I've been thinking about the two questions Caitlyn left us with last class: What is the difference between high art and low art? What is the difference between film and video?
The "film vs. video" question was something that was in my head a lot while reading chapter 2 of the textbook, and while preparing for my artist presentation. These are just my first thoughts, and I'm not familiar with either of these topics, but I'm interested in seeing how my responses now might differ from my responses after further readings and discussion. I will update this or make another post once I've done some more reading about these, but I just wanted to get my initial responses out there (even if they're totally off base).
High art vs. Low art
I think that high art refers to art that is accepted my art historians, critics, and curators as important contributions to the art world. In contrast, though, I think that low art is art that does not aspire to this in the first place. I think it's also possible that art originally made as low art can come to be seen as high art (as different mediums and themes come to be seen as more legitimate). When I think of high art I think of Renaissance paintings and sculptures, and when I think of low art I tend to think of art using new media.
Film vs. Video
The entire time I was reading chapter 2 my internal dialogue consisted of What's the difference between video and film? Is there one? Why is the textbook continually making the distinction? It's clear that I have no real grasp on either of these things, but I disgress. My first thought is that film is a field itself, and video is a medium used within the field of visual art. I think that film also followes a narrative, with characters, a plot, and development of the two. Perhaps one is also seen as a more academic style of art (I'm thinking here of ceramics vs. pottery, but that might be an overgeneralization).
Like I said above, though, these are just my preliminary thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment