Slight digression - Interesting article

MovieStuff · December 26th, 2001, 01:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:
it's hard to accept that there are people who create for the love of what they do. i think it's harder to accept the fact that there are people who create solely for money and not for better reasons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can except both of those concepts as I create things on my own for the love of what I do. But that's not the context of discusssion here. The issue is whether or not someone that creates art (be it music, film or illustrative) is a commercial artist in the literal sense if they support themselves or create in exchange for money.

My position is simply that some artists may get to create what they want, how they want, for only a very short time period and, even then, only if they're lucky simply because what THEY want and what the PUBLIC wants just happens to be the same thing. Then when the public wants something totally different, that artist has a choice to make: Continue to give the public want they want, even if it doesn't satisfy the artist's inner creative needs, or defy the public's demands for something different and risk losing business. I see the former happening and not the latter. If the latter were the SOP then we wouldn't have these artists around to use as examples in discussions like this because they would fade into obscurity due to lack of favor by the buying public. In short, one can not point to an artist that is a commercial success and then make the claim that they are not a commercial artist. It just doesn't make any sense as it totally ignores their continued presence in the public's eye due to the very commercial success in question. If they create in exchange for commercial success, then they are a commercial artist, regardless of whether their own inner creative needs are met or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

how could you deny that lennon grew as a artist. not too many folks can create their best work at the age of 21. whay would this be not true for lennon.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, again, this is a totally different argument. In my work, I have had to do industrials for companies about a wide range of topics. I don't particularly find forklifts facinating nor is it something that I would seek out in my spare time and investigate. However, I've been forced to learn about them as part of my work to satisfy the client's needs. In that sense, I have grown in my knowledge about forklifts and am better prepared to do similar work for other clients. Lennon's work has always been good but, ironically for your argument, "good" is a subjective opinion reserved SOLEY for the buying public. If the buying public did NOT think Lennon was "good" then you would not be using him as an example of an artist that grew as the years went by. So, the real issue here is whether or not he "grew" as an artist, doing the things HE wanted to do. I suggest that, like me any my forced expansion of forklift knowledge, he merely "grew" into someone that could adapt and continue to give the buying public what they wanted, therefore maintaining favor with his constituency. He, indeed, "grew" but not possibly in the direction that he personally wanted as indicated by the type of song you pointed out earlier that you admit the buying public probably would not like. Again, had he written those types of songs from the beginning or forced those songs on the buying public earlier in his career, then chances are pretty good that he would not be being used now as an example of a successful artist.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

as far as your comments on chaplin, he did go on to produce sound films, embracing the new methods.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite true. He never really embraced them and, as a result, he wasn't very good in manipulating them. But, then again, he wasn't a very good film maker to begin with, in my opinion. In short, he was unable to adapt to the change in the buying public's demands.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

chaplin was an original thinker and you can say what you want, but without his eary leadership and standards, the art of film could could have had it's growth stunted by 20 years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohhhh... There is no emperical evidence to back up that claim. We have no idea of what his impact on film would have been if he had not been around. There were plenty of other truly talented people from that time period that had a much bigger impact on cinema. Chaplin succeeded in the face of ignorance about the very medium he worked in and nearly bankrupted every film company he ever directed a film for. I would hardly call that a positive influence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

your big point seems to be about the fact that success is only a commerical output. true, long lasting success is created with original thinking. ever wounder why so many bad films are made today? ever think about why we don't make the classics anymore. we don't see the old bad films, we see the good old films. from people who could think for themselves. and the good ones did this right
from the start to make their standards.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but the term "good old film" is, again, a subjective compliment reserved SOLEY for the buying public! What constitutes a "good old film"? One that was commercially successful! Do you really think that the directors of these films made them any old way they wanted back then? Do you think things are any different today? The studios call the shots on all commercial films being made. The director takes his or her marching orders from the studios. Again, a first time director MIGHT get to do things his own way, ala Orson Wells, but later will have to succumb to the will of the studio or fade into obscurity. Wells is a perfect example of this. "Citizen Kane" is no doubt considered a masterpiece today. However, it was a box office disaster and ruined Wells future career as a director due to the content of the picture. So there is a prime example of the "success" or "failure" mechanisms at work. The director was indulged but failed to give the buying public what they wanted. The studio had to rein the director in and he lost the freedom of choice that is vital to an artist's inner creative needs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

the arguement here is not over commerical vs non-commerical art. it's over who follows and who leads the way. you have to admit, most commerical films are formula. because they ar afraid to try something new or they don't have the talent to do so.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are describing every film that Chaplin ever made as well as the man, himself. My point exactly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

aside from all this, my original posting here was about aesthetics and how abstract paiting applys to filmmaking. i think we just disagree on the term commerical.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I never knew that the term "commercial" could have more than one meaning! How can "commercial" meaning anything other than service for money?

