PBS Idea Channel posted a video on YouTube to discuss the potential for memes to be a form of art.
Discussing all forms of authority on the matter from Aristotle to Kant, the Idea Channel offers numerous reasons for and against the subject. What could it mean for a meme to be art? Do the incalculable amounts of people creating memes each day hold ownership over their creations? Should the value of Art with a capital A even be applied to the way we understand memes today?
An interesting point was brought up by the user porupineschool quoted:
"What interests me is how this incredibly dynamic, generative movement of visual culture sprung up overnight with almost no involvement from the art world at all. So it's not a question of legitimizing memes by calling them art, it's a question of whether "art" is still relevant considering that memes happened without it."
What porupineschool is leading onto here is that one particularly interesting, but ultimately dooming part of the art world is that all is open to critique even the art world itself. The culture of high brow analysis and theory resonates a differing tone, one of paint and design demanding laws and rules. Even those outside of the art world who subscribe to its repetition ultimately become canon.
However, memes and meme culture alike are fluid, ever-changing, and prescribe only to the world of the internet and its users which rank in the billions. Therefore, the meme world is much larger and has, in its relatively short lifespan, created an entire universe of meaning and communication without using any of the artistic principles culminated and crafted by its much older and slower counterpart allowing for the other assumption of whether or not the art world can be validated at all.
Then perhaps the question should change to whether or not ask that a meme has a potential art form but, in fact, ask the question of is art and the art world potentially a form of meme?