CMV: Most attempts to dismiss a medium or work of art as "unartistic" only serve to
validate it further, since it's challenging the detractor's expectations of what art
is, ergo it is art
Lengthy title, but this is something I think about a lot. My personal philosophy (which
I suppose is equally CMV-worthy and probably would've made for a snappier title) is
**"Not everything is art, but anything can be made into art"**. To elaborate, if everything is automatically art, the word doesn't mean anything at all, but any materials we can find can be moulded
by humans to form a work of artistic expression (this includes "readymades", pieces
of natural debris that are presented in galleries with minimal or no alterations).
I think that principle is broad enough to be sound, while still retaining some level
of definition to the word, though I suppose from a religious 'intelligent design'
standpoint, everything was created by God, therefore everything truly is already art
as it was designed by an intelligent being. I dunno, I don't want to get into that
hot mess.
Anyway, onto the main topic, it's one of the main debates you'll always find in any
artsy sphere. "X cannot be art because of some arbitrary quota it doesn't entirely
conform to", "Y cannot be art because it's just a rock in a museum, no one did anything to change it, it means
nothing", or more often than not, "Z cannot be art because... it's bad and I don't like it". But if a proposed piece of art is challenging your expectations, if it's giving you a visceral reaction of rejection,
surely it is successfully performing one of the principle "jobs" of what a work of
art should do, yes? It's challenging, it's making you think, you're reacting in some
way to it, and a person (or multiple persons) have put some creative effort into presenting
it.
Now of course, everyone's personal definition of art is different, it's about as subjective as art itself. Hell, even I'm nowhere near na?ve enough to say something insipid like "all
art is equal", of course I have my own subjective preferences, and I definitely do not
put everything on the same level of artistic value. As much as I enjoy, say, *He-Man
and the Masters of the Universe*, I'm not going to put it in the same universe of
quality as *Dimensions of Dialogue* by Jan Svankmejer, and that's in the specific
medium of western animation alone.
Let's get some of the biggest elephants in the room out of the way. Video games. While
I do naturally see video games as an artistic medium, I firmly believe that it's still
in its infancy. There's some latent potential left to be fulfilled, for sure. However,
there are a great many games that have genuinely innovated and pushed the mould, both
in gameplay and narrative. The dedication to the former is a sticking point for many,
as the inherent interactivity of video games is antithetical to the "shared experience"
of art, to some. Every decision made in a video game makes the experience different to somebody
else's, as the argument goes.
I fundamentally disagree with this. For one, everything in a video game is curated.
No matter the arbitrary path you take, it's all a part of the game. For two, comparing
a video game's narrative to a film's is moot. It's like comparing a film to a static portrait and concluding that the painting is
inherently worse because there's no movement (funnily enough, I have heard this bilic
argument in real life from an otherwise very intelligent friend of mine). No shit there's interactivity in video games, that's
exactly the point. From a tonal standpoint, I do understand the argument, there are
relatively few games that have shown a comparable level of meaning, nuance or depth
to the venerated works of prose, poetry, cinema, etc throughout history, though I've
been to several respected museums that have had video game-themed or interactive exhibits,
showing a recent willingness to open up to the idea. On some level, almost any art is interactive for people crazy enough to do so -- a public statue can be defaced
or displaced to another location, a painting can be stolen, a film reel can be cut
up and re-edited, a video game can be hacked and modded into unrecognizability.
It is a very complex matter that I feel boils down to a totally different, alien set
of priorities that applies solely to video games which other mediums simply cannot
equivalate, combined with the *extremely* corrupt, unabashedly greedy and corporatist
nature of the mainstream "TrIpLE AYyyYyY" video game industry that often goes out
of its way to stifle change and creativity. It's comparable to the Hollywood studio
system in that respect. Just about every medium has faced similar arrogant dismissals
from elitists and connoisseurs. Cinema, television, and even literature have all been
snarled at in the past. It's only to be expected.
Okay, enough of that. Onto the next elephant, "modern art", an even more complex subject I'm probably not qualified to cover. "Modern art" is an incredibly broad, almost meaningless term (modern to whom, I wonder? The modern
Ancient Romans?) but everyone kinda knows it as a sarcastic diminutive to refer to
perceived low-effort, meaningless, ultra-mega-postmodern rubbish that anyone could
make. There's an excellent [Imgur](https://imgur.com/a/GIsdl) album from r/Exhibit_Art that can act as a crash course. Even now, many people tend to be skeptical of so-called
modern art, including professional appraisers, but I feel that the main point of many of the
most controversial pieces, from Piero Manzoni's *Artist's Shit* (ninety tin cans of
literal human shit) to Duchamp's *Fountain* to Banksy's self-shredding *Girl with
Balloon*, is to mock the fundamental pretentiousness of the art collector community who will pay millions for actual trash so long as it's placed
in a museum or signed by a respected artist. It's still art, but it can also be seen as a big reflexive joke. The story of the *A pair of glasses
on the floor* in that Imgur album illustrates this well. There are more genuinely
meaningful works that have similar aesthetics, like Warhol's *Campbell Soup Cans*,
John Cage's *4'33* and Yves Klein's *The Void*, but in any case, all these pieces
elucidate that even the most ignominious objects and abstract concepts can be tools
for expression.
In all honesty, I don't particularly want my view to be changed as I feel very strongly
on this topic, but I hope to see some other perspectives at least.
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
