top of page
  • Writer's pictureBryan Tan

Updated: Jun 18, 2021

I have been writing an essay about the future of cinema on and off for the past few months. However, the COVID-19 Pandemic has cast some of my thoughts in a different light. There is much talk in the film industry about the future of the theatrical experience. Much of this conversation is focused on whether or not this moment represents a knock out blow on the part of streaming against the traditional theatrical experience. Contrary to some, barring further existential threats, I find it almost laughably obvious that the theatrical experience shall continue in some form or another. However rather than argue for this, I would like to discuss more evergreen topics about the future of our theatrical experiences. More specifically, I am interested in how filmmakers shall interact with the increasingly prevalent mediums of social media, and how these can potentially be used to circumvent traditional marketing, and more importantly, to create an entirely new media environment.

What I am describing here may never become typical or entirely replace our existing modes of cinema. Rather, it may be instantiated by a mere handful of exemplary individuals. What I am describing might also be more aspirational than attainable, but it strikes me as near certain that we shall be grappling with these questions in some form for years to come.

By Fernando de Sousa from Melbourne, Australia - Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0,

Limitations of our Present Cinema

I am fascinated by the idea of art as the connective tissue of society - a “Internet of Us.” Art is association. The first cave paintings somehow connect lines of black charcoal with the hunt of a wild beast. Even abstract works of the modern era are not free of associations; they can easily be described as representations of emotional states. They connect abstractions of form and color with abstractions of the mind.

The representational quality of art must be one of its most important features, it is the ability to select and/or construct a singular and reproducible experience from the chaos of life. This is an essential appeal of cinema. We are given a lens by which to view a world and experiences different than our own. Countless individuals over the generations have been inspired to pursue the most challenging and specialized professions on account of what they had first seen as impressionable children. For many people, their first introduction to classical music may be found in 2001: A Space Odyssey or in Amadeus. How many paleontologists are there today whose first exposure to the discipline was Jurassic Park?

Understandably, filmmakers often focus solely on the craft of their stories. They may give little consideration to the importance of the actual content their product presents to the audience. This is a mistake on the part of the filmmaker. The vast majority of the audience does not care about impressive cinematography or hidden metaphors. The audience first and foremost desires to inhabit the world that is presented to them. This is not to say that the craft is unimportant, on the contrary. It is only that the audience is unaware of these features in the same manner that one does not see the individual brush strokes of a painter unless standing very close to the painting.

This brings us to our present state and the real questions of our era. How will cinema change over the next century? The language and grammar of cinema feels quite solid and well established. It is difficult to imagine large scale changes to the very syntax of film itself. The pillars of cinema: the succession of shots edited together, the compression of time, the protagonist and antagonist, the three act structure, and so on, all seem quite comfortable and justifiable even in the light of innovation and generational changes. In this sense, film itself is a dead end. Even allowing for experimentation every now and then, it is still almost impossible to imagine anyone coming along and completely altering these fundamental paradigms.

It may be the case that the grammar of film shall remain largely the same, however, this does not mean our experience of film shall be the same. A great portion of a film going experience is reliant on the context of the viewing experience. It is here that much of the discussion begins and ends with questions about streaming platforms and theatrical exhibition. But this only addresses the physical context of film, it does nothing to describe the interpersonal context, it does nothing to describe the relationship of the artist to the audience.

I am certain that I am not alone in researching the history surrounding a film after I am done watching it. The first thing one does, of course, is go to the trivia section of the IMDB page to learn about the production. Maybe there are a few interesting anecdotes from the director. Maybe next you read a review or two and get frustrated with the lack of depth in the analysis. In half an hour, you have read just about all there is to read. Of course there are exceptions to this. Many times the films you fall in love with are the very ones you are able to learn more about. But in order to do so you have to dig. You might have to purchase a director's book and read his or her musings. You can often find interviews of actors and directors that are illuminating. But these are often shallow press junkets and one is often left with the feeling that could say more in different circumstances. It is precisely this form of discussion surrounding a film that is outmoded. So often, we are left with the desire to know more but find no means to facilitate the discussion.

At this point, one might object and point out that I am a filmmaker. Of course I would be interested in learning more about films, and there is no reason to suspect that it is common for people uninterested in the process of filmmaking to be interested in this kind of content. That is true for the present era, but this is also where there is the greatest room for change. We will see that film makers need not limit their discussions to filmmaking itself. They can just as well discuss the things the audience is interested in – the worlds and the stories that inform their films.

