Yay! This is awesome and contains so much to think about. I find this very interesting for lots of reasons, namely because I’d never really considered the question before (I’d always thought of my vids as “meta” or commentary) but am surprised that there are strong feelings rejecting vidding as art. Because no matter what might hold me back from saying I classify my own vids as art, it would never have occurred to me to say that vidding and vids can’t be art? So yay for you intelligently explaining my own feelings to me and making me think about them more systematically.
This is a much broader look at vidding than I think I’ve ever seen. I love the step back you’ve taken from the history of vidding in and of itself to place it within larger artistic trends. I love many of the points you make (appropriation as art, art as changing the perception of something, art as ideas vs. objects), but my favorite is that art doesn’t have to be serious business. I would never say that my idle drawings aren’t art, even though I’d never claim that they are serious work, and why should vidding be any different? I’d just never considered it like that before. I also think this point opens up your essay to account for all sorts of vids with all sorts of different intents, which resolves some conflict I personally had about the question. Upon initially asking myself the question, it felt like saying that vidding is art meant that all vids should strive to be Important or significant in some way, visually or narratively or whatever, which is just not how I personally approach it (though sometimes I try, and always admire vids with big ambitions). Yet that conflicted with my other kneejerk reaction that of course vids can be art for all the other reasons you say.
I’m also struck by how some of the points you’re making about whether vidding is art map onto questions the vidding community writ large seems to ask about itself (or, at least, questions which seem to me personally to swirl around vidding, especially as the platforms and technology to both show and make vids becomes so much more easily accessible). For example, your points about “mainstream” art world acceptance or belonging seem to me to map onto questions about vidding for cons, or vidding for audiences of other vidders. vs. primarily making “living room” vids to premiere on the internet with different audiences in mind. And your point about training seems to map onto similar questions about self-taught vidders who learn as they go vs. vidders who learn(ed) primarily from other vidders they have personal relationships with (not that we don't all learn from each other). Um, not to hijack your awesome essay with vidding definition politics but the similarities in the questions really, really struck me.
no subject
This is a much broader look at vidding than I think I’ve ever seen. I love the step back you’ve taken from the history of vidding in and of itself to place it within larger artistic trends. I love many of the points you make (appropriation as art, art as changing the perception of something, art as ideas vs. objects), but my favorite is that art doesn’t have to be serious business. I would never say that my idle drawings aren’t art, even though I’d never claim that they are serious work, and why should vidding be any different? I’d just never considered it like that before. I also think this point opens up your essay to account for all sorts of vids with all sorts of different intents, which resolves some conflict I personally had about the question. Upon initially asking myself the question, it felt like saying that vidding is art meant that all vids should strive to be Important or significant in some way, visually or narratively or whatever, which is just not how I personally approach it (though sometimes I try, and always admire vids with big ambitions). Yet that conflicted with my other kneejerk reaction that of course vids can be art for all the other reasons you say.
I’m also struck by how some of the points you’re making about whether vidding is art map onto questions the vidding community writ large seems to ask about itself (or, at least, questions which seem to me personally to swirl around vidding, especially as the platforms and technology to both show and make vids becomes so much more easily accessible). For example, your points about “mainstream” art world acceptance or belonging seem to me to map onto questions about vidding for cons, or vidding for audiences of other vidders. vs. primarily making “living room” vids to premiere on the internet with different audiences in mind. And your point about training seems to map onto similar questions about self-taught vidders who learn as they go vs. vidders who learn(ed) primarily from other vidders they have personal relationships with (not that we don't all learn from each other). Um, not to hijack your awesome essay with vidding definition politics but the similarities in the questions really, really struck me.
In conclusion, bravo, this is awesome!