In first reading this article, with its focus on advertisements and images that we normally take for granted in our daily lives, I thought back to a cheesy Julia Roberts film 2003, "Mona Lisa Smile." I'm not perticularly fond of this film. However, I couldn't help but think back to one part of the film where Julia Robert's character, the new art history teacher from the west coast teaching at a very prestigious east coast all-girls university, presents a lesson to the girls of current advertisements of the 1950's and why it is not considered art. Somehow I felt this same topic was touched upon when reading this article. Before the article turns towards the tactics publicity uses to accomplish its goal of selling something to the viewer, it acknowledges the relationship that advertisements and paintings share. Much of this relationship is the development of advertisment images being based off of paintings of past years. The images that were conveyed in these works of art is used to the advertiser's advantage to sell their product for success. The use of art is now changed as prior to this sell tactic, as it was an indicator of wealth and social importance. However, it was also something made in the present to be a bookmark of that time. The use of the advertisement is slightly changed as it is used to sell an image with the item advertised to the consumer. It's focus is also more on the future than the present.
Beyond these points, I liked the articles mention of the similarity of a painting and advertisement.
" Both use similiar media, higly tactile means to play upon the spectator's sense of acquiring the real thing with the image shows. In both cases the sense that he [or her] can almost touch what is in the image reminds him [or her] might or does possess the real thing."