The Advantage of New Mediums

Youtube has largely replaced television for the younger generations. One can learn about anything on Youtube, in far greater depth, with far greater honesty, and from people with the best credentials in their fields. What must not fail to be stressed is the overwhelming and constant desire for new content. Better, deeper, more frequent, and more varied, constantly. Professors of various disciplines have personally uploaded hour long lectures of university level content, most of it available for free. There is no pipe or wire in your house that you will not learn how to replace if you are patient and willing to sort through the endless content available on the platform. As Youtube has become a staple time killer, the specific search function has decreased in importance relative to the ability of Youtube to predict what content you will be interested in and present it to you freely with minimal decisions required on your part. Via its algorithms, your viewing history, and your channel subscriptions, a profile is constructed of your niche interests. This predictive ability shall only improve over time.

On the inverse side, the YouTube content creator struggles under the immense pressure to meet the constant demand for new content. In most cases, these are mere individuals or small groups of friends. They do not have agents, distributors, large budgets, or corporations behind them. Yet their audience ranges in the millions. Through advertising partnerships, sponsorship, and merchandising these creators represent an entirely new media industry.

Nerdwriter1 is a Youtube channel with two point seven million subscribers as of this writing. Collectively his videos have a total view count of a staggering one hundred and ninety three million. This is the work of a single individual, and hardly representative of the highest tier of success. Often he makes his content about cinema, and that is how I first encountered his work. But this is not his exclusive focus. His channel is his own brand. He might cover any number of subjects, whether it be about art or society in general. Because of my familiarity with his brand, I am highly likely to watch his content even if I am only tangentially interested in the subject matter. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that I agree with all of his concepts or even consider myself an avid fan, but it is obviously the case that his work, for me, is comfortable. It is a viewing decision that requires minimal effort on my part, and provides sufficient reward. This is the type of low-commitment contract that is the bread and butter of the YouTube economy.

Now if we were to look at the last century as a model for this one, we would expect for channels that produce similar content to be in direct competition with one another, and that this competition would result in harsh rivalry and differentiation between otherwise similar channels. This does not appear to be the case. In the past few years, we have seen rather symbiotic relationships develop between channels of similar content.

The rather short form, low intensity content does not lend itself to harsh rivalry. Again the concept of low-commitment contract between audience and creator means that there is little requirement for brand loyalty on part of the viewer. The audience is first and foremost interested in an endless stream of content and no single creator is prolific enough to satiate the audience over time. Thus other channels with similar content are welcomed and contribute to the collective profile of each viewer, providing them with more avenues to find the content they desire. For this reason, one channel's success does not mean another's failure. Unlike television, there is no need to compete for time slots, and there are always more hours in the day and more desire for content.

This has even led to channel crossovers, where YouTube personalities get in touch, coordinate their efforts and interact with their respective platforms. Each creator will come out with a video featuring the work or ideas of the other creator. In the process, each creator is introduced to the other's audience, who are already predisposed to be interested in their content. This cross pollination encourages viewers to branch out and makes them far more likely to watch videos by the creator they were previously unfamiliar with. Thus, each creator wins as each is introduced to a new, expanded audience.

The result of this constant interplay between creator and audience, and creator and creator is a model of media unlike anything our society has seen before. The information does not flow one way, it is a dialogue, a discussion unfolding over time.

Defining the Impending Era

Currently, there is an immense gap between a traditional filmmaker and the audience. This gap represents unmet demand by audiences for low-commitment content relating to the films and ideas surrounding them. The desire for this type of content far exceeds the availability of traditional film and film marketing, which is too precise, expensive and polished to be available in the volume required. Over time, grass roots filmmakers will unleash the untapped potential of this market. The change will unfold democratically and without the input of traditional gatekeepers, marketers and distributors, who will have to drastically change their models in order to keep up.

This new era in film will be defined by audience accessibility to the filmmaker. Each filmmaker on this model will represent a brand, a personal brand. It will be the filmmaker's goal to build up the audience over time with regular content and direct interaction. Livestreamed Q&As will be a common format, with the filmmaker taking questions right from the online audience, perhaps viewers will pay a small fee to have their questions moved to the top of the queue. Youtube already has the infrastructure to support these transactions. There is an obvious question that follows. Aside from teasers, behind the scenes featurettes and Q&As, what kind of content can there possibly be? This is where we will see the greatest variance between individual filmmakers.

The most obvious kind of content would be regular updates about the process of making a film – its emotional toils and the visceral details and drama of production. This would be produced by the filmmakers themselves or by a small team intimately connected to them. It would bear no resemblance to reality TV, or ENG production teams. The content will be simple and unpolished, it would not be presented like the DVD special features sizzle reels and short behind the scenes segments. It would be raw, filled with the honest emotions of the day, edited and uploaded as the process unfolds.

Some may find this model implausible in light of the harsh demands a production requires, but I believe this would be shortsighted. It is true that the current elite spate of filmmakers would likely blanch at this additional burden on top of their already massive list of duties. These filmmakers have no need for this model because they are already established. It is the next generation of filmmakers who shall embrace this process. This shall be the chief innovation of the Gen Z filmmaker. The younger generations shall have little trepidation with this mode of presentation. We already see it foreshadowed in daily instagram stories, tiktok and regular VLOGs. There is no reason to suspect that young filmmakers will cease using these modes of expression. Rather we should expect them to only continue to embrace them in increasingly creative forms. The process of making the film, the film itself, and the dialogue surrounding the film shall all become one. They shall film themselves making their movies.

But, as I have already alluded, the process of making a film will always be a niche interest that will have a definite but limited appeal. If this new generation of content would be limited to this, there may not be much more to say. But this type of content shall represent only certain filmmakers and only a narrow slice of the broader possibilities. It is the ideas behind the film, the themes, the settings, and the real humans behind the adaptations, these are the types of content that shall dominate.

But among these ideas, the brands and personalities of the filmmakers themselves will be predominant. It is easy to name filmmakers from prior generations who have well established personas. Even in traditional media, sometimes the reach of these personas nearly exceed the influence of their own directorial work. Directors with strong personal brands, like David Lynch, or Jim Jarmusch come to mind. As we have already discussed, there is no reason for David Lynch, an elite, established filmmaker, to have his own YouTube channel, as fascinating as that may be. But the David Lynches of the next generation, shall certainly have theirs. Their content shall present a broad tapestry of their interests, whatever they may be, such that the film itself is the mere capstone of their work. Their own brands; self cultivated, honest, and accessible, will be the chief draw.

* Update: Thanks to the Pandemic we now have a David Lynch Channel:

It is important that we say more about what kind of content this might entail and to whom it might appeal beyond filmmakers and cinephiles. It is not possible to stress how much this will vary for each artist. David Lynch is not only a filmmaker, but also a painter, a musician, and a woodsmith of furniture and sculpture. We might expect a David Lynch channel to feature, among other things, his pantheon of artistic pursuits. David Lynch does not often like to speak in any detail about the meaning of his films, but that needn’t be indicative of other artists. Many shall happily participate in the discussions about their own work. In Lynch’s case, since content could include subjects quite different from filmmaking, his audience and subscribers would naturally include people who would otherwise have never encountered his film work. The wide swath of discussion filtered through the lens of a great artist could have significant crossover appeal, all of which would add to his brand and build his base of subscribers.

A filmmaker of historical drama would have quite different content. It might feature simple videos of visiting historic sights, or interviews with historians or eyewitnesses. The goal of the filmmaker on this model is twofold. First, to create a tapestry of the ideas and notions surrounding his or her work, and second, to build the personal brand. When the time comes to announce a film, the filmmakers of this model would be able to immediately reach their audience, discussing how their film might tie into their regular content. The film would then serve as the climax and culmination of the ideas expressed in their regular videos on a given subject.

This supplemental content is not quite Cinema, but something else -- something adjacent to the movies. I would never venture to say it could replace it. It may be that such expanded discussion can serve to maximize the reach of a film and to solidify the power of its themes. I think those who would doubt that there is demand for such content will be in for a tremendous surprise. Here again I would want to emphasize the different nature of low-commitment content. Contrary to cinema, it is not necessary to sustain the intense focus, narrative drama, or to keep one on the edge of a seat. Here one needs only to provide a comfortable and familiar excuse to click the next link, or to do nothing as the next video auto-plays.

