Video “art” is made for many reasons by all types of people
with a wide variety of backgrounds ranging from philosophical to political to
personal. The second half of
chapter one in Video Art by Michael Rush gives a compilation of many
different notable video artists who have a multitude of reasons for making
their art. I think we can all
agree that the intent of the artist in making a piece heavily influences how
that piece is perceived, whether or not the artist’s intent is successfully
portrayed. It is stated in Chapter 2 that the artists who saw video as an
extension of their own artistic practices are the ones who really expanded the
meaning of videos into the respectable art form it is today.
This brings me to the following
question: does the reason for making art, specifically video art, chance the
importance of the artwork? For
example, is art made with a political message intended for the masses more
important than art made for personal reasons intimate to the maker but not
shared by the public? Depending on
one’s answer to this question, the meaning of video art can change
dramatically. Videos are used
worldwide for many purposes other than art, such as for advertising entertainment,
or memories. If the maker of these works intended their pieces to be art and
their videos were installed in a museum, would their worth deteriorate or
expand to become something more than just their subject matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment