Emong wrote:No matter how you do it you'll either end up as some kind of an elitist (with a very narrow and ultimately contingent deffinition for a concept) or you come up with a deffinition, which works all too well (when you define concept as an idea you'll end up covering everything with that definition).
Since the parallel to defining art was drawn, the same problem exists there. Modern artists concerned more with their own popularity by being strange and different and "pushing boundaries" have broadened the definition so much that it's a useless label that applies not only to every thing, but every action.
I suppose a better criticism to make, therefore, would be that a video lacks a
solid or
readily definable concept, not one entirely.
Alternatively, because we all like analogies, what would you consider a 3 year old with a crayon is doing? We have a word we can use, drawing, that implies some sort of focused intent and another word, scribbling, that implies a lack of focused intent. I use the example of a 3 year old here to make it painfully simple (they lack the focused intent to be drawing), but anyone can choose to draw or to scribble. Ascetically, drawing is more pleasing to a viewer than scribbling would be, and some people completely suck at drawing so it doesn't make much of a difference which they're doing - the end product is a mess.
Judging by the amazing powers of mental prowess I'm seeing in this thread, I think some people would just be eating the crayon though...
