wantedman dan wrote...
Ariella wrote...
I'm sorry, but you seem to be saying that if you paid for it, it can't be art. Casablanca, Lord of the Rings (the book not the movies), West Side Story, Anything written by Mozart, Bach, etc all would come under the classification ofr commodity since they were paid for.
The fact of the matter is art is subjective and has nothing to do with dissemination or anything else.
If you paid for the access of it in its massively disseminated form, then yes, you have purchased it. The original story--written by JRR Tolkein, etc.--or the original composition of music by Mozart, Bach, etc does not lose its artful status.
Purchasing it in the massively disseminated form does. It all boils down to the ORIGINAL product.
Looked at a few of your posts on this here thread, and, despite being so unbelievably pretentious, they also show almost complete, total, ignorance of how the art world actually functions.
Art is Commodity. Not all commodities are art, but all (successful) art is a commodity. Whether it is mass produced or not is irrelevant. Artists have been mass producing their work since the printing press. Andy Warhol made a specialism of it. Do you know how many versions of Munch's 'The Scream' are at the museum in Oslo - and that's only a fraction of them? If it is mass entertainment it is still art; it is why critics have pseudo-categories of 'high' art nad 'low' art.
To be a professional artist requires you to sell your work. If you're not selling it, you cannot, by defintion, be a professional artist. This is the reality of being an artist - you have to be a salesman too. That is what art galleries are for - the commercial ones where new art is sold. Not all art exists in museums, you know (most of it is actually in bank vaults - as paintings are a better investment than gold - not a commodity?). Now, that's a few from the fine arts. Often there's a singular artist, like with a book (also mass produced and sold as mass entertainment). Film making, on the other hand, like music, is a collaborative artform. Videogames are more like this.
Trying to claim one film, "The Artist", is art, and another, "The Dark Knight", is
just a commodity, is utter snobbery, and pretentious twaddle to boot. Both were designed to make money; no film is made in order to lose money, (outside of insurance scams and tax dodges). Both are risky ventures.
Videogames are an artform. Mass Effect is an 'artwork'. To say it is just software is to say 'Guernica' is just a wooden frame with soem canvas and oily stuff on it. As in, entirely missing the point.
We can debate what is 'good' art and 'bad' art, but when the criticisms hinge on an authorial decision (ie: the ending), it cannot be claimed the work is not an artform. It is a paradoxical argument.
That is not to say art is sacrosanct and the artistic integrity of the piece depends on it remaining inviolate. That is just as elitist and self righteous as the "it's not art" argument. This is not the "artistic integrity postion". It is this: that while an audience has every right to criticise any artwork, and should be encouraged to, even to rage and fury; and while any artwork can and maybe should be changed, by the artist (or rights holder), it is not in the audience's place to
demand what changes are to be made. It is the artists job to modify the work, not the audiences. If the audience want the right to make such changes, they should create their own artwork.
Retour en haut