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited December 26, 2001).]

Matt Pacini · December 26th, 2001, 08:59 PM

OK, I'm going to be bold here and make some statements that everyone will probably disagree with, because we've been conditioned to think like every good Marxist... Oh, oh sorry, I mean liberal...;
that the quest for money is evil, and greedy, and that everything we do, should be for the greater good of society, etc., etc.,
All the while, we set our alarms and go off to work for one reason: MAKE MORE MONEY!
(The hypocrisy in all this is just mind-numbing. At least I'm honest about it all).

First of all, I think it's almost universally agreed that John Lennon's late music was mostly total crap. (Yoko probably even agrees... you can ask her yourself as she goes to the bank to check her 100 million dollar bank account balance.)
There are a couple songs out of many albums he made after the Beatles that are notable (imagine, for instance) but the rest of it... come on, don't tell me there's "great art" there.
It's great art, in the same way a steaming heap of brown mass my cats leave in my yard is great art. The only reason it was even allowed to be recorded, is because no record company in the world would turn down Lennon, because of his previous commercial success.

And as far as Van Gogh's art, my wife's paintings are far better, and I'm not kidding. But I'm not as good at marketing hype as his brother, so you've never heard of her work. (His brother was already an art dealer.)

Chaplin is way over rated, I agree, just the same way that Michael Jackson is over rated.
("Genius? The guy doesn't even know how to play a freakin musical instrument. He hums a tune into a tape recorder, gives it to Quincy Jones, who turns it into a song. Who really wrote that song? Not MJ!)
The word "Genius" is thrown around quite loosely as just another marketing ploy to sell the product. Just like sports players are now called "hero's and legends" Please! A hero is someone who saves someone's life, not some guy with a room temperature IQ who can throw a ball into a hoop really well. Big freakin deal...

Anyway, as far as the question: "would I rather make a good movie that doesn't sell, or a string of hits that suck"
I'll be bold enough to say it: I'd rather make a string of hits that suck!
You know why?

1. If it's a "string of hits" it probably does NOT suck, and it's a subjective opinion anyway.

2. One who makes a "string of hits", then gets to make whatever film he wants to, because the studios will back him/her after he/she has created tons of money for them.
If you make a great film that doesn't sell, that's the LAST time you will ever be able to convince someone to give you money for a film, because they will figure that they won't make their money back on your next "brilliant but financial dud" movie.

So, you make your big moneymakers, THEN you get to make your masterpiece, and with better tools at your service.

Spielberg would never have been allowed to make Schindlers List if he had not been the successful director he was, creating billions of dollars from comercial, strictly entertainment "strings of hits".

I don't care how freakin' brilliant you are, if you don't smell of money, nobody is going to invest tens of millions of dollars to make your movie.

And the other reason I'd rather make a "string of hits that suck" is that I absolutely LOVE the process of filmmaking!
I am NOT doing this for some greater good, arrogangly thinking I'm THE GREAT ONE who is going to change our society and make The world a better place with my movie.
It's just a movie.
All this talk in books and magazines about "important films" is jsut another form of marketing, to make people who are good liberals think that if they spend the money to watch THIS film, they are helping change the world.
It's all B.S. Just a way to reach a certain segment of the market, that's all. Movies don't do squat to change the world, other than provide lots of jobs, which the most life-changing thing about this entire industry. People work, get money, get to eat and have a roof over their heads, etc.

I'm quite content making someone laugh, cry or just have a good time for 90 minutes, and I leave the pompous, self-important politicians and rich-kid-film-school-brats to think they're going to change the world.

I'm just in it for the excitement, the sheer love of the process, and if I have to make a film about squids who take over New York, then fine. At least I'll have a blast doing it, and afterwords, I'll know more about making a film than you guys sitting around waiting for someone to drop a bag of cash into your lap to make your wonderful art film.

And if I can do that and make someone tons of money in the process, then they will let me do it again.... and again... and again...

Matt Pacini

------------------

[This message has been edited by Matt Pacini (edited December 26, 2001).]

rollemfilm · December 26th, 2001, 09:21 PM

you're right, commerical means in service of money. think about that statement. that does "not" imply that everything that is produced is being done for money, weather it is sold to the public or not. i, as an artist am not in service to money. i write my songs, perform and teach not because i get paid. but i do get paid, and, i like getting paid. but, i could make a lot more money doing something else, but since i am not in service for money, but infact in service to and for my art, i will not accept that. if i was in service for money, i would quite performing. i don't think you have watched very many chaplin films, and i doubt that you have read his biography. i suggest you read: "chaplin, his life and art" by david robinson published by da capo press. by the way, you are a great debater! this has been fun....

