Build A Better Box

The question of, "Is corporate video art?" is an oft-debated topic, and one that seems to be generating a buzz in the blog world. But to come to a more reasoned answer means also considering whether video itself is art. And I think most would agree it can be. From feature films, to artful documentaries, to brilliant advertising, video is merely a carrier for ideas. "Corporate" is simply one particular usage. So is it the added term "corporate" that would deny video the designation as "art"? And worse, is it simply accepted that a corporate video need not be artfully produced? Maybe this is why the industry has such a commonly bad stigma, and why so many producers are seemingly comfortable rising to a level of mere mediocrity with such videos.

Nearly everything has the potential to be art, since the very nature of art is subjective and open to individual interpretation. And a corporate video can be just as much an art form as any other medium or creation.

While some maintain that any functionality of art is a mere byproduct, I suggest it is the aspect of art that is the byproduct. Why? Because function is objective while art is subjective. A Frank Lloyd Wright house is first and foremost an irrefutably useful thing; it's a place in which to live and store stuff. Yet, subjectively, it is also considered artful to different extents by those who've witnessed it. But the objective nature of the house cannot be denied. There are many examples of artful "things", from furniture design to architecture.

But as all things have the possibility to be perceived as artful (eye of the beholder), not all art (created and intended solely as art) is necessarily useful. Not many human beings - unless they lacked even an ounce of emotional quotient - would suggest that a 1962 Ferrari GT is not at all art, but merely "a car." But there is little practical use for a painting by Monet other than to cover up a hole in a wall. At least the Ferrari can take you to the grocery store.

Still, I'd imagine there are few corporate videos out there that were created and intended as artful masterpieces first and foremost. Felini or Ingmar Bergman or Kubrik never woke up and said to himself, "Think I'll create a new masterpiece today. And today I shall work in a medium not yet explored: corporate video." In the world of corporate video, form definitely follows function. Nonetheless, anything created - if even with a prime intent of being useful and purposeful - can have the potential subjective quality of being "art" to those who might experience it, corporate communications notwithstanding.