>>111580605I was speaking more about found art, or naive camp. Corporate animation is a little too intentional for me, but I see your point.
>>111580623Just because something was made with passion (Which, I would argue, few animated films are), that doesn't make it art. Animated films are rarely, if ever, the artistic vision of the animators working on it. They are doing what they are told, and being dictated by the corporate overlords. If they enjoy the process, that's just super, but that doesn't make it art.
>It's not that postmodernism rejects craft, but it values the idea/concept above the craft, making the artist's technical skill irrelevant as long as the concept is poignant and innovative.I would argue that it is the first movement to value the two equally. Most great Postmodern artists were also great craftspeople in their own right, at least where we consider visual arts.
>Here's a question for you. I go to a store and buy a mass produced trash can. As soon as the trash can is in my possession, I place it on a pedestal, and title it "Trash", also writing a short statement on my decision to choose the can and what it represents. Is that trashcan still a product, or is it art because I selected it to represent something? Postmodernism is on my side that it is now art because I, the artist, discerned it from other products to specifically represent myself and/or a concept.An interesting concept! By doing this, yo are making a statement (Though, it is one that has been made before, and more skillfully), so, in a sense, you have, at least done something of artistic value.
That reminds me of the glasses prank that was pulled a few years ago, where a couple of jokesters put a pair of glasses down against a wall in SanFran MoMA.
They were attempting to poke fun at the art community, but in doing so, actually made a rather bold statement about the art world in it's current state. Is that art? I'm not sure, but it sure makes for some great dialog!
