AMV Editing: A Postmodernist art movement?

iamfanboy · Post by **iamfanboy** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:48 pm

azulmagia wrote:
Beowulf wrote:I haven't read one word of thise thread but Andy Warhol is a fucking no talent hack and represents pretty much ALL THINGS WRONG with art and artists.
That's true and Roy Lichtenstein even more so. His entire gig depended on the the idea that he was a "real" artist, while the people who drew the comic books that he ripped off weren't.

Which is what I said - only that Picasso had a hand in creating what's wrong with art, too. Him and his, "Oooh, in order to be a REAL artist, you HAVE to be different from everyone else!" Feh!

And did I just manage to piss everyone off, or are there an extraordinarily large number of less than friendly folks, both intelligent and not, on this forum?

But you all missed the point I was making by choosing Warhol in specific.

When he did his work, he WAS unusual. (And not just by peeing on canvasses and having celebrities pee on canvasses!)

Now, though, he's become the norm, and it's going to become even more and more normal as the Internet grows to take other people's works and ideas and expand upon them in your own way. It's always happened, of course, but with the way the world is going the ORIGINAL creators are going to be the unusual ones.

Andy Warhol has conquered the world.

Urgh. What a disgusting thought. I may need to throw up after saying that.

But it wasn't what he DID that sucked, it's who he WAS - he was a whore, plain and simple. Warhol prostituted what talent and skill he had in the pursuit of money and fame, and it shows.

Every day on this website, we can see that just because you're using someone else's art, it doesn't mean that you're NOT an artist - the proof's in the pudding. Just when I begin to fear that the Warhollian formula has conquered the world and left nothing new anywhere, I can come to this website and see that while his formula may have become the norm, at least the spirit of real artists live on.

*laughs* And now I have the title for my book on what's wrong with society - "NASCAR Nation" is catchy, but I'm sure that the subtitle "How Warhol Conquered the Earth" will make some people smile and pick it up.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:03 pm

iamfanboy wrote:And did I just manage to piss everyone off, or are there an extraordinarily large number of less than friendly folks, both intelligent and not, on this forum?

Perceived pretentiousness is often ridiculed. There's a generally agreed-upon feeling that AMVs, regardless of how complex they may get, are still just a hobby, and people who try to do high-level analysis of the topic should really think about doing something more productive than putting a bunch of random wackos underneath the academic microscope.

(Personal note: I agree with that sentiment.)

Maybe if we all start getting grants from the NEA, that might change, but that's the feeling I get.

Now, though, he's become the norm, and it's going to become even more and more normal as the Internet grows to take other people's works and ideas and expand upon them in your own way. It's always happened, of course, but with the way the world is going the ORIGINAL creators are going to be the unusual ones.

Define "original".

More specifically, please define what degree of separation ideas in work A must have from similar ideas in a set of works S for work A to be considered "original". I'm not sure if you're talking about an infinite degree of separation, i.e. work A is totally original, or if you're talking about more complicated transformations.

This is all splitting hairs, of course, but I'd like to know what you think about that subject, since it seems to be a recurring theme in your argument.

Kai Stromler · Post by **Kai Stromler** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:04 am

AMV is not postmodern. AMV is deconstructionist, in the literal as well as theoretical sense, because what we do is tear apart existing sources and reassemble them into representations of our reactions to the source material. Images are abstracted from the context of their original episodes and series, songs are abstracted out of the context of their albums. When someone gives a video a point other than one that's present in the anime or the song, that's deconstructionism. When someone misses that point in an op or a QC, that's also deconstructionism.

And, of course, we all also know that deconstructionism is the academic way of saying "okay, we're not even going to try any more"; since everything depends not on the intentions of the creator of the text but on the interpreter's frame of reference, every possible interpretation is both totally right and completely wrong.

Yes to deconstructionism. Yes to chaos. No to this thread.

--K

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:53 am

wurpess wrote:
Tash wrote:Why is everyone talking to fanboy!
He is so stupid!
because we're bored?

Like in life, you have the book smart and the street smart. The same goes in art. You have the "book smart" ones that study to create and appreciate art. They are generally the ones that have to analyze everything and attempt to give meaning and justification to everything. Then there are the "street smart" ones. Those who create and appreciate souly on instinct. Letting the art take over and leaving reason far behind. Then laugh at the "intellectuals" as they attempt to give hidden meanings to art that either isn't there or is way off because they're thinking with their mind not their heart. Or is something they would never guess because they're emoting some tiny facet of their subconscious. Yes, some art sends a clear message and is meant to be analyzed. Other art is just meant to be enjoyed. Same goes for AMVs. You can sit there and analyze them til the cows come home and wonder what they were trying to convey and why they do amvs, and what exactly amvs are in relation to art. Or you can just sit back and enjoy them. I think its good for AMVs to have some kind of meaning, but it doesn't have to be anything deep and profound. It could just be a representation of the maker's emotions or subconscious at the moment. The reason? Because we can.

It's all pointless bullshit - and most of the analysers have their heads so far up their own asses they have no idea what's going on.

Kinda like how there are general and accepted theories on the symbolism in Hemmingway's The old Man and the Sea when the author himself admidted there were none, and how people insist The Lord of the Rings is allegory dispite several recordings and writings by Tolkien of the fact that he dispised allegory and would never use it.

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:46 am

worst thread evar :/

Tash · Post by **Tash** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:50 pm

azulmagia wrote:
Beowulf wrote:I haven't read one word of thise thread but Andy Warhol is a fucking no talent hack and represents pretty much ALL THINGS WRONG with art and artists.
That's true and Roy Lichtenstein even more so. His entire gig depended on the the idea that he was a "real" artist, while the people who drew the comic books that he ripped off weren't.

Isn't that the same thing as a painter painting a building? They didn't design it but they are still taking credit.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:32 pm

Kai Stromler wrote:AMV is not postmodern. AMV is deconstructionist, in the literal as well as theoretical sense, because what we do is tear apart existing sources and reassemble them into representations of our reactions to the source material.

So, we're alchemists.

Nightowl · Post by **Nightowl** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:56 pm

I consider the AMVs I make more than a hobby. Based on the works of found footage video artists and creative persons in the past, Andy Jenner helped coin the phrase "Infringement Art," which I believe is the most fitting description of our specific artistic expression. Yes, I do consider it artistic expression. BITE ME. Furthermore, I believe the phrase "Infringement Art" is, in and of itself, amusing, and quite descriptive of the medium.

I would like to get something straight, however... describing AMVs as artistic expression is (by the general consensus on this forum) bad? Then why do you assholes keep describing ME as the resident artist?! I took it as a compliment for so long! Fuck you guys! I'm on to you!

-N

8bit_samurai · Post by **8bit_samurai** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:04 pm

IMO. though, all we're doing is drawing mustaches and devil horns on other people's work. Except some of us has those hundred pack of crayons and magic markers that change colors when drawn over. If you wanna call it art, then I guess it's fine. I mean, if a guy who pissed in a jar and threw a crucifix in there called that art, then I guess n00bs can grab a few fansubs, download some music, throw em together in WMM and call that art. But would they call it art?

I don't think amvs get enough attention to be called anything besides copyright infringements.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:05 pm

Nightowl wrote:I would like to get something straight, however... describing AMVs as artistic expression is (by the general consensus on this forum) bad?

I don't think it's so much describing AMVs as artistic expression that's seen as bad as it is overanalyzing said artistic expression... I'm under the impression that most people here seem to agree that what we <s>currently have IN OUR MOUTHS</s> do is art.

I'm also guessing that nobody will get that reference.