------------------

Matt Pacini · December 26th, 2001, 10:04 PM

Thanks for the ocmpliment!
This is fun, and I should mention that I in no way am saying any o fthis stuff out of anger or anything.
I respect everyone on this board, and this is all an excercise, and no ill will is meant.

Anyway, back to the topic!

Not to cast any accusations on your last statement, but it's very easy to do something, and get paid for it, but say we're not doing it for the money.

Just like Nicholas Cage changed his name from Coppola, supposedly because he wanted to "make it on his own" without benefitting from the recognition of his famous uncle.
Of course, in evey interview he did early in his career, he would bring this up.
Effectively benefitting his career from the notoriety of his famous uncle, AND appearing not to do so at the very same time.
I see this kind of hypocrisy all the time, and I just laugh, because it really works, and somehow the public at large, seems not to notice
Once when I was living in L.A., an acquantence of mine told me about an Aids Benefit concert that he was invovled in putting on. (I was only in the music, not film business at this time).
So he was asking me if I wanted to play in it. His entire sales pitch to get me involved, was about how great PR it would be, and how Sting and others do this all the time, and it's a great way to get in the media without paying for it, etc., etc.,
I just laughed, because I realized how effective that is. "oh, we're not doing it for the publicity, we really are trying to help these people", etc.
It does help, and I have no problem with that, but I'm so cynical about it, because people who are as shrewd about money as Sting, Elton John, etc., do not ignore the PR aspects of things like this. Everything they do, is to benefit their careers, and it's pretty obvious. Even Keith Richards said in an interview after Princess Diana died, and Elton wrote (and imediately put up for sale) the "candle in the wind" version, "Yeah, you know, it's always about the money with Reggie".
(Reginald Dwight is Elton's real name).
But the world thinks he's such a noble guy, doing wonderful things for charity.
Meanwhile, he hasn't written a decent song for twnety years, yet he's still a mega-celebrity, mostly because of this kind of thing. Great way to keep your career going, eh?

I think part of the reason we're so uncomfortable admitting this, is our present culture: we are conditioned to feel guilty for it, and I just don't think it's being totally honest to say we're not doing it at least partly for the money, otherwise, we'd not do it for money, because there are always restrictions put on us when we start getting paid for something, by those handing out the check.
Like the fact you have to go somewhere else, under someone elses guildlines, etc., maybe even have to wear particular clothing, teach things we don't really agree with, etc.,
that is NOT part of the artistic proecss, and maybe even interferes with it to a certain extent.

I can say that I've certainly done most of my art NOt for money also, but I'm going to be honest, and say that I was doing it in hopes that I would get good enough, or make the connections, etc., so that at some point in the future, I would get paid!

In fact, I've spent far more money than I've made, to make my art.
And I never intentionally make crap, and only think "is this going to sell" because in spite of my earlier statements, I don't think that a person will make anything commerially viable without trying to create something that is quality art.
However, I am painfully aware that one must adhere to certain commercial realities in their art, if they hope to sell it.
Make a film without sticking to the basic formulas, and see if anyone buys it.
Not likely.
But we all have to be honest;
We want to make a heap of money off our art.
And that fact may be driving our artistic decisions, EVEN IF WE DON'T REALIZE IT, and are claiming to not be doing it for the money.
For instance, I'm sure Spielberg (whom I greatly admire), when he reads a script, doesn't say "this is gonna sell, big time".
He's saying "this is a great story, I love it".
But you know damn good and well, that he wouldn't be having the conversation, if he didn't think it was going to make big box office.
You can call this the "whore mentality" all you want, but if he didn't think this way, his career would have followed the path that of Ed Wood.

Matt Pacini

------------------

[This message has been edited by Matt Pacini (edited December 27, 2001).]

MovieStuff · December 26th, 2001, 10:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:
you're right, commerical means in service of money. think about that statement. that does "not" imply that everything that is produced is being done for money, weather it is sold to the public or not.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but I never claimed that it was. My position is that there is an order to things. As Matt pointed out above: First someone creates a product that the buying public likes and, most importantly, BUYS. Then, the artist either continues making the same kind of art to satisfy the public or the artist makes something that the public doesn't want. There really is no in between.

So that next step is the most crucial as far as the artist's career is concerned. If the artist defies the public interests, then the artist is likely to not be heard from any more. On the other hand, if the artist continues to give the public what they want, then the artist continues to make money until he or she has made so much money that they can, at THAT point, pretty much do what ever the hell they want; but not BEFORE that success has happened.

Again, the order is important here. The artist can't just do what ever the hell they want from the beginning UNLESS the outcome just happens to be what the buying public wanted at that point in time; so serendipity is as much a factor here as talent and possibly more so.

