I didn't say everything was art. I said anything that is done for more than strictly utilitarian purposes is art.Tsunami Jones wrote:No, they're not all art.godix wrote:A 3 year olds scribblings are art. Drawing stuff in the snow with your pee is art. Shaping your mashed potatoes into the grand canyon is art. AMVs are art. None of these are GOOD art but they're all art.
If everything is art, than actually nothing is art, as there is then no value that makes art art, which in turn makes art not exist.
Look at my examples more closely. A 3 year old spilling paint all over the place isn't art, that's just an accident. A 3 year old intentionally drawing is art in the same way Michelangelo drawings are art, although obviously one is a lot better art than the other.
Peeing in the snow isn't art, it's just a natural body function. But to use that body function as an alternative to paint and canvas by trying to piss in the shape of NYC skyline, that's an act of expression that isn't needed in the body function therefore it's art. Want another example of body functions being art? There's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation_ ... -famous</a> example of elephant crap being used in art.
Plopping mashed potatoes on your plate ain't art since that's just a step in the functional process of eating potatoes but shaping the mashed potatoes into the grand canyon is a willful expressionist act that has nothing to do with the function of eating them, therefore it's art. Granted, it's rather worthless art. However states fairs are renown for displaying <a href="http://images.google.com/images?svnum=1 ... es">butter sculptures</a> so apparently at least some people like using food in art.
AMVs have no functional purpose so therefore they are art. Some would argue it's too lowbrow to be 'true art' but there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol">well known artists</a> that used comic like images so that argument can be discarded.
Some other examples of my definition at work: <a href="http://www.dumell.net/photo/pages/ulaan ... ml">Soviet architecture</a> isn't art because it's strictly functional (although using it to intentionally convey a bleak feeling in a movie or photo is art). <a href="http://www.wright-house.com/frank-lloyd ... tml">Frank Lloyd Wright</a> is art since it's intentionally expressionistic as well as functional. A mathematical function is just modeling reality (or not as the case may be) but <a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=fract ... e">certain uses</a> of one are be art. Walking down the street is strictly functional but skipping, hopping, and doing cartwheels while going down the street is expressionistic therefore is as much art as ballet is. A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decss">computer program</a> is pretty straightforward functional therefore not art but after the courts said it wasn't protected under the first amendment there were many examples of it being <a href="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Galler ... xt">turned into art</a>.
So in the end anything done with a more than functional use is artistic. Any other definition of art would exclude known examples of things people consider art. However don't make the mistake of thinking just because something is artistic that means it's good art. The world is full of really really bad art, as a glance at what the org host will show.
But it's important to keep in mind who are the people responsible for that art. Afterall, it's usually not the editor that has created the music and the clips.. It's actually pretty interesting how much the editor himself affects the video. Like, how much credit should the editor be given if the video is good or bad?
