1.2.10
Why...
So as I read Paige's post below, it got me thinking, am I even an artist. I made this little video last night. I wouldn't call it art, I made it just for fun. I also wouldn't call it very creative; stuff like this has been done lots before. I was actually inspired to make this because of Annie Poon. I made the video because the song was stuck in my head, and I just felt like doodling.
Therefore based on my own ideas of what is art, my little video isn't because it doesn't have any real intention, not much craft, and isn’t innovative in anyway. But then, how come Annie Poon’s little videos are considered art. Is it quantity that determines if something is legitimate? And what determines if something is creative? I’m sure my fellow art friends would agree my video isn’t very “creative”, however my roommates think I’m the bees knees, (yes I said Bee’s Knee’s.)
So does being creative mean to simply create something, careless of what it is. Or does being creative have to do with its synonyms, according to word: original, imaginative, inspired, artistic, inventive, resourceful, ingenious and innovative.
I think these synonyms better explain what the aim of Darcy is, rather than to have her simply create something, the goal is to have her be innovative, create something new with a set intentions.
So how does one cross that line, of simply creating something, to actually doing something innovative? I’m sure the answer is worth some sum of money?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is no way that I could just throw something together like that. If I made a little animation like that I would consider it an extremely creative act on my part. That would be p-creativity. But it might not be creative to you because it’s nothing new to you.
ReplyDeleteI think that something being deemed “art” has to do with a field deciding that something is creative. That field might be general consumers for popular art, or it might be art historians for fine art (fine art has a very strict definition right?). So the definition of art can change depending on the scope. The definition of art can also change over time. Maybe Annie Poon’s work won’t be considered art in 50 years. Or maybe yours will!
I have a few of questions. Can something not be art (or creative) if it is just done for fun? Isn’t “for fun” an intention? If not, what would you consider intention? Also, why isn’t your video innovative in any way? Has someone made an animation like that to the same song before---and interpreted it the same way? Finally, why do you say it didn’t have much craft?
The answer to these questions may be obvious to you, but they aren’t to me.
once you ask when something is innovative, as it relates to art, you have to take a step back and think what is art. is it a delicately rendered portrait of a person? is it the surreal spews of your imagination? or is it an urinal on the street? for duchamp, it was the latter. what is it to you?
ReplyDeletein the end, that's what it will always come down to. not what is considered innovative, creative, or "artsy" to other people, but what you consider it to be. everyone's perspective will always change, always be different. in the end, you have to be happy with your art. if you feel something doesn't meet your standards, then think of ways to change it, level it up, and yes, make it fun. because if there is no fun or joy in it, you might as well work in a cubicle for the rest of your life. and you can become pretty creative there, with the over-dullness of it all.