The problem with art now days is that too much of modern art rides the dick of past greatness. If you consider the transition of art in all forms it is really amazing. Although I feel the integrity of what is considered "art" is in peril in some forms. It's amazing:
Speaking for the western world,
for music you got it starting out with ancient Greece and Italy with simple music eventually developing for the church, this being the point at which many major instruments begin to be develop and all through the ages the music develops complexity. Until we get mid 2nd millennium with all the great composers. Nearing the 3rd millennium we got simple instruments getting into the hands of simple people (with cultural folk music from their European villages). Soon comes slave music (with African roots) mixed with American folk music. Country, Jazz and Blues develops, and out of that Oldies Rock, and soon modern Rock, Funk, Soul, Disco, and then the each of which have their own further developments (Rock to metal, Funk & Soul to hip hop (which reintroduces a new foundation of poetry), Soul to R&B) with a lot of subgenres of course (or further developments). And then with the introduction of digital technology we get weird as Techno, and Pop, and Pop Rap, and what not. It's just amazing to trace it all back. It's crazy to think that Pop Rap has evolved somehow from Jazz and Blues, WTF.
We all know the story of paintings. You got cavemen and the humans desire to capture the world around him on a visual spectacle. Civilizations developed and we get canvas paintings that reach a major pinnacle in the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. Then the styles and techniques change and we get variations of painting forms, but nevertheless it maintains the passion for translating reality to a fixed plane. All the way up until the early 1800s when an ancient myth is investigated and turned to reality. Technology again is introduced and Photography is born and advertised as "giving the ability of an artist (painter) to everyone with no need of the skill" Although photography never took off as an artform, it only functioned as a new form of documentation. But over time it develops and the artform is born. Motion study (using photographs) discovers cinema and with the inspiration of plays, silent films are born, moving into classic black in white, to now, bla bla bla.... Inspiring digital mediums of animation and claymation and stopmotion and other forms such as video games. Meanwhile the integrity of the actual artist (painter) is preserved translated into drawings and with the utilization of technology (photography) we get cartoons.
Sculpture died as a mainstream artform many years ago, although it does still pop up from time to time. Architecture is the closest thing to it. Although architecture in it's self is the most interesting because it combines (or at least used to combine) art and science (which are complete opposites) to produce its works of greatness. We see that greatness in Greek and Roman architecture and it's odd evolution into city buildings such as skyscrapers and government buildings.
But back to cinema, in my opinion it is the most complete artform (although sadly exploited). I believe this because it incorporates almost every medium of art into one gigantic presentation of artistry. It incorporates aspects of theater plays and the writing/scripting involved, photography, painting (sort of, in the form of storyboards and conceptual art), music (scores and musicals), sculpture (in some cases).
I just feel through the collaboration of so many artists, they present one great art piece comprised of several arts. (I'm speak about all this thinking of pre-1980s of course, back when movies were art). Many people find it hard to consider cinema as art because of the ruthless exploit through which it has gone. Why is it so exploited? Because it is so compelling. Why is it so compelling? Because it contains all the artforms that has ever interested mankind.
But yeah, anyways my point is.... 