when you look at how the public is already interacting with street art, it seems obvious that the time for branded, iconic art is now.

We could learn something from Mr. Brainwash, I think. Perhaps the marketing geniuses need to channel a bit more reckless eccentricity. Or, perhaps, reckless eccentricity should play more of a role in marketing.

I heard the most depressing radio commercial on my way into work this morning. Perhaps the most depressing commercial I’ve ever heard. And no, it wasn’t a PSA for breast cancer, or animal welfare, or anything of the like. It wasn’t even for a “serious” issue like life insurance. In fact, the product being advertised wasn’t serious at all. It was for a lottery. Yeah, a lottery.

What I found so unsetting was the premise. To be clear, I’m not complaining about the creative (it caught my attention after all), but rather the premise behind the creative. The idea of the spot was that someone had given up on their dreams because they stopped buying lottery tickets. To be more precise, the person’s “dreams” were actually speaking to them, wondering why they’ve given up on them… because, yes, this person had stopped buying lottery tickets.

Really? Lottery tickets? That’s how you achieve your dreams? The thought makes me sick. The fact that it’s a government agency behind the message just adds insult to injury. “Hey Kids, if working hard or getting an education feels like too much work, you can always fall back on THE LOTTERY!”

Ugh.

Now, I have no illusions as to what we do. I don’t personally believe that we as advertisers are here to make the world a better, kinder, more virtuous place. I have no issues with a deodorant suggesting that if you use their brand, you’ll instantly become more attractive – especially to six-foot tall supermodels. They have every right to suggest that, and the consumer has every right to believe it – or not.

I’ve been trying to pinpoint why this radio spot depresses me so. Maybe it’s because I suspect that a core group of the target market actually believes the message. Or maybe I’m just disappointed that they couldn’t find another way (or a less overt way) to remind me to buy lottery tickets. Whatever the reason, it bummed me out.

Of course, it’s nothing that $46,000,000 won’t fix.
Which I believe is the prize in this week’s draw.

It is remarkably easy to demonize advertising. I have been directly involved in (or at least within listening distance of) countless “advertising is evil, dude…” arguments in my lifetime. The points that are made are pretty standard, and I’d like to reiterate them for your perusal and, hopefully, commentary.

Close your eyes, please. Imagine yourself sitting under a tree, surrounded by other buddies in the liberal arts. Some eat veggie burritos, while others gently tap the djembe they got this past summer. The subject of advertising comes up, and sides are taken.

Argument 1: It is difficult to imagine a social ill that advertising doesn’t directly or indirectly sponsor.

From fanatical materialism to impossible body image, misogyny and disregard for global issues, advertising distorts perceptions. And what’s worse, it does it through messages and scenarios that are patently false or unattainable.

Counter argument: People can buy into or check out of what advertising portrays on their own.

It’s insulting (and terrifying) to imagine that people are fundamentally incapable of discerning between fantasy and reality. When people crack open their favourite beer, they intuitively know that a cabal of bikini-clad coeds won’t parachute in for the party. Similarly, they know that buying Jimmy Choos doesn’t get you front row at New York Fashion Week. If that’s not the case, we’ve got bigger issues to address than advertising.

Argument 2: The money that is placed into advertising would be better spent elsewhere.

If even a fraction of the dollars allocated for advertising were put into any one cause or charity, it would have a massive global effect. There is so much weight placed on our need for stuff. Even a sampling of this effort could facilitate change. The advertising industry knows that it has this power, and doesn’t use it. That’s just evil.

Counter argument: There are lots of examples of corporate responsibility and advertising living side-by-side.

It’s not the industry that makes these decisions, but even so, the more social advertising gets, the more marked the opportunity for charity and social awareness to unite with a bottom line. Examples are myriad – from big international campaigns such as the Pepsi Refresh Project, to national campaigns like the recent Snack Pack Share a Smile campaign. It is so easy to look around, see what’s wrong, and then use advertising as the culprit. But it’s more insightful to imagine how the principles of advertising can be applied to causes to raise their profile.

Argument 3: What about the Dionysian orgy of ads in Dundas Square? Eyesore.

No wonder we have become so attention deficit – at any given time we’re targeted by fifty gargantuan, flashing ads. Public squares like Dundas Square in Toronto would be a much more viable public space if we dispensed with the heavy sell. Even beyond aesthetics, distracting advertising can be dangerous. Consider all those billboards during the morning commute on the Gardiner Expressway. Isn’t our attention better focused on the road?

Counter argument: Good advertising in proper context makes sense.

Times Square is virtually unimaginable (since its earliest days) without advertising, and Dundas square was envisioned as Toronto’s answer to it. It acts as the retail core of a thriving metropolis, so advertising makes sense. And yes, bad advertising can trivialize public space. But good advertising can entertain, decorate and elicit feelings. No one hates on well-executed ads, no matter how much they hate the business.

You may open your eyes now. Call me a cog in the machine, but I’ve never believed this business to be evil. From an early age, I analyzed ads from both perspectives. Everyone is loyal to one brand or another. If you’re reading this, you already have steadfast opinions about the browser, computer and OS that made it all possible. Besides, evil is a harsh word. Landmines are evil. Toddler pageants are evil. Autotune is evil. Durian fruit smells evil. To my mind, advertising is simply a means of communicating.

What do you think?