Artistic Philosophy and Its Applications on AMV Production

[aesling]

I both agree and disagree with your argument. While I think expression is important to what makes art, art, I think what the creator intends only doesn't matter nearly as much as what the viewers think. I define art as something that provokes some kind of reaction, whether on the emotional level, or some deeper thought. So the creator can put all the expression they want into a piece, but if it fails to move the viewers in some way beyond the superficial, I think it fails to be art. However, since the viewers are so important to the process of labeling something as art, I agree with you wholeheartedly that communities like this one are essential to any amv's being considered as art. I don't think all amv's have to be considered art, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if they aren't, but I do think that they should be given that chance.

[ZephyrStar]

Personally

I don't find it nearly as fun to create a video unless I can do something else besides just cut the clips and throw them to some music. My videos to date have a "gimmick" or a concept to them, which is generally larger than just "hay, I lyric synched, or hay, I can time my cuts to the beat." The reason being, is that just cutting clips to a song generally doesn't interest me as much. I don't like the collage genre as much as I like the mixed media genre. However, I think art can in many instances be creation without expression, but that is in the eye of the beholder.

Different people will take different meaning from the same thing within a context. If some random kid just throws some clips to a song, and puts it on youtube, even if his/her goal is just to get "hey you are awesome" comments, in a thousand years, if that video is the last thing left of our current history and existance, they might think it was the greatest thing ever created in the history of art. I guess my point is that ANYTHING can be considered art, but there will always be a debate over what IS and IS NOT art and WHY. (take concept art, honestly, you can be walking down the road, and find a squashed bird, sign your name beside it with chalk, and in some circles it's a work of art.)

I think that even those videos without expression can still be called art. They're called art by somebody somewhere, despite maybe the majority of us feeling that they are not. I think it's not a matter of IS or IS NOT, but a matter of degree.

And actually, to sum it all up

AMVs are good times.

[Kionon]

While I think expression is important to what makes art, art, I think what the creator intends only doesn't matter nearly as much as what the viewers think. I define art as something that provokes some kind of reaction, whether on the emotional level, or some deeper thought. So the creator can put all the expression they want into a piece, but if it fails to move the viewers in some way beyond the superficial, I think it fails to be art.

What if you have a situation where two different viewers have entirely different responses. Especially if one of the viewers is completely indifferent, while the other is moved (perhaps extremely so). How does this fit into your argument that the concept of art hinges primarily on the reactions of the viewer?

[badmartialarts]

I agree that AMVs should be about expressing yourself, but some people ARE best expressed with downloaded .rm clips of Dragonball Z episodes hacked together to the latest nu-metal song on the radio....

[Yok/0]

1.AMVS aren't fucking Caligraphy.
2.Art is created from scratch, we just stole art to create something else
3.Anything I guess just to wear a beret..

[Kionon]

If some random kid just throws some clips to a song, and puts it on boochsack, even if his/her goal is just to get "hey you are awesome" comments, in a thousand years, if that video is the last thing left of our current history and existance, they might think it was the greatest thing ever created in the history of art. I guess my point is that ANYTHING can be considered art, but there will always be a debate over what IS and IS NOT art and WHY. (take concept art, honestly, you can be walking down the road, and find a squashed bird, sign your name beside it with chalk, and in some circles it's a work of art.)

I think that even those videos without expression can still be called art. They're called art by somebody somewhere, despite maybe the majority of us feeling that they are not. I think it's not a matter of IS or IS NOT, but a matter of degree.

I would state that expression is automatically assigned upon entering the discourse. In your example above, the expression is perhaps as simple as "I need to feel good about myself, and this is the way to get my ego boosted." The meaning of that video is neither deep nor globally relevant, but it is expression. Therefore, I cannot agree that videos entered into the discourse (really seen by anyone but the editor herself) could be considered expressionless.

I have plenty of examples of supposed "betas." In reality they're just little clips where I was testing out an effect or a technique or what have you. They have no meaning, even to myself. They are creations without expression, but by that very nature they are also not art.

[aesling]

While I think expression is important to what makes art, art, I think what the creator intends only doesn't matter nearly as much as what the viewers think. I define art as something that provokes some kind of reaction, whether on the emotional level, or some deeper thought. So the creator can put all the expression they want into a piece, but if it fails to move the viewers in some way beyond the superficial, I think it fails to be art.

What if you have a situation where two different viewers have entirely different responses. Especially if one of the viewers is completely indifferent, while the other is moved (perhaps extremely so). How does this fit into your argument that the concept of art hinges primarily on the reactions of the viewer?

Then to the one person it will be art, and to the other it won't. I was thinking of a wider cultural interaction between the work and the people who view it, though. If a lot of people enjoy it, and think of it as art, obviously it's going to be a lot more successful as art than the piece that only one person likes. Even if a lot of people like it and a lot of people hate it, it's still provoking lots of serious debate. In some ways, the reaction doesn't really have to be positive for it to be art, if the creator's intent is to make people examine their assumptions (yes, I said the creator's intent; I said it wasn't AS important, not irrelevant). What I think really fails to be art is something that fails to provoke any reaction at all from most people, though I'm not saying something that everyone thinks is awsome is necessarily art if all people think about it is, "lol, that's teh cool" or whatever.

[Castor Troy]

Can I steal all of this for a paper I'm going to write?

[Kionon]

Then to the one person it will be art, and to the other it won't. I was thinking of a wider cultural interaction between the work and the people who view it, though. If a lot of people enjoy it, and think of it as art, obviously it's going to be a lot more successful as art than the piece that only one person likes. Even if a lot of people like it and a lot of people hate it, it's still provoking lots of serious debate. In some ways, the reaction doesn't really have to be positive for it to be art, if the creator's intent is to make people examine their assumptions (yes, I said the creator's intent; I said it wasn't AS important, not irrelevant). What I think really fails to be art is something that fails to provoke any reaction at all from most people, though I'm not saying something that everyone thinks is awsome is necessarily art if all people think about it is, "lol, that's teh cool" or whatever.

So you argue art as defined by popular election?

What about art not defined as art until later on, perhaps many, many years after it was first created? Plenty of literary figures did not get their due until long after their deaths. Are you arguing that what they produced was not art until they became popular?

[Kionon]

Can I steal all of this for a paper I'm going to write?

Sure.