Possible Types

Although we have used Youtube as the prime example, there is no reason to think that this dialogue could not take place on any number of the prominent social media platforms.

To provide a wider view of what content might follow, let us briefly define a few more types of filmmakers on this model. We should not think of this list as complete but merely an expanded ostensive definition of what might be possible in these new forms.

Academic Filmmakers

  • Content would focus on film in relation to academic pursuits. They would interact with Academia, and the ideas and personalities within science, philosophy, history, psychology, literature, and etc.

Polymath Filmmakers

  • Filmmakers with talent in a variety of artistic fields. Content would include any number of artistic pursuits tied into how these fields relate to film, or art critique in general.

Filmmakers as Filmmakers

  • The production diary type of filmmaker. These types will very meticulously document their processes of filmmaking, production and the various technical details involved. This may not be limited to directors, but also cinematographers, production designers, and anyone who is able to build a following.

Culture Filmmakers

  • Creators of light, trendy, easy to consume content that is very indicative of cultural trends. Light on substance, heavy on feel good emotions. Well suited as supplemental material to star driven blockbusters. They shall feature a smattering of BTS, but nothing too technical. Actors shall make for natural hosts due to their familiarity and comfort in front of the camera.

Cinephile Filmmakers

  • Film video essayists and critics shall enter the fray as filmmakers themselves and perform both roles. They shall be the most vocal of the bunch in discussing the themes and ideas of their own work, and shall be the most engaged with other filmmakers both within and outside of these platforms.

Sci-Fi/Fantasy Filmmakers

  • Focused on world building, speculative fiction, possible futures, dialogues with authors, other fictions.

Martial Arts, Military, Filmmakers

  • Emphasis on combatives, fight choreography and any variety and combination of martial arts and or military procedure.

Sociopolitical Filmmakers

  • Focused on social issues, race, gender, or political themes. Interacts with politicians, pundits, activists and other public figures.

Religious Filmmakers

  • Filmmakers focused on religious, theological themes sometimes tied very tightly into their films and sometimes in much more general terms. May also interact with Theologians, Pastors and other important figures. Current faith based productions will bear little resemblance to the sophistication of ideas to come.

Documentary Filmmakers

  • Documentary filmmakers already shoot hundreds of hours of footage, meaning almost 98% of what they film is unused. This new form shall provide ample avenues for such filmmakers to explore supplementary content and tell additional stories too tangential to survive the traditional edit. Consequently they may have the easiest time adapting to this new form.

Other Interest Group filmmakers

  • Filmmakers who are spokesmen for any variety or combination of interest groups. It is quite possible that institutions might sponsor filmmakers who are felt to represent and articulate their views effectively.


  • Filmmakers who will blend the lines between fact and fiction. They would use other platforms to augment the fictional world of their films, expanding upon what was able to be shown within the film, featuring additional content and scenes. May also involve the audience to varying degrees, including Easter eggs, mysteries or various interactive features that effect and influence the viewing experience by audience input. This notion is different and expansive enough from the other types to warrant future discussion.

Any combination of the above

  • There is no reason to suspect that a filmmaker would be limited to one type or one interest group. Indeed the combination and intersection of interests shall serve as one basis for each individual filmmaker's appeal. The most successful filmmakers shall have the broadest appeal.


This model quite clearly shall appeal most strongly to independent productions and voices. The large studios would likely be the slowest and most hesitant to adopt this new model, waiting until they can come to grips with the financial realities beneath. What we may see is a vast democratization of filmmaking, where the filmmakers have almost direct access to their audiences. Gatekeepers, at least at first, will have to find new ways to insert themselves into the process, and for a time, there will be almost no decision makers between audience demand and artistic creation. As a result, films shall be more common, more personal, more varied and more risky. Films shall be heavy in jargon, specific lexicon and knowledge belonging to their respective niches. Films of this model shall better satisfy their highly specified audiences than is presently possible with global theatrical distribution.

Films made under this model will likely be small, low to moderately budgeted affairs, with geographically limited narratives. However, as technology continues to improve, small crews and low budget projects shall be able to attain production values successively greater than is presently possible on comparable budgets. Film style in general will be more greatly stratified, each creator attuned to the needs of their audience. The vast majority of creators will be relatively middle class in comparison to a hyper successful minority and the traditional Hollywood elite.

