1. On page 83 there is a comparison made between art and artful in that they are "separate, though linked, terms that exist to help us differentiate between what can and cannot be considered to be art." Artful, according to this reading, is the technique(s) used for appeals used mainly in commercial advertising. "These techniques are not in themselves what we would normally call art." Art on the other hand lies in the "intentionality of the artist." Have you seen a T.V. commercial that you would have considered as art? What would viral videos be considered in this case?
2. From page 90-91, the Vasulkas are introduced. Interested in the function of video in an artistic sense, they believed the notion that "video art was to television what studio art was to early forms of drawn or painted advertising." Do you agree with this statement? Is it fair to compare video art to television and studio art to early advertising?
No comments:
Post a Comment