Is it still art?
I won't actually answer the question but will tell you about what prompted it. Yesterday hubby, daughters, and I went to the Met. We made sure to catch two children's tours. The second one was a slide show to introduce the temporary exhibit (you have until Aug. 2nd to catch it) called
"The Picture Generation: 1974-1984." See http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId={2051DF8B-82AA-4AA7-85BC-22F72DE7F10E}
Some of the pieces were actual photographs, but some were either pictures or presentations made from various objects, drawings, even invitations. One of the exhibits that the guide directed the children's attention to was a video spin on, of all things, "Wonder Woman," you know the TV show starring Lyndar Carter. Now if you don't know, then the video would not mean much to you as it did not really mean much to the children who had never seen this program. I suppose that at the time the video was put together, the artist was safe in assuming that the people who would see it would instantly register the show and appreciate the critique inherent in showing the Wonder Woman character constantly spinning, the ball of fire constantly flaring up, interpersed with a short clips, parts of which are also repeated. For example, after spinning into Wonder Woman in a dressing room, she cuts through a the mirror with one of her bracelets (that part is repeated as are almost all the scenes in this video are), passes through the opening to another room, then speaks to some shlubby looking guy, (but, wait! guys actually had hair and clothes that style in the 70s) and then deflects the bullets shot at them with her bracelets.
Having seen the show when I was a kid, I can appreciate the point made by the video in which the absurdity of the signature features is highlighted by the repetition. But those children who had never seen the show cannot appreciate the point of parody. They see this video as a stand-alone piece without the point of reference it assumes. So they see the repetition and lack of structure to be a reflection of the video itself.
With the end date of 1984, obviously this video was made before YouTube, so that a mix of clips was something original and much more technically challenging. However, now that videos created by those wishes to satirize or show tribute to a show are ubiquitous, there is little to distinguish the artist from anyone with some technical skills and a desire to exhibit. Can all those who put together fan videos and such be considered artists?
"The Picture Generation: 1974-1984." See http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId={2051DF8B-82AA-4AA7-85BC-22F72DE7F10E}
Some of the pieces were actual photographs, but some were either pictures or presentations made from various objects, drawings, even invitations. One of the exhibits that the guide directed the children's attention to was a video spin on, of all things, "Wonder Woman," you know the TV show starring Lyndar Carter. Now if you don't know, then the video would not mean much to you as it did not really mean much to the children who had never seen this program. I suppose that at the time the video was put together, the artist was safe in assuming that the people who would see it would instantly register the show and appreciate the critique inherent in showing the Wonder Woman character constantly spinning, the ball of fire constantly flaring up, interpersed with a short clips, parts of which are also repeated. For example, after spinning into Wonder Woman in a dressing room, she cuts through a the mirror with one of her bracelets (that part is repeated as are almost all the scenes in this video are), passes through the opening to another room, then speaks to some shlubby looking guy, (but, wait! guys actually had hair and clothes that style in the 70s) and then deflects the bullets shot at them with her bracelets.
Having seen the show when I was a kid, I can appreciate the point made by the video in which the absurdity of the signature features is highlighted by the repetition. But those children who had never seen the show cannot appreciate the point of parody. They see this video as a stand-alone piece without the point of reference it assumes. So they see the repetition and lack of structure to be a reflection of the video itself.
With the end date of 1984, obviously this video was made before YouTube, so that a mix of clips was something original and much more technically challenging. However, now that videos created by those wishes to satirize or show tribute to a show are ubiquitous, there is little to distinguish the artist from anyone with some technical skills and a desire to exhibit. Can all those who put together fan videos and such be considered artists?
Comments