In his interview with Lowdown, Ryan McGinness, curator of the Sponsorship exhibition talked about his view of the changing roles in the sponsor – artist relationship:
“…many artists are moving beyond this simple sponsorship model by co-branding themselves with corporations for various projects…This is a new paradigm: a two-way patronage unique to our generation. Artists are generating financial support for their own work instead of relying on grants from governments, families, or institutions.”
The relationship is portrayed as mutually beneficial: the corporation penetrates its target market through the aesthetic of subculture, and the artist gains financial support. It remains to be seen, however, whether the parties benefit equally in this symbiotic mutualism. The cost/benefit analysis for the corporation is simple – they reach their audience and pay for the service. For the artist, the issue is more complex, with numerous hidden costs.
When an artist “co-brands” with a corporate “patron” what is the impact on the perception of the artist? Does the artist maintain control over the artistic process? Corporate patronage is surely more lucrative than just working a day job, plus the artist gets to work in their chosen medium and promote their work, but they risk the perception that their artistic credibility now accrues to the brand identity of the sponsor.
Graphic artist and filmmaker Geoff McFetridge designed this marketing campaign for Pepsi One, titled "oneify". The campaign deliberately eschewed television, appearing only in print and on the internet. Each logo-like character in the campaign has a distinct personality directed at a target audience. By clicking on the character, you can download the image as an IM icon, trading card, or wallpaper. The characters also have their own "webisodes" displaying their actions on the road to oneness.
The site demands interaction first by re-centreing your browser window, and then with its speeding parade of icons and the blare of its tinny digital soundtrack. After viewing the "Oneifesto", there is a bio of McFetridge, who describes his succesful work as feeling like a "cliche you have never heard before", and the relationship between Pepsi and ad agency TBWA and McFetridge is characterised as an opportuntiy for the artist to share his images with a wider audience: "The essential ideas behind the campaign seemed like an extension of his personal work, making the creative process effortless. Many of the characters and ideas in the project were an extension of what he had already been doing for years...".
Here the graphic artist has his cake, and eats it too - he retains control of the process, reaches a wider audience for his existing work, and gets paid. If it sounds too good to be true, perhaps the attitude of the ad agency's Chief Creative Officer in an interview with the New York Times is more revealing, "Kids are so smart, they'll call you out on overt marketing in a minute...If you engage them in unorthodox ways, with a bit of grace, charm, whimsy,fun and discovery, you can actually get them to buy something."
Is graphic art capable of serving two masters at the same time? In his essay, Absoloot Sponsorship, stencil/sticker artist Shepard Fairey (of "Obey Giant" fame) said that in the Post-Modern era "the only distinction between "fine" art and "commercial" art is not style but intent." This ideal assumes that the viewer responding to the image is capable of distinguishing the intent of the artist from the intent of the advertiser. Moreover it requires a viewer willing to overlook the association of the image with an advertising message.
