Commercial Art is Still Art

In Chapter Two, Rush distinguishes video art from commercial television, documentaries and news reporting. "At issue here is the intentionality of the artist," he writes, "as opposed to that of the television executive or even commercial filmmaker or videomaker: the work is not a product for sale or mass consumption... Video, as an art, should be distinguished from the uses of video, however artfully executed, in other purposeful, that is, applied, arenas. Art and Artful are separate, though linked, terms that exist to help us differentiate between what can and cannot be considered to be art," (Rush, 83). (An FYI Rush, if two things are separate they cannot also be linked.) What is it about commercial use or practical application that manages to corrode the artistic value of video piece? Is it simply the presence an alternative purpose, a function extending beyond a moment of "pure" personal expression for the artist? If so, I have some bad news for all of us in FMS161- none of our video pieces are art. They were all created with an ulterior motive- fulfillment of the course requirements. Thus, we might take solace in knowing are pieces of "artful," but still not up to the pristine standards of Rush's definition of art. It seems to me, Rush has adopted one too many hackneyed ideas from Fluxus artists he enjoys citing. Today, we no longer have to see art as the opponent of the Man, Man. Advertisements are art just as experimental video pieces are art.