DW: Is the music video a commercial, porn or an art form?

When considering the nature of music videos there are a vast range of characteristics which you must examine.  Artists may have their own visual style and/or motif on display within a music video e.g. a hairstyle which they always have. This helps construct and reinforce their “star image”, therefore acting as an advertisement – when the viewer sees this motif or style they associate it with the artist(s), and their reputation builds; for example Elvis Presley’s hairstyle or Michael Jackson’s glove (this also relates to Barthes’ theory of grain of voice, however this is visual and not audible).

In relation to this point, values of a celebrity lifestyle are frequently displayed to us via music videos, somewhat acting as a commercial – product placement. Commodified items such as expensive vehicles, properties, brands etc. are often shown to make both the items and the artist appear more desirable and therefore encouraging viewers to follow the artist or want what they see in the video. Often conventions will be associated with genre, which the audience expect for example hip-hop artists will frequently be seen in branded clothing, accessories, footwear and vehicles as oppose to perhaps indie rock where the video is likely to be more performance focussed and illustrative.

In recent years music videos appear to be becoming more sexualised than ever before. Voyeuristic treatment of women is often seen in music videos old and new, it may make the video more appealing for male audiences and help repeatability. This voyeurism is sometimes criticised as negative and perverted, especially for example if the women in the video have very little clothes on – it may well qualify for being softcore pornography. Ritualisation of subordination reinforces this further as it encourages the viewer to think less of women – as an “object” of lust and fantasy rather than as a human with feelings and emotions perhaps.

Directors and artists may deliberately use women in this way to attract attention and exploit the male gaze. Having said this, if the artist or director is female they may not use women in this way, as Mulvey says it denies women agency. It is therefore perhaps strange seeing female pop artists such as Rhianna and Nicki Minaj deliberately scantily dressed and infantilised because it is almost suggesting they want men to view them in that way and nothing more, giving a bad message to their large audience of young viewers.

This is not the only way sexuality is used in the modern music video, dismemberment and the artificial look is frequently used to create lust and desire for male viewers – enhancing the male gaze. This objectification of the female body can be related to the commodification and promotion of luxurious products as referenced earlier – turning women into objects of desire. This concept is used more in some genres than others; dance and hip-hop music videos tend to use this technique heavily, perhaps because they have a larger male audience than other genres whereas in rock and alternative music videos they tend to be more focussed on the artists and their performance. It depends entirely on what effect the artist wishes to create.

Whether or not music videos are an art form or not is a bigger debate. Because product placement and sexualisation of women is so clearly and easily seen in music videos and “art” as it were is much more difficult to recognise. Auters such as Spike Jonze, Hype Williams and David Fincher are able to translate the music they hear into visuals via the process of synaethesia, is this not an art form in itself? Although some writers for example Theodore Adorno would argue that music videos are just another culture industry which churn out undifferentiated, generic and simplistic productions to feed false class consciousness.

 This said however, in the same way a painter paints a picture, a musician makes a piece of music or a director shoots a movie, should auters not also qualify to be named an artist? All of these so called art forms require a vision and sufficient talent to achieve the vision, and if music video directors such as Jonze and Fincher can do this effectively and compassionately to display their vision in the same way that any artist or musician can, then there should be no reason why they cannot be called artists and their work a form of art.

In my opinion you cannot say whether music videos fall under any one of the three categories commercial, porn or art form because every video is unique. Yes some videos may be mainly one of these things, but then there are others which have all three mixed in, some music videos are illustrative, some are disjunctive, some are amplified but none are the same. Therefore you cannot put every video under one category or media form because their content is so broad. Just like art there are no rules with film making, the director of the video and the artist collaborate together to create something completely their own. Although some videos may carry heavy similarities to others the message each one carries is independent.