Theatrical windows may still exist, but shall be of more ceremonial importance than the chief financial drive of films made under this model. Revenues will come from a panoply of avenues, including ad partnerships, sponsorships, merchandising, on-demand, streaming and traditional distribution deals, and more. It is quite likely that large Hollywood tent poles and a smattering of prestige pictures shall continue to exist in some form or another, casting the widest net of appeal, and continuing to feature the highest budgets and most renowned talents. It is possible that some adopters of the new model might achieve widespread success that rivals the traditional model.


Since we have thus far considered the bright possibilities that this new media form might bring, we must also consider some potential dangers and pitfalls that may lie within.

Given the historic propensities of human society, it is unlikely that this state of egalitarian, meritocratic artistry shall last forever. After several decades of relative openness, new gatekeepers, agents, managers and various kinds of middlemen shall likely insert themselves into the system, and themes, and styles shall again conglomerate. It is possible that institutional, corporate or government sponsorships of channels may become a necessary prerequisite for success. This may limit the range of topics to those which are deemed acceptable and approved. New forms of propaganda may proliferate, and audiences shall be unable to critically distinguish factual accounts from fabrication. The fairly egalitarian algorithms of YouTube may come to be replaced by more biased modes of selection. Audiences shall be highly stratified into specific interest groups, having little reason to interact with ideas from opposing sources. As a word of qualification, the dangers of a closed, propagandistic society exist regardless of the types of media available.

Even without Orwellian overtones, filmmakers may simply feel enslaved to their personas and PR machines. Following the initial democratization, newcomers may have an increasingly hard time gaining viewership in a saturated market. The charming amateur works of novice filmmakers may be crowded out by professionals on a platform initially meant for the general population. It may be difficult for films to gain an audience without an accompanying personality and vast library of supplemental material. On the flip side, films made for smaller audiences in the current market rarely reach their audiences to the full potential. And most novice filmmakers presently have a difficult time having their work seen as it is. So what we are describing here might represent something of a market correction, albeit with the necessary Faustian Bargain to accompany it. Like most innovations of society and technology, benefits and drawbacks shall come forth from the same hand.


There are a number of variables at play which might hinder this vision from ever coming into reality, or might limit the extent to which it manifests. Whether or not these problems are soluble is a question that must be left to time.

Films are immensely difficult to make at every aspect of production. The emotional and physical toil on both cast and crew is well documented. This difficulty leads to two obstacles. Firstly, the difficulty of filmmaking means that only a limited number of films can be made within any given time frame. The relative infrequency of filmmaking might mean that creators can never effectively satiate the audiences viewing needs in a timely manner. Secondly, the energies of the creators might be too completely absorbed in the traditional process of filmmaking such that no time is left for supplemental content.

Filmmakers may never embrace the role of film critics. Although not every form of this model requires critique in a formal sense, almost all the models shall require immense self reflection and verbalization of private artistic processes in manners unprecedented for artists. While social media gives us reason to suspect that millennial and post millennial generations might embrace this, there simply is no guarantee that creators shall embrace these supplemental endeavors with the same rigor they apply to their primary focus.

The scale of audiences might be too small to rival the financial impact of the traditional models of filmmaking. Thus, filmmakers may have difficulty procuring the necessary funds in order to deliver content up to the standards of their own audience.

Cinema may be too direct a medium to blend well with the low-commitment contract content that characterizes Youtube and most new media platforms. Thus, views on the latter platforms might not lead to actual purchases of tickets or on-demand streaming to the level necessary to justify expenses.

Although we can expect low-commitment content to proliferate even further than it already has, it may be the case that it is not possible to effectively integrate this with the cinematic experience.

Ultimately the question is not whether or not these new forms shall exist, but to what degree. None of these problems ought to be unsolvable. They merely represent factors that shall heavily influence decision making processes, and determine who shall succeed and who shall fail.

Conclusion and Personal Thoughts

Speaking broadly, digital filmmaking can be said to have at least three forms: traditional cinema, series streaming, and user uploaded content, mostly via Youtube. The lines between these modes shall blur with each taking on many of the characteristics of the other, yet continuing to exist on their own to some degree. This shall result in the democratization of filmmaking, bursts of creativity, interactive audience experiences, and a wide swath of films appealing to vastly different, yet interconnected audiences.

