Why is "art" a dirty word?

[Beowulf]

What is the first thing that pops into your head when you hear someone say the word "art", in any context? Is it some French asshole with a skinny ciggarette drinking a cup of coffee? Is it the Mona Lisa/David/Starry Night? Is it Euphoria? Is it Andy Warhol?

Why is it when people talk of the artistic merits of AMVs, they get labled as pretentious or arrogent? (To be fair, a lot of said people are pretentious and arrogent.)

Is likening AMVs to "high art" really so ridiculous? I don't think so at all. To me, art is all about what your trying to say with it. If you say something with a cut tool, a paint brush, a chisel, or your own vaginal blood, it doesn't really matter to me. If what your saying finds an audience, then what is the difference? I submit that there is none.

I bring this up because this is the only artistic community that I know of that has an EXTREMELY vocal self-depricating element. Since AMVs began there have always been people saying that AMVs are not art, are complete bullshit, take no skill, mean nothing, ect ect. I find it so fascinating that an element of a community would constantly put itself down and belittle its artistic acomplishments. Why would you do this?

Why can't the finest AMVs be held in the same breath as the finest paintings, sculptures, composers, ect? Is it the collective guilt of using pirated software (which we all do)? The feeling that since we are chopping up other peoples visions, our own must be insignificant?

Answer me.

[Nightowl]

I wasn't aware that anyone had a problem with certain AMV creators expressing artistic endeavors through their videos. Or, at least, no one has ever complained to me about them that I recall. Other than the ocassional "Playground Love was boring" comment, comments tend to applaud the more somber, artistic approach (yes, I know I'm narcissitically using my own experience as example, sue me).

My belief is that, as a niche of the motion arts, AMVs can be art and entertainment. They can represent either or both, and occasionally neither. The responsibility falls mostly on the creator. Hell, it falls entirely on the creator.

For me, art cannot be defined. To answer such a question tells more about the person answering than any sort of definition. Art is art is art. It comes in different forms to different people. What one person might see as a joke video, another could find some sort of socio political subversive meaning behind it.

AMVs can be art, but they don't have to be. Anyone saying they can't is simply limiting themselves - their own potential and the ability to properly critique any work they deem themselves worthy to critique.

Fucking opinions. Goddamnit.

-N

[Yoshiyuki Inokuma]

What is the first thing that pops into your head when you hear someone say the word "art", in any context?

Art is something that has little denotation. What matters in the word art is your connotation of the word. For instance, whether you like modern paintings, old fashon paintings, AMVs, sculpture, or w/e your art defenition is going to be different than someone elses. Personally my definition of art is something that is pleasing to the eye, no matter what it may be. I think A LOT of things can be considered art. Something that was made by someone and can be seen/heard/touched/tasted w/e.

Why is it when people talk of the artistic merits of AMVs, they get labled as pretentious or arrogent? (To be fair, a lot of said people are pretentious and arrogent.)

I would consider most people narrow minded. I believe a lot of people claim other people are arrogant when they boast about something, even though they probably boast about things as well. God knows I've done it, and I'm sure a lot of other people have done it to. When it comes down to it, can you honestly say you've never been in that kind of position?

Is likening AMVs to "high art" really so ridiculous? I don't think so at all. To me, art is all about what your trying to say with it. If you say something with a cut tool, a paint brush, a chisel, or your own vaginal blood, it doesn't really matter to me. If what your saying finds an audience, then what is the difference? I submit that there is none.

with this. considering AMVs high art is nowhere ridiculous if you think that way. You are entitled to your own thought process, and anyone that differs from that to follow someone elses without being forced to is worse than overrating something you like. You like what you like, just like you think something is art that someone else would not consider art.

Just a personal preference.

I bring this up because this is the only artistic community that I know of that has an EXTREMELY vocal self-depricating element. Since AMVs began there have always been people saying that AMVs are not art, are complete bullshit, take no skill, mean nothing, ect ect. I find it so fascinating that an element of a community would constantly put itself down and belittle its artistic acomplishments. Why would you do this?

