I think this highlights an inherent tension between marketing and art.
When I create such and such a piece as an artist I want to present it a certain way, even down to the marketing material--I want it all to express the correct vision--i.e. there is one 'correct' promotional image for it.
Marketers, contrarily strictly have the utilitarian principle of conversion in mind--they want to manipulate my vision to make it a better fit for as wide an audience as possible and in so doing diminish and cheapen the art to target certain subsets or groups who may not actually fit the intended audience when you consider the work as a whole. Art is reduced to a profit making instrument.
That's precisely what this method attempts--cast a wider net by deceiving the fish and ignoring the wishes of the fisherman, who, only wanting trout, now gets the whole biosphere of the sea in his boat.
Its not very honest, and will probably make people upset unless the content based recommendation algorithm aligns perfectly with the image focused one (i.e. the image is only manipulated to fit your taste after it's ascertained the content as a whole and on its own fits your taste, and not only a subset of that content, i.e. one or two brief romantic scenes in a movie that has as its actual subject matter something entirely unromantic).
Author of any kind is not an abstract "artist" from an ivory tower that receives his work from a muse in a fit of inspiration - it's just an image that helps to sell copies. He's a marketer, too.
He has to sell his image and unique style. When he works, he has to imagine what effect will his work have on the audience - which is exactly a marketer's skill.
Also, these "versions" of product are quite common in different forms of art. Songs have radio versions, album versions, remixes and simply alternate releases. Whole albums have different masters (released for different medium and audience). Movies have director's cuts, movie cuts, TV adaptations (where they sometime get serialized). Books composed from chapters printed periodically in magazines, with author responding to reader's feedback (which was much more common in 19th century, but still).
Historically the promo artwork has usually differed in different countries for example, often a lot. So I am not sure the "single vision" is really the case.
Comments
I think this highlights an inherent tension between marketing and art.
When I create such and such a piece as an artist I want to present it a certain way, even down to the marketing material--I want it all to express the correct vision--i.e. there is one 'correct' promotional image for it.
Marketers, contrarily strictly have the utilitarian principle of conversion in mind--they want to manipulate my vision to make it a better fit for as wide an audience as possible and in so doing diminish and cheapen the art to target certain subsets or groups who may not actually fit the intended audience when you consider the work as a whole. Art is reduced to a profit making instrument.
That's precisely what this method attempts--cast a wider net by deceiving the fish and ignoring the wishes of the fisherman, who, only wanting trout, now gets the whole biosphere of the sea in his boat.
Its not very honest, and will probably make people upset unless the content based recommendation algorithm aligns perfectly with the image focused one (i.e. the image is only manipulated to fit your taste after it's ascertained the content as a whole and on its own fits your taste, and not only a subset of that content, i.e. one or two brief romantic scenes in a movie that has as its actual subject matter something entirely unromantic).
Author of any kind is not an abstract "artist" from an ivory tower that receives his work from a muse in a fit of inspiration - it's just an image that helps to sell copies. He's a marketer, too. He has to sell his image and unique style. When he works, he has to imagine what effect will his work have on the audience - which is exactly a marketer's skill.
Also, these "versions" of product are quite common in different forms of art. Songs have radio versions, album versions, remixes and simply alternate releases. Whole albums have different masters (released for different medium and audience). Movies have director's cuts, movie cuts, TV adaptations (where they sometime get serialized). Books composed from chapters printed periodically in magazines, with author responding to reader's feedback (which was much more common in 19th century, but still).
Historically the promo artwork has usually differed in different countries for example, often a lot. So I am not sure the "single vision" is really the case.