Despite my usual trepidation about the future, the manifold potential drawbacks, and the obstacles that stand in the way of this vision, I find myself optimistic. I am fascinated by the idea of art as the connective tissue of society, the means by which we understand perspectives and ideas foreign to our own. It connects us to the past and draws us into the future. I love when, in my personal reading, I encounter writers who reference their forerunners who shaped them, or the historical events that molded them. Or in seeing two artists' paths cross at a certain point in their lives, resulting in a beautiful collaboration, only to separate again. In this vision, I see immense potential to fulfill this ideal in contrast to our present oligarchic, propagandist, and blandly commercialized forms.

There will be many modes of this media conflagration. My own inclination is to contextualize work within art, society, and history at large. Others shall comprehensively document their creative process to such a degree that their followers shall nearly participate in the making of the film. But the most interesting of all of these forms shall be the fictional extensions of the narrative into other mediums, where fact and fantasy meld, and there is no clear line as to where the story of the film ends and real life begins. It will be fascinating to behold, like a massive, live symphony. One note, one share, one upload at a time, unfolding over weeks and weeks, complete with motif and leitmotif, and themes and references, and arcs and twists, and beginnings and ends, across a dozen mediums and culminating in the release of a film that shall merely serve to tie the disparate threads together.

There will likely be many such filmmakers in this young generation, so inundated with social media, that it is part of their very bone. For them, to be open and honest with their digital friends shall not be a chore but a natural extension of themselves. It shall be as ordinary to them as any other kind of conversation. No other generation has this kind of integration with the internet. In my experience, even millennials feel a certain unease and existential threat in the vanguard of social media but this is a feeling largely absent in the next generation.

Undoubtedly, new media forms will continue to enter the picture, presenting unimaginable possibilities. Current mediums shall change and evolve such that the present forms appear as nothing but the crude progenitors of the things to come. Yet it shall never be technology alone that connects us in our lonely Twenty-First Century. It shall be the art: the Internet of Us.

- Bryan

  • Writer's pictureBryan Tan

Updated: Apr 29, 2022

I want to further draw out some of the implications of the last post and talk about how this may change how we think about art.

Here was my definition for art:

Art is a morally neutral thing that has nonetheless attained a moral aspect through its selection or creation by an intellect.

I stated that a work of art comes about via selection or creation. Both of these processes need to be elucidated, for surely not everything that is selected or created is inherently artistic.

When or how does something become art?


Concerning creation, let us imagine an impossibly antediluvian caveman, so ancient that his contemporaries have not yet invented the cave paintings by which we know him. Still, he is a homo-sapien, a genetically modern human, identical to us in every way save for his culture.

We can imagine this caveman working in his environment, fashioning spears, arrows, walking staves, and other implements which assist him in survival. He might make several spears at a time for his hunting group, in which case he may be totally absorbed in the raw function of the spear. In so much as he is concerned with his implements in an exclusively functional light, it does not appear that any artistry is going on. Yet for a human being, it is almost impossible to imagine that at some point, he would not take some greater interest in his work. He may fashion a particular spear tip better than the rest, he may carve a shaft for it stronger and straighter than the rest, and as he lashes the stone head to it he may think:

"I like this spear. This is a good spear."

This is the beginning of an artistic impulse. It is true that his appreciation for the spear arises out of a concern that is purely functional. Nonetheless out of this raw design consideration he has come to a greater appreciation of his spear. He may express his appreciation of this particular spear by giving it extra care, sanding it down so that it doesn't splinter, adding a weight to the back so that it's balance is perfect, or he may furnish it with decorations and adornments which have a purely aesthetic value to him. In either case he has created a work of art. It became a work of art for him the very instant the spear became something more than a mere fighting implement.

Design as it relates to artistic creation:

This raises a question, if he does not adorn the spear but only continues to perfect its function and design, when does this design become art? We shall find that not all art is designed, and not all design is art. Design is simply the process of creating something. To distinguish whether a design is artistic or not, we need to discern the intent of the creator. I think we can identify of two types of design intent. Functional and aesthetic. Functional intent is rather self explanatory. The design intent is to make the item perform its task in the most optimal manner. Aesthetic design exists to make an item appear more significant than mere pure form would suggest, or to alter how one views the item, making it more palatable or interesting where it might feel boring and unimportant without it.

