What is “real”?
Lars Borges/Getty Images
When we talk about making commercial imagery that feels more “real,” what is it we’re actually saying? There’s no question that imagery you once would have only found in an editorial context is increasingly being seen in advertising…but what else do we mean by “real”?
My take on it, is that we’re saying there must be some kind of emotional route into the image for it to connect with the viewer and feel believable. We want to feel connected to the message.
Some of the best communication in advertising occurs when an idea that has perhaps been lurking on the edge of a common consciousness is brought to fore front. Combine that with great visuals and you have something original that has broad appeal.
In some ways, it’s like hearing a great song for the first time - it feels very new, but there’s also something familiar about it.
Using a straight-forward term like “real” or “authentic” to describe imagery makes the issue of creating it seem a lot more simple than it really is.
What kind of authenticity are you after? Is it that you want to see exactly what your mind’s eye demands, or are you after a true emotional connection with the image regardless of the content?
If it is the first of these two, then perhaps what’s required is a technical understanding, or particular style, demonstrated through model choice, location, lighting and styling. Authenticity in advertising doesn’t happen by chance.
If it is the second of these, an emotional truth that’s required, then there are certainly no limits to the fantasy that may appear in the image…it doesn’t have to be real at all, but the message created needs to feel real - it needs to connect.
Let us know what you think the boundaries of “real” are…I think I’ve kept it pretty simple so far…
In the meantime, here are two of my favorite ads from the past that demonstrate the two approaches mentioned above:
