Chiikaboom wrote:and "Your Gone." Oh Koop
Koop laughs like a jolly fat guy
Koopiskeva wrote:Oh btw, that interview from from awhile ago.. wish I had actually looked into it more instead of just winging it the interview.. I do believe AMVs are still art, but not so much with the examples I had mentioned in the interview (or rather, with better examples of why I think so).
Either way, whether AMVs are art or not doesn't really matter. I just hate the condescending tone/attitude of people that look down on editing AMVs.
PS - the "Your Gone" avatar was my a-m-v.org profile pic for that short period of time. Nice.
Ingow wrote:ONLY THE POPULAR KIDS GET INTERVIEWED
I AM SO JEALOUS


Nagimom wrote:Digital art is an unavoidable reality!
Otohiko wrote:Nagimom wrote:Digital art is an unavoidable reality!
Actually, that brings up a far better question that needs to be addressed in interviews: are AMVs real?
Cause I'm not so sure, given all the evidence against them
Phantasmagoriat wrote:
... so in that sense AMV's can be art. The problem I think most people have is when an AMV doesn't appeal to *their* senses or emotions. As self-centered as that may sound, it does raise a valid point: The Universality of Human Reactions. Some people might say that on a very basic level, people should react in certain ways to certain things. I remember this being discussed on these boards a couple months ago [regarding people being hardwired to perceive audio/video in certain ways... and how it applies to editing]. I've been thinking about this and I'm still not sure if I agree with it. Maybe on some level human reaction is universal, but I don't think that's what makes it art per se; that's just what makes it *good* art. People who claim AMV's are not art simply use a different definition than the above, and I would be happy to hear it.
The Origonal Head Hunter wrote:I was hardly listening to Koop because my attention always drifted back to the dude's shit-eating grin.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest