Art.

[Vyacheslav]

You guys haven't heard of the site http://ubuweb.com/ ?
There's lots of video art on there. Cool stuff.

[Aldaric]

I do think the camera is art. I do think the picture is art. I do think that some human behaviours can be cinsudered art. (Dancing for example) I just don't think that the example he gave would be art.

[unoriginal name]

I do think the camera is art. I do think the picture is art. I do think that some human behaviours can be cinsudered art. (Dancing for example) I just don't think that the example he gave would be art.

You're making arbitrary distinctions, and also grievously harming the word "considered." Is the choreographed nature of dance what sets it apart for you? Choreography is just instructions that are processed by the brain and put into action. squibbles's film functions in the same way, just at a much less specific level. The resulting actions are still art, because the instructions designate them as such.

[Vyacheslav]

Artist Chris Burden filmed himself crawling naked with his hands behind his back on broken glass. That's considered performance art.

[Aldaric]

Is the choreographed nature of dance what sets it apart for you? Choreography is just instructions that are processed by the brain and put into action. squibbles's film functions in the same way, just at a much less specific level. The resulting actions are still art, because the instructions designate them as such.

The choreography is art within itself. The person who made the instuctions to please the eye of the viewers is an artist. Then, the dancer goes further and makes what was already art into something more. It is the little flourishes that the dancer/artist includes. Two dancers could dance the same dance, but one of their dance's could be much much better. It is the emotion that the dancer puts into his actions that makes it art. You can draw a picture of the same thing, but one picture can be far far better than the other. Music is art, and is that not just instructions on a sheet? The musician puts his emotions and feelings into it and makes it more.
So to fit to Squibble's example
The writers, designers, special effecters, director, anyone who worked in making the idea of the movie made a piece of art. Then, the actors using the resources provided by the above mentioned, add to that art. The viewer does not add anything to the piece of work.

The other example of the photo: It is the camera and the picture that is the art, it is not the person looking at the picture that is art. If you consider their reactions to the art art then we disagree that that is art.

[Tanner]

The choreography is art within itself.

I swear that you must just be being intentionally belligerent and contrary. I suggest that there is a fine line between the good-natured discussion and debate that this forum is designed to inspire and what you're doing here. Maybe you aren't aware of what a general cock you are being but if that's the case I suggest that you think twice before you hit that submit button.

[unoriginal name]

Is the choreographed nature of dance what sets it apart for you? Choreography is just instructions that are processed by the brain and put into action. squibbles's film functions in the same way, just at a much less specific level. The resulting actions are still art, because the instructions designate them as such.

The choreography is art within itself. The person who made the instuctions to please the eye of the viewers is an artist. Then, the dancer goes further and makes what was already art into something more. It is the little flourishes that the dancer/artist includes. Two dancers could dance the same dance, but one of their dance's could be much much better. It is the emotion that the dancer puts into his actions that makes it art. You can draw a picture of the same thing, but one picture can be far far better than the other. Music is art, and is that not just instructions on a sheet? The musician puts his emotions and feelings into it and makes it more.
So to fit to Squibble's example
The writers, designers, special effecters, director, anyone who worked in making the idea of the movie made a piece of art. Then, the actors using the resources provided by the above mentioned, add to that art. The viewer does not add anything to the piece of work.

The other example of the photo: It is the camera and the picture that is the art, it is not the person looking at the picture that is art. If you consider their reactions to the art art then we disagree that that is art.

I love how you miss everything I said entirely. The choreography can be an art within itself, yes, but in most cases it isn't considered a finished work until the performer interprets it. There are exceptions, but we can agree, I hope, that a piece of choreography exists in an unfinished state until it's performed. Now, consider. What are the intentions behind the film squibbles proposed? To use the images on the screen to provoke a reaction from the audience. This is the key thing. The images on the screen are designed to cause audience reaction. That is the difference between it and your usual Cineplex showing. With a normal movie, the filmmakers have brought a finished work to be presented before a passive crowd. The audience, you understand, isn't actually necessary. The film exists as a complete statement whether or not it's ever seen. squibble's film doesn't. It depends on an audience seeing and responding to it for its conceptual requirements to be filled. It is unfinished until it is viewed by a large group of people. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

[Skyling]

The viewer does not add anything to the piece of work.

please touch me . com

Also, this whole thread is filled with vast generalizations based on arbitrary statements that are left unsupported. I think a lot of people, especially Brickwall-deric, are oversimplifying things.

Ironic.

[otters~1]

Also, this whole thread is filled with vast generalizations based on arbitrary statements that are left unsupported. I think a lot of people, especially Brickwall-deric, are oversimplifying things.

Ironic.

Ah, but Skyline, art is just one giant oversimplification of nature.

[Skyling]

Ah, but Skyline, art is just one giant oversimplification of nature.

What makes you say that? Can you support this claim in any way?