Constantly Changing Definitions = A Fact of Life 02.03.04 :: 1700 Let me first begin by saying I don't buy the value of the authenticity-aura as being central to a work of art. Through exploration of many "alternative art forms" I have come to the conclusion that the central value of a work of art are the process of making it and the process of viewing it. It doesn't necessarily have even have to have both of these... just one is good enough. Some people might find this hat to be a work of art: Personally I think it's an ugly piece of crap but what do I know. What matters is that it is important to someone. The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable form its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. This tradition itself is thoroughly alive and exteremely changeable. Originally the contextual integreation of art in tradition found its expression... in the service of a ritual-first the magical, then the religious kind."         Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Benjamin hits on two points I agree are important but disagree with as to why they are important. They are both examples of participation-side and production-side interpretations of the artwork,respectively. (Bear with me as I develop my theory and the terminology therein and please give me any suggestions that you may have.) The object of art itself seems to have no value unless value has been placed upon it buy its creator or a viewer. To use my example of the hat, let's assume that the weaver who made the hat makes 10 hats a day and thinks nothing of them. That person is just making hats to pay the rent. Now let's say that someone buys one of these hats and decides that it is the most amazing thing they have ever seen and lables it an 'amazing work of art'. Now the hat-maker can impose a value judgement on his products: are they really works of art or just plain hats? Now let's reverse the example. We have a weaver makin' hats because he finds them to have more value than just warmth. He enjoys the transcendental state he obtains while knitting and is amazed by the wonders he produces. Then we have a person who goes to buy this hat for the purpose of staying warm. The weaver explains how these hats are 'more than just a regular old hat' and presents the customer with a decision. Is this hat really art? Many reactionaries are concerned with new forms of media because they do not fit into the catagories of 'classical', 'fine (or high) art', or 'the image of the starving artist'. Hopefully, through my portfolio and the section I am co-maintaining on video games it will be shown that new media is as viable as the older mediums in terms of artistic value. The changing definition of art mimics the changing definition of collage in terms of these mediums. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Read and Post Comments

April 2004

Playing Catch Up and Parting Words 04.27.2004 :: 1630 March 2004 Plunderphonics 03.29.2004 :: 1645 The Best of the Best 03.28.2004 :: 1920 So Much HTML It Makes Your Ass Hurt & Thoughts on Animation 03.24.2004 :: 2150 And They Say, "It's better than yours." 03.02.2004 :: 1500 February 2004 Video Games and Fan Fiction 02.17.04 :: 1610 Constantly Changing Definitions = A Fact of Life 02.03.04 :: 1700 January 2004 Some Responses To My Readings 01.27.04 :: 1600 Testing Out The Blogger 01.26.04 :: 2130