"Art" can really just be defined as something that someone puts on display for others to see. A leaf on the ground isn't really art, but if someone intentionally decides to put it in a frame in their living room to have it on display for people to look at, then it's art. If we AMV creators decide to make an AMV and show it at a contest or to an online community, or even just to a couple of friends, then our work should of course be considered art. But whether it's good art or not is entirely up to the viewer...Why is "art" a dirty word?
-
Sierra Lorna
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2002 2:48 pm
- Location: BC, Canada
- Contact:
Of course AMVs are art. "Art" can really just be defined as something that someone puts on display for others to see. A leaf on the ground isn't really art, but if someone intentionally decides to put it in a frame in their living room to have it on display for people to look at, then it's art. If we AMV creators decide to make an AMV and show it at a contest or to an online community, or even just to a couple of friends, then our work should of course be considered art. But whether it's good art or not is entirely up to the viewer...
"Art" can really just be defined as something that someone puts on display for others to see. A leaf on the ground isn't really art, but if someone intentionally decides to put it in a frame in their living room to have it on display for people to look at, then it's art. If we AMV creators decide to make an AMV and show it at a contest or to an online community, or even just to a couple of friends, then our work should of course be considered art. But whether it's good art or not is entirely up to the viewer...
-
Rozard
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 10:39 pm
Well playedSierra Lorna wrote:Of course AMVs are art.
RichLather: We are guests of this forum, and as such we do not make the rules.
BishounenStalker The freedom to suck is what makes the Internet rock.
-
imphill
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:43 am
- Location: At my desk.....
This getting way too off topic:
back to the topic question....
Art is not a dirty word....its just sometime, some people make art which showes a little more then socity accepts
. So really the question bores down to: "Why do we class some art as dirty?"
back to the topic question....
Art is not a dirty word....its just sometime, some people make art which showes a little more then socity accepts
. So really the question bores down to: "Why do we class some art as dirty?""At least i have chicken"
- Ols Klingon Proverb
>Mone Mone!
>Is that right?
>MONE!!
>hmmm...
- Ols Klingon Proverb
>Mone Mone!
>Is that right?
>MONE!!
>hmmm...
-
pen-pen2002
- Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2001 3:39 pm
- Location: Grinnell, IA Procrastination Meter: Code Lemon-Lime
-
[Mike of the Desert]
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:56 am
- Status: Lonely
- Location: Earth -> Europe -> Italy -> Rome -> Cerveteri -> Sasso -> Home -> Mike's Room
- Contact:
I've been reading only the first two pages of this topic by far but.. I just want to say: Wonderful Thread. First of all, Beowulf, you really done a smart question, especially with what we're been seeing in this site, but In my opinion you answered this by yourself just some days ago: because this org is full of kids, people that, in some way, I would call "ignorant". But it's really complicated to explain.
I have to admit, everything, and I mean really everything I would desire to say here and now, it is been already been said in the first page of this topic, so.. Wow, really wonderful arguments and answers everyone. I'm nearly moved.
I have to admit, everything, and I mean really everything I would desire to say here and now, it is been already been said in the first page of this topic, so.. Wow, really wonderful arguments and answers everyone. I'm nearly moved.
-
Sephiroth
- Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 10:32 pm
- Location: California
Yes i do like this topic alot also Unlike another one which shall remane nameless.
I difinativly consider myself an artist, in part because money is not the sole motivation. Yet i do go to a comercial art school. What i did learn about art in history is that almost every single 'great' work of art was commishoned by other people for an artist. THe sistine chaple is a great example of this. That Art was used as a means to get people interested in the church again.
THe thing that really hit the art community was the advent of the photograph. Up until then artists were basicly the only way to get an image of you that was going to last, now a days everyone has babby pictures. Back then only a few people had thier image dotted down so thier family could look back at them when they died.
So once the photograph came out the main purpose that people gave art, recording reality went out the window. After all a photograph captures light perfectly and can't distrote lines (truth is another issue). So various movements popped up in order to have art keep some sort of relevance. Surrealism and every other art movement ame out of these things.
Jumping ahead to the complete disamation of at. We have Andy Worhole putting down a toilet seat and calling it art, as a statement that it's art because i call it so. Image reporduction also exists as a kind of artform, after all thiers that famous picture of 8 different Maryln Monroas all done up differently.
Video and film are relativly recent compared to say paint and sculpture so the big problem that this media faces is that films arent considered art by the avant guard who claim to say what art is. THe reason AMVs arent considered art is in part due to thier age. THe question must be asked have we really reached the point where we can look at it and call it art just yet.