The answer to that still alludes me. Besides being modest (which I believe you are not describing) there is no reason for people to do that. I personally haven't seen something like this, but I won't doubt you.

Why can't the finest AMVs be held in the same breath as the finest paintings, sculptures, composers, ect? Is it the collective guilt of using pirated software (which we all do)? The feeling that since we are chopping up other peoples visions, our own must be insignificant?

Answer me.

It's most likely because of the fanbase for AMVs. I don't believe Anime itself has gotten a solid fanbase because it's still relatively knew compared to other art forms. As you know it takes a while before humans can learn to accept a certain change in their society, anime is just one of those changes. You know, maybe this generation can finally bring AMVs to being considered art, or maybe our kids. One day it will happen, but that day just hasn't arrived yet

Human nature, something we most overcome. But we are only human...

hope that helped.

[risk one]

I think art, in the most narrow definition of the word is always trying to find boundaries. Whatever people say isn't art, will instantly be turned into art. That, I think, is what art is in it's purest form. All art evokes something in people, and whatever that is, 'pure art' will find the new way to do that. (As an example, a student from a local art college here converted the parking lot of the college into a camping site for two weeks. It's a far cry from the Mona Lisa, but I think that's what art is these days). Everything that's not pure art in this sense, is usually a mixture between art and craft. In pure art, the craft doesn't matter (although it is sometimes necessary for the art, it's at the same level as the grass the student needed to create the camping site. A means to an end). In some areas, such as painting, the craft matters a little more. This is mainly because it's not just art, it also has top be a painting. You're limiting yourself, taking away the freedom to create anything at all (pure art) and substituting a certain level of craft, thus moving away from pure art.

AMV's are a very limited terrain. First there's the obvious limitations. It has to be video, it has to contain Anime. It has to be to a song. And then there's the self imposed boundaries. We all want to be Caldwell or Koop. It has to have beat sync, and we think of effects and flashy triangles. 95% of the community knows exactly what it wants to do and what the effect should be. We're basically looking to create the effect of a highly condensed movie. A good action video gives you a huge rush in just three minutes, and a good emotional video drags you into all kinds of emotional stuff in just three minutes. We've all felt that effect when we watched some famous video, and we're all chasing it. That's why it's not really true art. We're chasing a common goal, we're not looking at the boundaries and that's perfecting a craft, instead of developing an art. Some people are way out there on the boundaries (Atvaark's stuff comes pretty close, I'd say), but most of them aren't really getting noticed, because the whole community (and especially the audiance) doesn't give a fuck about art, they just want to see Naruto and hear Linkin Park.

A nice comparison can be made with the Movie industry. On the whole, movies have very little to do with art. If you look at small stuff, weeding out the hollywood fluff (as well as the good but more formulaic movies), you can find some art, but movies as a whole aren't art. The AMV community is like that, only smaller. Since everybody watches movies, even the low budget art movies get an audience. However, only about 100,000 people (estimate based on absolutely nothing) watch AMV's, which doesn't leave a whole lot of audience for the really artsy stuff.

So we're not really true artists. We are limited by the definition of what we do, and we limit ourselves even further, and then our audience limits us down even more. Of course, that's not to say there's no art in AMV's. Even the most standard LinkinBall Z wmv has art in it. Just nothing comparable to what Da Vinci, Monet or Warhol were doing.

[badmartialarts]

I've always wondered about this myself.

A lot of people (that's an indefinite number, I know) are very quick to shoot down the term 'art' as soon as it gets applied to an AMV, and just as quickly offer the replacement term 'fanwork'. Do these same people run up to a hip-hop artist who talks about his art and label it 'fanwork' because George Clinton is being backscratched and beat-flipped behind their vocals? Well, I hope they do...that way the rappers can take 'em to a back alley and show them a different form of 'art.'

