Can AMVs be considered art?
What is art? And who can say if something actually is? Various theories have been told about art and aesthetics, about issues related to the field that is generally called art theory. All the different opinions and the constant evolution of technology is what make a question like this so tricky. According to the Cambridge Dictionary art is “an activity through which people make something beautiful or express particular ideas and feelings”. But is this enough? Dr. Laura D’Olimpio , senior lecturer in philosophy of education at the University of Birmingham claims that :
“One’s experience of art is subjective as individual tastes differ. And yet, if we are to claim that some artworks are better than others, or explain why some artworks stand the test of time and are valued by generations, we need to refer to some standards by which to judge them. Should artworks be beautiful? Do they need to be moral? And who decides whether or not they meet these criteria? Despite the historical interference by political and religious leaders who worry about the influence art may have in a society, debates as to what constitutes good art, aesthetically and even morally, has been a matter for debate for aestheticians. Sometimes it takes time for something to be considered art, let alone to be considered aesthetically valuable. Think about Banksy’s graffiti art. It has been the case that unsuspecting council workers have removed graffiti from the side of a building only to later discover they have inadvertently eliminated a valuable artwork. And yet, not all graffiti is considered art or deemed valuable. Definitions of art have changed over time. Traditional views of art usually cited ‘beauty’ as an important feature of artworks, but that has since altered.”
Indeed, art is not just the classical accepted, such as painting and sculptures nor something that only intellectual and artsy enjoy. Art is for everybody. From Plato and Kant to Danto, they all had different theories, but they all agreed at one thing. Art is about an experience, something that stirs emotions in you. It doesn’t matter if it’s positive or negative; the emotion that gets stirred differs from person to person. Then, why is it that projects like AMVs can’t be consider art? We know that AMV's unconventional logic may be an obstacle to their acceptance. The fact that they use visual material from specific sources may seem strange to someone who is not part of the community. But if we think about it a little more, it is not new. The same logic is used by collages in various movements, such as Dadaism, where images from other sources are collected and processed to produce a new result. So why can't a “moving collage” with a unique aesthetic, which has its own visual perspective and its own story to tell, be open to a subcategory of art? I think it can.
Yes, it may have started out as a simple fanart, but with the advancement of technology and software, which provides users with endless possibilities, it has evolved into a medium that can critique topicality, raise serious issues and to show, how every creator experiences and sees the world. The word Art has now become a label, so hard to access, that often new ways and ideas to express yourself get rejected.
Dr D’Olimpio Laura ,” Ethics Explainer: Aesthetics ”,The Ethics Center, January 24 ,2019.
Ambavi Adriani,”Τί είναι Τέχνη;” ,Art MAgazine,July 13 ,2010.
Cambridge Dictionary,s.v “Art”,accesed April 8,2020
