The difference between what is art and what is artful was a very interesting section of the book to me. It’s true that video created for commercial purposes or intended to be used for mass consumption (nightly nnewscasts,for example) would probably not be considered art by most individuals. According to the book New Media in Art, “artful techniques may enliven commercial television, advertising, etc., but these techniques are not in themselves what we would normally call art. Art lies in the intentionality of the artist: to make or conceive of something without the constraint of some other purpose” (87). In order for something to be considered art it is said to need an “artistic starting point” (87). A documentary could be said to have artistic characteristics, making it artful, but without the intention of the creator, it might not necessarily be art.
While I tend to agree with the author’s point of view to an extent, I have always personally felt like art is everywhere, everything, and everyone. Just as a tree or flower or landscape could be considered art with Mother Nature as the artist, a news segment about local politics could be considered art with the journalist as the artist. I guess it all depends on the intention of the creator and the viewpoint of the audience. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think art is the same way. If you think something is art, then it is.
