Art:21 | Paul Pfeiffer

[RedOmen02]

While video editing IS certainly an art, should this really be here? Forgive me, but I have to ask. Does he really make money with this? Can't he just work for a film company to do something productive? He's just messing with footage. If I'm not mistaken, it isn't always even his own footage. Also, he's not doing anything particularly difficult. This stuff is more patience than skill.

[marlenedesu]

@RedOmen02 Yeah, it's possible for anyone to do it, but it's still something that no one else has thought to do. He's editing to send a message, which is what his art is about. He's sending the viewer a message for them to interpret. And editing something that isn't yours in the art world is more or less appropriation if the footage is done with a creative commons license or credited. He could work in a film company, but if his heart is in something else, might as well do what you love.

:)

[RedOmen02]

@marlenedesu I see what you're saying, but it's not something others haven't thought of. It's important to have fun, but it reminds me of a while back when I saw someone advertising an art book he made with a lot of enthusiasm, but when I looked at it, it was obviously the kind of doodles you do in a school notebook. Very fun to look at, sure, but there's no reason to hype it but to get people to buy it. Art is more than just messing around, it needs blood, tears, and to drive your soul mad

[RedOmen02]

@marlenedesu I don't mean to drag this on like an asshole, but I want to make it clear- I mean art should inspire.. For example, on his painting Saint No. 39, Doc Hammer wrote 'this should look like I just tossed this out. As if I put little effort into producing it. Ya know "Just a little trifle I coughed up in an afternoon." But between you and me, it was the result of grueling labor, loss of sleep, ego-crushing self criticism, and more hours than I can remember.', and I was very inspired.

[marlenedesu]

@RedOmen02 Well, there are digital artists that have works that are merely collections of different pieces of things. For example, there's Cory Arcangel, and one of his works is a collection of blog posts titled "Sorry I Haven't Updated", a commentary on how bloggers are often obligatory to their readers, even though readers don't always care. I agree, art should inspire, but just because it doesn't inspire you doesn't mean it isn't art.

[RedOmen02]

@marlenedesu When I see this sort of "artwork" it reminds me of a story about a museum where a janitor put away a vacuum at the end of the day, but it turned out that the vacuum was a piece of "artwork" in the museum representing modern life, and the janitor was made fun of for not seeing it as art. Too often now people call themselves artists because they said something obvious about culture, and people buy into it, though the "artist" didn't really do a thing. It's the meaning of 'pretentious'

[marlenedesu]

@RedOmen02 I feel personally there shouldn't be such a thing as pretentious art. Art grows because the way people perceive it. It's about the reaction. If a work is bad, it's an opinion. I may look at what you've done and see no value in it. Another may consider it the greatest thing in the world. Maybe it's not the artist that's pretentious, but the viewer - by considering the work greater than it was intended. But it's still not pretentious. it's the viewer finding their own meaning in the art

[RedOmen02]

@marlenedesu I don't think art can be pretentious, only people. That's why I don't react to it like other art. By being art, shouldn't it be great? It's like comparing Post cartoons(though I like them) to what the Bishop gave Valjean in Les Miserables, something ineffably moving and life altering. I doubt that people who think of this THAT highly have really felt what art is meant to give, and until then, I'm sure nothing can be done to change their thinking. It's silly, especially on youtube...

[marlenedesu]

@RedOmen02 There are some works of his that I dislike, while their are others that I find interesting and inspiring. Art is interpretative - to some people, art is a commentary about a political or social issue. Most of Pfeiffer's work is about pop culture, and by simply editing out details, he sends a powerful message to me. But that's honestly my opinion, and you're entitled to yours. In some works, the method is more important than the message, but for Pfeiffer his message is what it's about.

[RedOmen02]

@marlenedesu I know it's all opinion, I don't care whether or not anyone likes his work.  It's fine if it's commentary, but I can't see it as art. It's the same as someone standing there saying "Idol worship often has nothing to do with the actual figure" or whatever. Only, he exaggerates the sentence. It doesn't show or teach me anything. I know a few works with the same message that are art, because they made me feel and understand new things about both myself and others. What I see when(tbc)

[bugpowderdust]

is this Paul Pfeiffer the 2007's The Saints' Paul Pfeiffer ?

[tambor74]

wen I saw this I think...waw but ...is very mmmm I dont now...software skills...is like an university work. but I like.