Why is "art" a dirty word?

This forum is for the general discussion of Anime Music Videos.

Postby inthesto » Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:51 am

As many other people have said or alluded, it's all a case of perception.

From day one of kindergarten, we are conditioned to think that the Mona Lisa is art, while the skid mark on your tightey whiteys is not. The question is how these standards arose, and whether or not one can cast them off after being imprinted with them.

I could go on and on about this, but I'll save it for the morning.
User avatar
inthesto
Beef Basket
 
Joined: 13 Mar 2004
Location: PARTIES
Status: PARTIES

Postby Arigatomina » Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:05 am

Before I read the second sentence in this thread, the first word that popped into my head after thinking 'art' was "pretentious." Since I was forced to read about 'art' in one of my literature classes, that's the word I associate with the concept of inherent aesthetic beauty in a thing.

I don't believe in self-proclaimed artists. Even when we had to debate whether a pile of crap on a pedastool was as artistic as 'found' art like a chipped shell, I've found the entire issue to be worthless as a subject of discussion. Art is what the majority of viewers consider art. No one is an artist unless his work is considered art by those looking at it. He might consider it art, but one voice makes no difference.

A work is art when it evokes an aesthetic appreciation from those considering it. A found object like a bag of trash on the side of the rode can be as artistic as any famous painting if enough people look at it and decide it's art. You can defecate on a chair and there will be groups who call it art.

Since there is no set standard for judging and determining 'art', not even a limit on the number of people who have to claim it's art for it to *be* art, I have nothing but contempt for the entire concept. Why would I brag that something I put effort into doing is just as good as a pile of human feces? I want nothing to do with the artistic world. If some people consider art a compliment, and consider my work art, then I'll accept that as praise. But I won't insult my effort by putting it on the same level as things I consider useless and worthless - even if it just so happens to be the same level my favorite writers and painters are on. The level includes everything from crap to greatness. Everything is art if other people say it is. To me, that's nothing to aim for.

I have similar contempt for poetry and literature being considered 'art', since none of it is judged on anything but a subjective standard according to the critic, which differs depending on who you talk to.

Calling one's self an artist as if it's a good thing is either pretentious or naive. Until you have to do more than take a dump to be an artist, I see nothing in that title to be proud of.
User avatar
Arigatomina
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2003

Postby godix » Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:11 am

Michelangelo didn't sit around debating the definition of art, he just went and painted the sistine chapel. The Last Supper was painted by someone too busy to spend paragprahs talking about how and why he painted. Vincent van Gogh wouldn't argue on if he was producing 'high art' or 'low art', he'd be too busy going 'EH? Speak up, I can't hear as good as I used to'. So when people debate what is art I gotta wonder if the answer is 'Something you guys are to concerned with navel gazing to produce'.

I personally settled on a fairly simple definition, art is anything that makes you go 'That's kinda pretty but does it do anything useful?' Once I noticed that people will claim that four colored soup cans side by side is great art and they aren't cracking a smile I gave up trying to figure out a better definition.
Image
User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2002

Postby Infinity Squared » Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:23 am

Well, it's pretty straightforward the art is subjective and anything can be considered art if you put enough pretentious people in the room to look at it... but that leaves the question of what to call AMVs if not another form of art.

Once again, I guess it falls to one's own conceptions to decide that answer, which might equally be as pretentious as labelling it art (or worse, in that you are turning your head at every other thing considered art before this and saying I'm above this)...
Image
User avatar
Infinity Squared
Mr. Poopy Pants
 
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Status: Shutting Down

Re: Why is "art" a dirty word?

Postby TaranT » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:49 am

I'm going to remain an agnostic on the subject of "Are AMVs art?"

But it seems to me that someone who says
    Anime is art.
    Music is art.
    But AMVs are not art.

...well, the logic here is clearly moronic.

And I'm not sure it's worth the time to make comparisons to High Art. Most of what the intelligentsia passes off as art is crap, and sometimes literally that. Even classical art isn't all that it's cracked up to be (ref. the movie Amadeus).

UNDRESSED but unabashed, The Venus of Urbino has been staring slyly back at her admirers for almost 500 years. Completed by the Venetian master painter Titian in 1538, and frequently cited as one of his two or three greatest achievements,...she hangs in the Uffizi, one of the great art temples of Florence, at once a symbol of fleshy Renaissance humanism and of the spirit of art that is not of this world....

But listen to the account of this painting and its contemporary reception offered by Lisa Jardine in her 1996 history of the Renaissance, Worldly Goods: "Titian's canvases of statuesque naked women in recumbent poses were regarded as learnedly symbolic by nineteenth century art historians....Only recently did contemporary correspondence come to light which showed that these works of art were painted to meet a vigorous demand for bedroom paintings depicting erotic nudes in salacious poses.

source

In short, these high-falutin' paintings were originally created as the Renaissance equivalent of Playboy centerfolds. They weren't necessarily called "artistic" back then; their owners hid the paintings in closets or behind curtains. The artists - today they're called masters - were undoubtedly talented, but they were also trying make a buck (or lira) by catering to the desires of paying customers.

So, wait a few centuries and you might see Moneyshot and Ugly Girls of Anime playing in the Louvre. :P
TaranT
 
Joined: 16 May 2001

Postby requiett » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:52 am

Art is anything that reflects on nature or society. NURR.
User avatar
requiett
 
Joined: 12 May 2003
Location: Alaska

Postby arzuro » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:16 am

Most anime and most music are not art, as it is, amv's have way better chances of being regarded as art cause they aren't made for ecenomic gain. Many people have issues about amv's being composed of other people's video and music. It's sort of like playing a stereo next to the Mona Lisa (I've been to the Louvre and I find it hard to believe that anyone who has actually seen the painting would deny that it was high art) and claim it was a whole new work of art. It doesn't really work that way.
Scarlet, scarlet, grey, white, death.
User avatar
arzuro
 
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Location: Austria

Postby Infinity Squared » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:30 am

arzuro wrote:...most music are not art...


Music not art?

The concept boggles the mind, if we are listening to what we have been taught of in elementary and high school...

This really goes back to what I said previously, which is that, it is harder, I believe, to say that something isn't art than to say that it is. Certainly by TaranT's argument of past art being considered great art now but starting off as no better than porn means that the whole economic gain or fame whoring argument dictating that something isn't art, is now out of the window.
Image
User avatar
Infinity Squared
Mr. Poopy Pants
 
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Status: Shutting Down

Postby imphill » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:43 am

You really must ask:
Is Anime Art?
The answer is no.
It is an animation.
It is thousands pieces of art<i>work</i> put togeter.
"The scream" by the famous painter dude; thats art.
"The Persistence of Memory" by Salvador Dali; thats art.
"Dragon ball Z"; thats an animation.
"Dragon Ball Z" magna; Now thats art.
"At least i have chicken"
- Ols Klingon Proverb

>Mone Mone!
>Is that right?
>MONE!!
>hmmm...
User avatar
imphill
 
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Location: At my desk.....

Postby x_rex30 » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:02 am

inthesto wrote:As many other people have said or alluded, it's all a case of perception.
User avatar
x_rex30
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2001

Postby arzuro » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:09 am

Well most music produced nowadays is synthetic soulless ultraseller crap. It has no more in common with, for example, Beethoven's works than a flea with an elephant. I think I got the proportions about right here.
Scarlet, scarlet, grey, white, death.
User avatar
arzuro
 
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Location: Austria

Postby bum » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:12 am

Art is the creation of thought by the mind as a result of its own self development. The physical outcome of such thought is what is commonly referred to as art. In simpler terms its creativity.

Well that was the most fitting explanation I could give without denying anything reasonably worthy the title of art. Art and paintings are referred to so closely only because paintings are the most known, longest lasting and possibly most documented type of art. Also, along with music and architecture, paintings (or sketches, whatever. I'm using it as a common term) are possibly the only pure form of art, in that they are a single medium unto there own. Film is also its own medium (well, that’s debatable) but uses music had has a heavy reliance on music. Arts such as theft are a completely different subject so I’ll refrain from commenting on them, but if anyone is up for a deep discussion, hit me on aim or msn.

AMV's as an art form are generally hard to justify. But compare them to video games and things start becoming clearer. They both use foreign media (film, music and art) so if perceived only from basic sense its hard to see them as art. The art they create is one which requires the viewer to experience at a deeper level, and theirfor requires effort. With video games that experience is immersion. The viewer (player) must create a grey area in their mind, momentarily removing the black and white separation of games and reality. The experience which results from this (the gameplay) is the art in video games.

With amv's the art is the sync, the "illusion" of a direct connection between the film and the music. Sync isn’t obvious. Like gameplay it takes effort to realise. This effort mainly revolves around acknowledging the individual creative elements of music, and developing a natural sense of fitting action (I'm using that word in a broad sense) with music. New amv'ers are almost always bound to make a dud, simply due to there relatively weak "6th sense" of sync. Similarly, showing an amv to someone with no knowledge of the art will generate a reaction based on the film and music as individual elements, rather than the sync that binds them. Due to its abstract nature it becomes a much more complex art form to achieve, and thus evolved within the creator as a skill.

If your able to accurately critique an amv (subjective I know, but there’s a clear difference between an experienced editors opinion and a noneditor/editor with little experience) then you’ll understand my explanation of the art in amv's. If you don’t then start by working through the notion that nothing exists as something, and go from there.
User avatar
bum
17747114553
 
Joined: 08 Nov 2003

Postby imphill » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:16 am

<he types way too much....>
Anime is not art........its artwork.
AMV is not art...........it fan art.... :lol:
"At least i have chicken"
- Ols Klingon Proverb

>Mone Mone!
>Is that right?
>MONE!!
>hmmm...
User avatar
imphill
 
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Location: At my desk.....

Postby Bloodseeker » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:18 am

Anime just doesn't feel like art to me... its an excellent form of media, better than any of the others, but in my eyes, its not art. Actually, its hard for me to associate anything that tells a story with art..

I guess that a lot of other people feel the same way.
Bloodseeker
 
Joined: 21 Sep 2005

Postby x_rex30 » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:18 am

imphill wrote:<he types way too much....>
Anime is not art........its artwork.
AMV is not art...........it fan art.... :lol:
WTF!!? :?
User avatar
x_rex30
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2001

PreviousNext

Return to General AMV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests