Thoughts: three reasons why Top Gun: Maverick relates to the digital/NFT art world
Be aware: spoiler alerts for the movie Top Gun: Maverick
When watching the new Top Gun movie, it struck me: with every possible change in life it’s so hard for the inventors/creators to fight the status quo and convince the established order of a new way of doing/viewing things. When Pete Mitchell (Tom Cruise) is called back to train top fighter pilots for a very special mission - in just a short amount of time, he realizes that a different teaching approach is necessary. However, his admiral doesn’t want him in the position as trainer and therefore keeps the strings very tight on Maverick (sign name of Pete Mitchell). The admiral is clearly all about following the rules and doing everything the way it’s been done for years. Maverick tries his very best to prepare the pilots for what’s coming for them, but his method is not appreciated. However, the method he used is exactly what was needed to actually accomplish what seemed otherwise a job that couldn’t be done. Boundaries needed to be crossed, since that was the only chance of succession ánd survival of the pilots. Because, interestingly enough, it was noticeable that the admiral mostly had the success of the mission in mind, while Maverick stated: “It’s also about getting everybody back safely.”
After getting several reprimands and warnings because of bending multiple rules, Maverick was discharged as the trainer. He was then almost ready to throw in the towel of his fighter pilot career for good, when he is convinced by Penny (the woman he’s seeing) that he just has to show everybody how it can be done. He therefore has to break the rules again (ergo: steal a plane and fly it in such a manner that it may never be airworthy again) to make his point. Only then he is given full trust to lead the mission in the way he sees fit.
Why is this always the case, in pretty much everything in life? It’s exactly what we’re seeing now with the rise of Web3. It’s definitely going to be the future, but so many people (that are not in it) want nothing to do with it and try to ‘keep it out’ of their field for as long as possible. To zoom in: the traditional art world versus the digital/NFT art in the metaverse.
The traditional art world is the status quo and digital/NFT art in Web3 is the world that’s on the horizon. You could say that everybody working within the arts would probably have a somewhat similar mission, something like: share art for it to be experienced by the public. Of course there are always exceptions, but overall I think museums, art spaces and galleries want to ‘bring about something’ within people while undergoing art (art thereby doesn’t per se have to be beautiful but can also shock or move you in other ways).
Hence you could say: art is there to entertain. However, this word is a big taboo in the traditional art world. So called ‘high brows’ (the elite, who think highly of themselves and the artworks they have/promote) would say that entertainment is for ‘the people’ and that appreciating ‘actual’ art is for the upper class of society. They probably wouldn’t say it like that or really admit the difference like this, but in my opinion this is what’s been happening for decades. It is such a shame though, because I think that providing entertainment is something very valuable. It’s literally what people enjoy and what they’ll remember. How beautiful is it to give somebody a memorable experience? It really upsets me that this is not the main goal for everybody doing something with art. And again, art doesn’t have to be ‘nice’ entertainment per se, but should in some way provide you with an (unforgettable) experience.
Overall there are three different points I want to make by elaborating on the things I saw in Top Gun: Maverick that relates to the digital/NFT art world.
1.
Top Gun: Maverick definitely provides entertainment. It has everything in it: from making your hands sweaty out of vicarious fear to being impressed by accomplishments, and from laughing at funny social situations to tears in your eyes because of emotional memories. In my opinion it is a really good movie, because I was really entertained for the full 131 minutes.
Now, you can argue that a movie is a form of art. Film art has been very common in exhibitions for more than half a century and art house films are also approved by most art critics. But this movie would mostly not be classified as art. In a way I think it is art though. Yes, of course it is a blockbuster that has all the cliches in it, but the shots are really good and the whole story moves you. In a way you get ‘sucked’ into it and this experience that’s created while looking at moving images, could be seen as being ‘touched by art’. I can understand that you would view it differently and as an art historian I could even question it myself at some point, but I just wanted to put it out there to think about. Because, making a movie is very much a creative process: there are many thoughts on and sketches of the different frames and the use of lighting and music etc. And who is appointed to decide what is classified as art anyway? Shouldn’t we take that into our own hands, maybe?
Thereby I still think there are big differences between artists and the art that they make in general, but in my opinion that doesn't necessarily have to do with the medium they use. I think it’s more about creativity and getting something out there that will be remembered by the people that have experienced it. So, I’m just gonna make the bold statement here that art should have the goal to entertain (in any way of moving a person). Top Gun: Maverick is highly entertaining and could therefore serve as an example for artists of how to captivate your audience without feeling like you maybe have to make something ‘vague’ in order to make it ‘high art’. Digital/NFT art in the metaverse shows you exactly that, by making for example the most funny or beautiful images or short loops that make you laugh or that you simply think are cool. How nice is that?
2.
Besides the idea that the medium isn’t of much importance maybe, I think it also doesn't matter how art is distributed, which brings me to my second point. Going to the movies is something a lot of people do, unlike visiting a museum. Cinemas therefore make a type of creative product (the movie as an art form as I just stated) widely accessible to a broad public.
In Amsterdam there are these so-called ‘Instagram museums’ in which you can take very mesmerizing photos of yourself and the people you are there with. You can argue that that has nothing to do with art, since there is no deeper meaning behind the specific spaces for example, but of course the rooms needed to be designed and are decorated with eye for detail. You might call that an artistic practice.
I don’t want to advocate for those museums per se, but for some people it might be a nice introduction to what a museum and a form of creativity/art can be. It makes the concept of ‘museum’ more approachable, in case you didn’t grow up with going to museums and think that those places are not meant for you. Because, the traditional art world can make you feel like you don’t belong in their buildings and sometimes it can definitely be a strange/inferior feeling of having to be totally silent and at the same time being totally confused of what you’re actually looking at and how that’s supposed to make you feel. The art world is definitely still very inaccessible in that regard.
