I was reading a text which claims that art is man-made. It claims that art exists for its own sake and claims that an artist tends to influence their audience. However, it also makes a distinction between a strip shopping mall and something that was beautiful in its architectural design, calling only the latter art.

The text also quotes Göethe saying art should serve three functions: to entertain, to educate and to exalt — or transport us mentally, emotionally or spiritually to a place beyond ourselves.

How can I say this in a way that doesn’t sound offensive? I believe the text, in a sense, short-changes and judges what is art more stringently than we should.

There are two photos in the text which show a distinct difference between a strip shopping mall and Spanish artistically designed homes situated above storefronts. Let’s look at the strip shopping center by itself, without contrasting it with something that is by many standards, more aesthetically pleasing. Ask yourself the questions about defining art. Art is man-made – so is that strip shopping center. Does it exist for its own sake? No, but neither do the homes situated above the storefront. In this instance the textbook says that architecture serves a utilitarian function which goes against art existing for its own sake, and relies on the difference of intention to earn the title of art. The assertion here is that the architect of the strip shopping center had no intention of influencing his audience. Yet how does anyone suggest to know the intent of another? Perhaps within the budget, the client restraint, the intended function of the space, etc the architect’s intent and influence over the strip shopping mall (although perhaps not apparent to us) were still an important part of the architectural design? Perhaps the architect strove to do the most thoughtful and artistic version of his vision within the confines of his job assignment. So wouldn’t it then be art? To assume to know the heart of a creator is to assume your perceptions are more important and more legitimate than the motives behind said creation and that your opinion is more important than what an artist feels.

Remembering art is subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it would be plausible in the most legalistic definition of art, to call a strip center art.

So how does this pertain to film?

Film is man-made. Film exists for its own sake, and in most instances you can feel the artists’ combined collective influence for the audience — Actors’ interpretations, cinematographers’ shot preferences, even down to the musical score. To say any of these things that were created are not art, defies the definition given in this text. So why argue the point? Yet, so many do.

If someone should consider film to be something that isn’t art, as the sum of the whole, can it’s many parts still be art in their singular existence? Can the whole of something made of small bits of art, not be art? Or does classifying a film as something other than art immediately diminish the artistic contributions of the many individuals tasked with building a film? Does each bit then become something that isn’t art as well? Hopefully this helps people understand the slippery slope of diminishing creation by mere lack of understanding or personal opinion. (I instantly think of two tracking shots I love and consider art — the Copa shot in Scorsese’s Goodfellas and the corner store scene in Wright’s Shaun of the Dead  – two distinctly different movies with similar artistic use of technique)

So I would suggest that art is a more ethereal concept than mere humans can define. Just as morals, values, social constraints and personal experience temper all of our insights, those too temper our interpretation of art. And a muddled misunderstood thing such as art, especially as it applies to writing or to film, is actually strengthened in its claim to art by the struggle it undergoes for the title.

Yet, our acceptance of what is and what isn’t art is merely a construct of our place in time. Film may not be art to you, or perhaps you would even distinguish between different films asserting some are worthy of being called art while others are not. I, however, call all film art. You don’t have to like the film. I don’t have to like it. We don’t have to appreciate it. But how we perceive it doesn’t change that it is indeed evocative, and an expression of one or a collective which influences others in some way. Even to dislike a thing is to feel.

For example, think of Maplethorp’s Self Portrait with Whip (1978) versus Monét’s London’s Green Park (1871) Both were considered shocking and were not considered art within the time they were initially created. Yet they’ve both been prize exhibits in some of the world’s finer art galleries. Times change.  Perceptions change.  We change.

Film is art. And art is to feel —good or bad— as creator or bystander.