We can look at various household items and observe both kinds of design. For objects of significant complexity, we shall find that it is almost impossible for a designer to resist efforts to incorporate aesthetic design considerations. There are items with merely functional design, for instance a tissue; items with only aesthetic design, like a figurine on a mantelpiece; and lastly there are items with both, which I suspect is the largest bracket. This would include things like a kitchen pan, or a television set, even a pair of scissors. We also will find that different designers working for different purposes can create the same type of object, yet one can be artistic, and the other purely functional. Duchamp would appreciate this next example. The toilet paper one might find in a public restroom appears to exist only for its function. But if you buy a more expensive brand for your home, you will find that on this thin, fragile paper they have imprinted a light pattern on it and for what purpose? The pattern has no ergonomic advantage or apparent function, it only serves to make this common and rather base item a little more palatable for us. In this case, we can say that even toilet paper can have artistic properties.

In some cases, aesthetic considerations may arise purely out of the functional concerns. The curve of a spear tip may first be considered for optimal sharpness and cutting efficiency, but through this the curve can be come aesthetically desirable as well. What we find is that humans are quite good at imbuing even very simple things with more significance than is apparent in their mere function.


But what if the caveman resisted all urges to express himself through his design of the spear? The spear can still become art if it is so selected. It is only that the genesis of the art takes place at a different moment.

In lieu of a caveman fashioning a spear that he prefers over the others, let us imagine a group of spears, fashioned in famine, in the dead of winter, in great desperation, a state where no specific thought was given to the spear, where it was only created for the express purpose of survival. If the spear we discussed earlier - the favored spear - were to be lost it would be a shame in the eyes of the caveman; a minor tragedy. However if one of these spears is lost it is merely an inconvenience. This latter spear, while being created, has no artistic properties.

But one day on the hunt the caveman might throw one of these spears and score an important kill with it, downing a mammoth which shall feed his tribe for a week. Perhaps he uses it again on a later hunt and again scores a valiant blow with it. He may come to prefer it in some way, to think of it as his lucky spear. He may keep it separate from the others, walk with it always in his right hand and be reticent to share it. This spear is not different from the others in any aesthetic or design manner, yet it has obtained some kind of moral significance to the caveman that exceeds the others. Like the former spear, the one crafted with more care and forethought, if this spear were lost, it would now be a shame.

In either case, the caveman has committed a simple artistic act. He has done so by his effort to imbue an inanimate object with some kind of transcendent moral significance.

Is artistic value illusory?

You might argue that "transcendent moral significance" is far too strong a phrase for a caveman's favorite spear. I can also see one rolling their eyes at the idea that this latter spear has artistic value similar to the former. One might say instead that it has mere sentimental value and that artistry hasn't taken place unless he begins to adorn the spear. One might also argue that any value the caveman tries to imbue the spear with is merely subjective and therefore it does not have any intrinsic artistic value, only a subjective value.

I don't feel we should commit ourselves to such a view. I am not meaning to suggest that artistic value exists in the sense that a rock exists, or even that it exists in a Platonistic sense. I would say that artistic value exists in the same sense that we might say moral goodness exists.

In philosophy it is a complex and evergreen topic to discuss the objectivity of moral values and in what sense they exist, and we needn't get into the weeds about that. I would want to assert two things. First, that most people believe in some kind of objective morality regardless of whether or not it is hard to discern. By this I mean that some things are right or wrong in all possible circumstances regardless of the cultural inclinations of a society, i.e. The Holocaust. Secondly, that if objective morality exists then artistic value also exists. It follows from this that if objective morality does not exist, then artistic value also does not exist. This would be a world in which nothing matters, where no frame of reference could be considered preferable, and ideas like justice and goodness are just illusory human concepts. I don't see a reason to accept this unlivable worldview.

What then of this sentimental value as opposed to artistic value? I have a hard time seeing any fundamental difference between the two. If selection can also be a means of artistic creation, then to say something is artistic isn't necessarily to say that it has been well designed, only that it has some kind of moral significance unrelated to its function. A mug shot is an act of selection that isn't artistic, but if you then select that mugshot and put it in a picture frame you have created a work of art. The moment of artistic creation is not the moment the picture was taken but the moment someone decided it was worthy of display in a new context. I don't see any reason why the spear is different regardless of the emotional impulse behind the selection. What is important is that such an emotional impulse takes place.