I'll offer some answers, though. Many people dislike the term 'art' applied to AMVs because in a sense, what we do is collage work. We take existing art and reprocess it into new art. But the very reprocessing IS the art of our 'art'. Does it have merit? Well, like all other arts, that depends on the viewer. I can walk into an art museum and stare at scupltures and paintings and ask myself the same question about some to the stuff that makes it though the doors of these 'institutions of art'. I can listen to some of the latest tracks from Warp Records and things "wow, what a neat song" but I bet many members of this community would log into their website, listen to the same song and want to put single quotes around it like I've been doing with 'art'. ("That 'song' was interesting, Ray." Hear it all the time.)

Another criticism comes from the effort angle. "You didn't have to draw the pictures, you didn't have to write the song, you just sorta slapped them together." Well, to the casual observer, it can look that way, especially in two cases. Case A is a poorly done video. Everyone can see this, even people not familiar with anime. Case B (the fascinating case) is a extremely WELL done video. When a video is so well done that it looks seamless, as if it was animated to the song, and then the person in question finds out it wasn't (I've heard this from a non-AMVing friend), their first reaction is "Well, it probably all just fit together for them." I quickly corrected my friend, but I imagine a similar attitude might be prevalent in the viewers that frequent this site, maybe even in some of the editors. But equating effort to art is just as bad as equating the process to art. If you call Jonathan Pollack's paintings works of effort then I'll take you to a preschool and show you tons of effort. (Some people will get mad at me for criticizing Pollack. I get mad at them for criticizing "Trifecta." We're even now.)

Gah, that was long winded.

[doughboy]

Several years ago I sat through 2 college classes (both periods were 2.5 hours long) specifically on the topic of "what is art?" and the only conclusion after much bitching was that "art" cannot actually be defined by a single group and then held as law to the entire world. It's all just BS that you yourself can classify as you please, but you damn well better be able to back up your claim with clear and concise support to your opinion if you expect anyone to value it. That's all art really is, you defending yourself and not letting anyone break your resolve over your work. If someone/everyone "doesn't get it," they aren't enough to discredit your idea unless you let them.

As for AMVs, I see them as "artistic," and certainly some people have the persona that I attribute to artists (abstract thinking, arrogance, BS coated with intellect), but I don't see them quite yet as "art." I have a very negative view of art culture due to studying in a Visual Arts program and not liking a majority of the people involved. Plus all the rubbish I had to study/memorize from text books added a disrespectful mindset towards "works of art." Historically, once art became more about the idea over the craftsmanship, I found myself loathing in a sea of poo.

The craftsmanship certainly can be high for videos, so it's always a toss up if I see any artistic merit in certain works. I think I can safely say "I appreciate your art" to people here more so than "Wow, the art before me is delicious." It's all a matter of context and application of how I use the word, but in the greater sense of things, I will never associate AMVs with "high/true art," but that's almost a compliment from my perspective.

I don't intend to hopelessly bash art all my life, there are plenty of examples of classic art that sure do impress me. Just know that if you were show one of these videos to a classroom or lecture hall full of people from "art culture," you would be degraded to no end for how fluffy and useless your efforts are in their community. Pretty much explains why I didn't like the people at school.

[badmartialarts]

I feel the need to rephrase a Will Rodgers quote.

"Your right to swing your art ends where my brain begins."

[Zarxrax]

Art is whatever you want it to be. If someone else doesn't think AMVs are art, then they are not art to that person. They can still be art to you.

To a programmer, his code can be art. To an archetect, he might consider each of his homes a work of art. George Lucas might even consider "Star Wars: Episode I" to be art. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

From another perspective, look at something like Mozart's 5th symphony. It's widely considered to be a great work of art. But why? If you ask 99% of the people you meet, I can bet you they won't be able to tell you. They call it art because thats what PEOPLE TELL THEM it is. They have no other reasoning. If Mozart was alive today and released that piece of music, do you think it would immediately be classified as a great piece of art? Probably not. Especially after the RIAA pwned his ass.

[Kalium]

*cough*

Anyway, remix culture as a rule tends to be regarded as no higher than the source it's made from. Anime and the music we use tend to be considered low culture, so thus AMVs are not high art.

Nobody said it had to make sense.

[DrumsofDeath]

Because I said so.