Post #2 - YouTube as Contemporary Art

So earlier today, I was just chillaxing at Cup O’ Joe, messing around on Facebook, watching House get his second diagnosis wrong, and pretending to do homework. There’s a group of high school kids sitting around a laptop at one of the booth’s watching some of the comical brilliance of Jenna Marbles on YouTube.  At table to the right of them sat three middle-aged women, chatting casually. They continuously glanced over at the giggling teenagers, looking at them with contempt. At one point, they even started discussing them, calling the kids stupid and YouTube and YouTubers immature and pointless. I came to the realization of three things; this would be excellent to talk about for this blog post, I’m really creepy for watching these two groups so intently, and that today’s society has cast aside one my favorite modern art forms as trash.

            The goal of art is to visualize beauty. The goal of art is to transform ideas and the sub-conscious into reality. The goal of art is to instill happiness in the hearts of those who appreciate it. By that logic, how is YouTube not an amazing, technological twin of the Louvre? YouTube is a website designed for a different form of art; a combination of music and film and comedy and education and pretty much anything. Admittedly, YouTube is typically enjoyed by a younger audience, but who are these middle-aged folk to judge what or what isn’t art? Art is an expression of one’s true self. So if Ms. Marbles true self is a cursing comedian that entertains hundreds of thousands, by what standard is that not art?

            YouTube isn't just used for comedy. Many of the popular YouTubers take advantage of the fact that they have become so famous, and advertise and advocate for social change. Some raise awareness for issues like self-harm, some raise and donate money, others try to do things like give advice. This generation isn’t as bad as older generations think; we use art to try and stimulate social change, the kind of social change that can actually help others. And how can we measure if one form of art does “more good”? If a Mozart piece can make thousands of little children smarter, but a YouTube video saves 100 kids from attempting suicide, how can we measure which one does “more good” for society?

In general, much of society critiques modern art as ridiculous and “not-art”. Art is really very opinionated and everyone perceives it differently. Frankly, I think Piet Mondrian’s piece Composition with Yellow, Blue and Red is complete and utter shit, but many consider it one of the greatest pieces of 20^th century Neo-Plasticism. Art is very dynamic, it’s always changing and it’s always evolving. By dismissing certain forms or piece from the category of “art”, we are halting progress in social change, and social critique, as a parallel, will cease to evolve along with the art. We shouldn’t be so critical of what we consider art, because art exists in many forms, but as long as one person considers it beautiful, it’s art.