This is not to say that there are not other kinds of selection that are not artistic. For instance historic selection or scientific selection. We can think of many scenarios in which objects could be of interest for these purposes which are not related to artistic selection, but in either of these cases the object's worth would be entirely rooted in its value to these projects. The value of artistic selection is often rooted in human emotions, is much more hard to define, and takes on a moral character that is notably absent from other kinds of selection. Sentimental selection falls quite nicely into this hard to define category.

Is art observer dependent?

Well that's great for the caveman but what about us? For even if the caveman values his spear greatly, how can the rest of us know it was important to him? What if he is killed by a rival tribe and his spear is taken by a man totally oblivious of the significance it had to him? Does the spear remain art? It isn't important who knows about the spear's significance, only that at one point someone saw it as such. We encounter this issue all the time, like when a family member unknowingly throws something away that we value. Art in most cases exists to be seen and experienced, but it isn't necessary that this actually occurs, only that it is possible. Art requires only a creator or selector. If an astronaut crash lands on Pluto and carves his wife's name into a rock as he dies, he has created art. It is not important that no one will ever know he did this.

Are all things with artistic properties worthy of being called Art?

You may at this point say, "well fine, the spear has some artistic value, but not very much. Not enough to call it art." In this case I would agree strongly with the first point and disagree with the latter. Of course a spear would have very little artistic value, just like a pair of scissors would have very little artistic value. But so long as someone looked at the handle of the scissors and decided that it ought be be one color rather than another, that person made an artistic decision and that means that the scissors have some arbitrarily low but nonzero artistic value.

For the sake of argument, let us say that the scissors have an artistic value of .0000324 Art, and the Sistine Chapel has an artistic value of 100,000 Art. It is significant that the value of the scissors is not zero, the way a bare metal paper clip is zero. The question would then arise, how many "Art points" does something need to be called Art? We can see very quickly that such a conversation is so rife with subjectivity as to be completely pointless. No single person would be in agreement as to what number we should assign as the criterion of artistic value and there would be even less agreement over the value of each individual item.

Returning to my thesis of the first article, we can side step this whole pointless quibble by just calling everything that has ever had an artistic impulse acted upon it art no matter how insignificant it is, and after this we can have much more useful conversations.

For all this talk, I don't like this idea of Art, as in Art with a capital a; art as this great idea which ought to be celebrated an put on a pedestal in its own right. Art can be all manner of things, it doesn't have to be exceptional. Not all art needs to be significant, it can be banal and commonplace. None of this needs to be an insult against it, nor does it mean we shouldn't strive to create great art. But certainly there is more of this banal art than there is "great" art. In fact it is clear that on this view, we live in a world utterly suffused with art of all kinds. Most of it is utterly mundane, some of it base, and some of it majestic and powerful.

This view takes into account both the subjectivity of human experience and an appreciation of objective artistic value. To say something is a work of art doesn't mean that it has to be interesting to us. For instance, I don't much care for Andy Warhol, but it isn't a problem for me to call his Campbell Soup Can series art. I can still say that in my eyes, it is insignificant, not worthy of discussion, and if everyone shared my view it would be a work of art that existed in total obscurity. None of this commits me to the highly subjective position that somehow, because it is so banal and uninspired, it is in fact not a work of art.

How this view of art relates to cinema:

We can draw from this view of art that there is little difference between so called Art cinema and popular cinema, there exists only works of differing value and intent. It is not important that Transformers exists almost exclusively to make money for Paramount and to help Hasbro sell toys. It is a work of art because it was created by an intellect and has a nonzero artistic value however small it might be. Once again, this does not mean we have to celebrate Transformers, only that we do ourselves a disservice to simply state that it is not art. For if we do so we are ignoring the fact that this type of film still influences us, still enters our subconscious, and occupies a certain place in our memory. To say Transformers is not art would be to dismiss all the millions of people who enjoy these films and those that are genuinely moved by them. It means that we can dismiss the idea that "well, that's just a popcorn flick, it isn't worth thinking about." This is irresponsible both on the part of the creator and the viewer. Transformers effects us via sound and moving picture. This is obviously the same of any film, and even silent films had live music. In this sense I don't see any reason why we should think of Transformers differently than we might think of First Reformed. It is only the intent and the specific images and sounds that change. - Bryan

bottom of page