That brings me back to the intentions of my first pleading, because what is the actual goal here? Do you want to get people into museums, or not? Would you rather stay within your own bubble with the people you’ve been in there with for all this time? Would you not rather provide a memorable experience for your audience instead of holding on to what you’ve known so far only because you are somewhat scared since you don’t know how to do things differently (yet)?
Web3 makes art very accessible. You only need internet access to be able to enter the realm. Thereby you don’t have to own the artwork in order to be able to enjoy it and you don’t have to pay for undergoing an immersive experience with sounds and moving images, just right there in front of you on your screen. That’s the beauty of the new technology.
And if you do want to own an artwork, Web3 makes that easier for everybody as well. Where Web1 started with ‘read only’, Web2 gave us ‘read and write’. Web3 however gives us ‘read write ánd own’. Ownership can be easily obtained without having to go to a place where you feel you might be frowned upon and where the atmosphere might feel stiff and you don’t feel welcome in the hoodie that you normally feel so comfortable in. Art is now just as accessible as a blockbuster like Top Gun: Maverick or even so easier reachable since you don’t have to go out of your house to be immersed.
3.
That viewing art can be a nice experience and that you can also achieve this easily with digital art in Web3, doesn’t immediately mean that the majority is favoring this option. Digital art was, and sometimes still is, not really viewed as art. But it certainly is, even though museums and galleries only slowly seem to endorse it. The traditional art world mostly still holds on to old techniques, like oil paint on canvas and sculptures out of stone. Interestingly enough though, art has always used the newest technologies of the specific moment in time. Back in the day the invention of oil paint was new, but over the course of hundreds of years a lot of new technologies have come by and still it seems that a painting by Rembrandt is thé highest form of art.
But isn’t it the role of artists to use the technology of today? Maybe in a combination with old techniques but at least show non-artists the possibilities of creating something interesting with the technologies at hand? How awesome is it that you as a creator can use every new thing to make a fascinating piece of art? By for example combining visuals in the form of a hand drawn avatar projected on a screen with electronic music. Different technologies have been coming up around us very quickly and because of that there’s so much to work with nowadays. In my opinion that should be used to the fullest potential.
It is the status quo though that often wants to keep things ‘in order’ out of their own best interests because otherwise they might not be a major player anymore. Traditional artists like painters that only know how to work like they’ve always been doing and galleries that are only used to sell (and museums that are only used to show) 2D offline art works, for example. Because the new, technological artworks are unfamiliar for them and they don’t know how to work with that, they try to keep it out of the art field. It is such a shame, because it can give us the most wonderful and interesting new works of art. And that is what everyone should want to achieve and facilitate. Just like Top Gun: Maverick shows us, the status quo is to be fought in order to bring about something new and magical that was thought to be impossible (since it’s unorthodox).
And that’s also what Web3 is doing: going against what’s been done before and showing the new possibilities. If you are fighting the status quo, you’ll always get a lot of criticism and it’s definitely not going to be easy. But it is the way to bring about change. Again, it’s what artists have always been doing whilst often not getting the praise for that during their lifetime. Look at Vincent van Gogh for example. And imagine that Leonardo Da Vinci lived today. I can almost hear him saying to artists: “You have all this cool stuff that you can use and almost nobody is doing something with it?!”. He was a real inventor that even tried to make new forms of technology himself, like a flying machine. Was that classified as art? Probably not. And did people think he was a little bit mad? Most likely. However, later on it would show that he was far ahead of his time and actually a real genius. In the end it’s all connected: the sketches he made for his inventions and his drawings of the human scale are so striking. With his popularity around the globe nowadays, he would be able to convince everybody of the importance of the Web3 world easily.
This is what you see in general at this moment: artists that are already well known in the traditional art world are looked at when it comes to digital/NFT art. Because for some reason they should have all the knowledge then…? Since they already made a name for themselves. But they got that recognition for making something else, somewhere else. Isn’t it then strange to ask them for guidance within the possibilities of a new technology?
By either ignoring it or not looking into the ‘right’ direction, the people in the traditional art world are not welcoming digital/NFT art warmheartedly. What Top Gun: Maverick shows us is to never give up though. This is a big cliche of course, but aren’t cliches there because they work and because they are true? You have to believe in yourself and in the future you’re building. Whilst shaping Web3, everybody is constantly reminded of this. Because while you might be head deep into the metaverse, a lot of other people around you aren’t. #WAGMI is a popular hashtag for a reason of course.
To summarize, the three things by which Top Gun: Maverick in my opinion relates to the digital/NFT art world:
1. to experience
2. to expose
3. to experiment
Digital/NFT art has the ability to let the majority of the world’s population experience what art can be by exposing it to everybody who has internet access. It is thereby fighting the status quo in order to open up a world in which experimenting is highly encouraged to create new, captivating works of art (to be experienced by many).
The movie Top Gun: Maverick gives the broad public a thrilling experience in an art form that is easily accessible (so: big exposé). The story is about a person that never gives up and experiments with new methods (against orders and wishes from others) to achieve the end goal.
Just like with any new movement in art, NFT/digital art will also be accepted (and hopefully be really welcomed) in the end. Just like Vincent van Gogh got the recognition he deserved after he died, and just as any innovation or change is first dismissed before it eventually becomes the new norm. This is what will happen with digital/NFT art as well. It is just a matter of when. And so I’m asking, dear people in the traditional art world, why fight it if you can be a part of it? Why not encourage a new revolution and see all the possibilities it encompasses instead? How special is it that artists can use the blockchain to make new works and that they can more easily than ever create unique pieces together, from all around the world? This makes the most incredible collaborations possible and should be applauded.