Video art week 6

As boundaries were broken video became a prominent media for art. Around the 1960s visual arts was favored over pictorialism because "artists were free to let their imaginations run rampant' said art critic Lucy Lippard (as quoted in Rush, 82). Video art became more and more dominated as the television predominated the mass culture. Also, it became the prefered medium for many when recording devices became accessible outside of corporate telecom. Andy Warhol was among one of the first artists to use portable cameras. It began an exciting career for him in this medium. But what made them art? Well, the fact that he was already an artist and this medium just extended his work and the most important reason, visual art was being used as an artistic expression in comparison to just a television reporter or other non-artist.

This brings us to today when cellphones dominate everyday life. Nowadays artists and non-artist have the capability of a camera at their hands. And... with social media being so popular you can add snapshots of your life for others to see. Snapchat, Facebook, and even messaging apps like WhatsApp have a "story" feature where users can add short videos and pictures that will delete at the end of 24 hours. Would you consider these pictures and 30-second videos as art? Even with the new "filters" and all the cool things you can add would this be visual art? It's an interesting question to pose because it seems like almost everyone today has the resources to make art, but is everything captured by a recording device art? 

The underlying issue here is the intention of the artists. As video art started to be used commercially it wasn't as artistic as someone trying to convey a message about the war. This is the exact same thing with people posting pictures and videos online, without a clear message it can't truly be considered art. What do you think? 

Citation:

Rush, Michael. New Media in Art. Thames & Hudson, 2011.