Ikore wrote:and then the question, arts are meant to satisfy the audience or the artist?. is it enough for an artist to people find his work acceptable?
I think that depends on what the artist was trying to achieve in the first place. If they want to make something, say, and AMV, for the purpose of satisfying an itch, then their art accomplishes what they want. If they want to make other people happy; or spread a message and connect with their audience, then the art isn't so much about the artist anymore. Now if the artist doesn't know what they are trying to achieve in the end... well then therein lies a big problem... especially when they run into failure. Because often, an artist just wants their work to be successful; but that's probably the worst reason for making anything. Of course, it get's more complicated when you consider some artists make their art for a living. However, I'll leave you with one of my favourite quotes:
"Success is not to be pursued; it is to be attracted by the person you become." - Jim Rohn
Arigatomina wrote:That's why I have two definitions of good when it comes to amvs
Yeah, I actually do that too.
For me it's Technical vs Personal.
But I usually make sure both of my opinions are expressed. I personally think one of the worst things you can do is tell somebody their amv was good only from the Technical side; when you don't tell them your Personal gripes. Of course, I always try to understand what the editor what actually trying
to do when they made the video, and take that into consideration so I don't focus too much on flaws that the editor willingly accepted as part of their AMV.