Ive allways had trouble dealing with this day and age being called hte post modern period in part becuase were still in it. How can you possibly know what periodd of time your in until youve gone past it. After all the people that lived in the dark ages didn't call them the dark ages we did that after in order to bash them historicly(And that time period is prove of why religeon should never run any government).
So are AMVs at the point were we can call them anything. We need a good long while to distance ourselves from them look back and then make a judgement with the entire picture. Otherwise were just walking out in the middle of the video before we've seen it.
AMVs are an interesting hobbie but they still have yet to reach the point that they need to. Ok we've gotten tons of compositing and Euphoria now but much like the 2 VCR method i predict that many of what is considered top notch will be laughable in a few years. After all consider that 6 years ago editing on a computer and being able to do a fade were something that was the top of the line. It's something that i atrubite to the old school 'big shots'. If many of them had started at the same level as many of the current newbies would they still have the same position that they do? Who knows but Duane Johnson may not have been as high ranked as he was. And of corse there's Kevin Caldwell, if you released Engle now with the total number of Eva videos that are out there how would it fare?
If AMV are to be considered an artform, it is one of apropriation. In many a ways they should be Called Apropriation Media Videos That would let many of the videos that people call AMVs to actually be AMVs.
Like ANy other artist i will constantly do strange and new things. I do hope that the community as a whole can do the same. Stagnation if anything is going to be the thing that kills AMVs.
As allways the choice lies with each of you guys. So lets give the future out best shot. later all.
And thanks again for this topic, made me feel glad to actually go to the forums for once.
I difinativly consider myself an artist, in part because money is not the sole motivation. Yet i do go to a comercial art school. What i did learn about art in history is that almost every single 'great' work of art was commishoned by other people for an artist. THe sistine chaple is a great example of this. That Art was used as a means to get people interested in the church again.
THe thing that really hit the art community was the advent of the photograph. Up until then artists were basicly the only way to get an image of you that was going to last, now a days everyone has babby pictures. Back then only a few people had thier image dotted down so thier family could look back at them when they died.
So once the photograph came out the main purpose that people gave art, recording reality went out the window. After all a photograph captures light perfectly and can't distrote lines (truth is another issue). So various movements popped up in order to have art keep some sort of relevance. Surrealism and every other art movement ame out of these things.
Jumping ahead to the complete disamation of at. We have Andy Worhole putting down a toilet seat and calling it art, as a statement that it's art because i call it so. Image reporduction also exists as a kind of artform, after all thiers that famous picture of 8 different Maryln Monroas all done up differently.
Video and film are relativly recent compared to say paint and sculpture so the big problem that this media faces is that films arent considered art by the avant guard who claim to say what art is. THe reason AMVs arent considered art is in part due to thier age. THe question must be asked have we really reached the point where we can look at it and call it art just yet.
Ive allways had trouble dealing with this day and age being called hte post modern period in part becuase were still in it. How can you possibly know what periodd of time your in until youve gone past it. After all the people that lived in the dark ages didn't call them the dark ages we did that after in order to bash them historicly(And that time period is prove of why religeon should never run any government).
So are AMVs at the point were we can call them anything. We need a good long while to distance ourselves from them look back and then make a judgement with the entire picture. Otherwise were just walking out in the middle of the video before we've seen it.
AMVs are an interesting hobbie but they still have yet to reach the point that they need to. Ok we've gotten tons of compositing and Euphoria now but much like the 2 VCR method i predict that many of what is considered top notch will be laughable in a few years. After all consider that 6 years ago editing on a computer and being able to do a fade were something that was the top of the line. It's something that i atrubite to the old school 'big shots'. If many of them had started at the same level as many of the current newbies would they still have the same position that they do? Who knows but Duane Johnson may not have been as high ranked as he was. And of corse there's Kevin Caldwell, if you released Engle now with the total number of Eva videos that are out there how would it fare?
If AMV are to be considered an artform, it is one of apropriation. In many a ways they should be Called Apropriation Media Videos That would let many of the videos that people call AMVs to actually be AMVs.
Like ANy other artist i will constantly do strange and new things. I do hope that the community as a whole can do the same. Stagnation if anything is going to be the thing that kills AMVs.
As allways the choice lies with each of you guys. So lets give the future out best shot. later all.
And thanks again for this topic, made me feel glad to actually go to the forums for once.
