I'm so glad you posted this! I still have the draft you angsted over on my HD because I liked it so much; I was wondering if you had decided not to post it at all.
To, like you, give my own subjective, emotional reaction, one thing I loved about this essay was not only how you placed vidding in the context of art history, but how you did so clearly, concisely and interestingly. I know almost nothing about art history, so this essay was, for me, extremely educational and interesting. I feel...smarter now and more secure in my opinions, even though I'd struggle to articulate them. Though basically they come down to what you said. Vidding is just as much art as anything else, and just as flexible in terms of stated goals. It can be as unimportant and unintended to be "art" as a casual drawing room scribble, or it can be Big, Important, Thinky art, and anything in between. The intention of the vidder is paramount, except when it isn't and someone else finds something artistic in it anyway. The intention of the vidder is never important, except when it is.
In other words, it's big and messy, just like the rest of the art world because it's all about defining something that is...undefinable.
One thing that really struck me here was your discussions of both art for art's sake and also when what art tries to do is shift the perception of an existing object/idea/thing and that is more the focus than the technique/skill in the creation of the artwork.
This strikes me as very apt in terms of vidding because I think vidding encompasses both. Obviously, you have already posted about the way you vid, primarily for the visual aesthetics in an art for art's sake. And it's a strong argument that vidding can compete with art as judged on a purely aesthetic level.
But, while I haven't seen as many anti-art arguments as you have, the few I have seen have tended more towards, "vidding isn't art because it's commentary" end of the spectrum, separating "meta" from "art". But I think your essay has a really insightful point that there are entire schools of art that are based on providing "meta commentary" on real things, like the various appropriators you mentioned.
So like...on all counts, vidding becomes something that is certainly definable as art, and barriers to doing so can only - to my mind - ever be based on personal choices for one's own art, or the same barriers that are thrown up to every new type of art, not anything inherently lacking in vidding that is present in another type of art?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-08 12:43 pm (UTC)To, like you, give my own subjective, emotional reaction, one thing I loved about this essay was not only how you placed vidding in the context of art history, but how you did so clearly, concisely and interestingly. I know almost nothing about art history, so this essay was, for me, extremely educational and interesting. I feel...smarter now and more secure in my opinions, even though I'd struggle to articulate them. Though basically they come down to what you said. Vidding is just as much art as anything else, and just as flexible in terms of stated goals. It can be as unimportant and unintended to be "art" as a casual drawing room scribble, or it can be Big, Important, Thinky art, and anything in between. The intention of the vidder is paramount, except when it isn't and someone else finds something artistic in it anyway. The intention of the vidder is never important, except when it is.
In other words, it's big and messy, just like the rest of the art world because it's all about defining something that is...undefinable.
One thing that really struck me here was your discussions of both art for art's sake and also when what art tries to do is shift the perception of an existing object/idea/thing and that is more the focus than the technique/skill in the creation of the artwork.
This strikes me as very apt in terms of vidding because I think vidding encompasses both. Obviously, you have already posted about the way you vid, primarily for the visual aesthetics in an art for art's sake. And it's a strong argument that vidding can compete with art as judged on a purely aesthetic level.
But, while I haven't seen as many anti-art arguments as you have, the few I have seen have tended more towards, "vidding isn't art because it's commentary" end of the spectrum, separating "meta" from "art". But I think your essay has a really insightful point that there are entire schools of art that are based on providing "meta commentary" on real things, like the various appropriators you mentioned.
So like...on all counts, vidding becomes something that is certainly definable as art, and barriers to doing so can only - to my mind - ever be based on personal choices for one's own art, or the same barriers that are thrown up to every new type of art, not anything inherently lacking in vidding that is present in another type of art?
Anyway, super essay. Thanks for posting it.