Chapter 2: Video Art
1.
This reading distinguished between "art" and "artful," claiming that it's the intentions of artists that separate the two - art being free of "the constraints of some other purpose." I'm not sure I agree with this view. So much of what I consider art has purpose. It seems to me more so that the art society decides which "other purposes" are worthy of being entangled in art and which aren't. Commentary on feminism, homosexuality, communism or capitalism, etc. are acceptable purposes to address in art. Where as any type of marketing or profit making endeavors are not acceptable. I don't see art so narrowly. A add can still be art, and the artist who makes what's underneath the advertising script and/or words probably thinks of themselves as such. A TV show or movie that makes millions is still art to me as well. Does anyone else share this broader view of what qualifies as art? If not, why? Does monetary gain stand in the way of art?
2.
Could Chris Burden's video art be considered horrific documentation of excessive self harm as opposed to art? Could we be feeding into someone who has a mental issue by classifying his videos as art? Would we feel the same about his videos if he was filming someone else harming themselves? What if it was a woman? A child?
No comments:
Post a Comment