Then, of course, the cycle starts over: Does the artist CONTINUE giving the public what they want even if it no longer is what the artist wants? That is be big question. Like Matt, I maintain that only a commercially successful artist can afford to live a life of creative indulgence doing what ever they really want over and over. If they try and do that from the beginning, there is no "over and over". It's just "over". wink

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

i, as an artist am not in service to money. i write my songs, perform and teach not because i get paid. but i do get paid, and, i like getting paid. but, i could make a lot more money doing something else, but since i am not in service for money, but infact in service to and for my art, i will not accept that. if i was in service for money, i would quite performing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand that but, with no insult intended, the outcome of your decision means that no one will using you as an example in a discussion like this in years to come! That's okay but doesn't support the position you've taken that a commercially successful artist is not a commercial artist. All you've done is point out that you choose NOT to be commercially successful so as to not taint your art. Could it be that you secretly feel a commercially successful artist is, in fact, a commercial artist and, therefore, refuse to become one, yourself? smile

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

i don't think you have watched very many chaplin films, and i doubt that you have read his biography. i suggest you read: "chaplin, his life and art" by david robinson published by da capo press.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I've even seen unreleased Chaplin films that were preserved on paper strips. I do a lot of restoration work and I get access to all sorts of neat restoration footage that the general public doesn't get to see for a while. I've also got quite a few books and tapes on Chaplin. I think I even have the one you mention, I'll have to check. I stand by my opinion about Chaplin. I didn't pull that information out of thin air. He really was quite arrogant and sloppy in his methods. Again, the end result might sometimes be entertaining but I would hardly call him "gifted" by any means. I still think he was a hack director that couldn't coax a fart out of a can of beans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

by the way, you are a great debater! this has been fun....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've enjoyed your replies, as well. Thanks for the compliment. I long ago dabbled in the idea of becoming a lawyer but gave it up for a career in film. Duh.

Smart, I'm not.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

rollemfilm · December 27th, 2001, 12:00 AM

too many lawyers, not enough filmmakers. good show...

------------------

crimsonson · December 31st, 2001, 06:20 PM

Wow!
It is incredible to see that many of you do not believe that art for arts sake cannot sustain an artists. You cannot argue that avant-garde careers exist if examples you point out to are not avant-garde artists. Using commericial artist to prove your arguments is a little one sided. Second, why define success as strictly in commercial terms? No artist or critic strictly define high art as some abstract creation that a handful understands. So why do the opposite? Third, money cannot not be the only reason to drive an artist, or a career because it contradicts human nature. Love, sex, social, political and religion are as compelling motive to be an artists (not just create art but TO BE AN ARTIST- the difference is huge). In fact the most successful art in Western history is the Bible. Many great Muslim and Buddhist art where created with the after life in mind and the artist where considered successful. Also, many artists who achieve financial success utter they have still regrets and mentions that they are not completely artisticly satisfied. Interstingly, Spielberg is one of the examples. He followed your theory to the bone, high art- commercial art then back to high art. But the final phase, back to high art, is still incomplete and hampered by his own financial success. Schindlers List is his only real high art achievements. Even Saving Private Ryan is falling off with many critics and fans as one of the greatest war movies (imagine the movie WITHOUT the 30 minute gore fest?). Even with all the money and studio backing in the world he cannot accomplish what Kubrick did (even you if you do not like Kubrick). His attempt to create both an artistic and commercial piece - AI & Amistad- where mediocre at best. If commercial art can set an artist free it can also imprison them.
The point you guys did not mention an avant-garde artist proves the point that artistic careers can exist without commerce and the artists' in their opinions - to be successful. Trying to contradict by citing their 'true motives' is heresy, thus not practical, nor emprical and legitimate. If I am not mistaken you are judging their success with your values and expectations and not theirs. You are projecting.

Do not be mistaken that I am against commercial art. I enjoy it as much as the next person. But to say that it is the only choice for success is silly.

BTW- That liberal idea of high art - is also the same liberals that makes art grant, philantrophy and artistic expression to gain the importance it does as political opinion in the modern world. In the past, arstistic expression was not considered as valuable to society, including in America.

------------------

[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited December 31, 2001).]

MovieStuff · December 31st, 2001, 07:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:
Wow!
It is incredible to see that many of you do not believe that art for arts sake cannot sustain an artists. You cannot argue that avant-garde careers exist if examples you point out to are not avant-garde artists.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, your argument is a good argument. The only problem is that no one is arguing that argument!

Personally, all I'm saying is that anyone that makes their living from creating ANYTHING is commercial. It doesn't matter if they create shoes, saddles, soap, thumbtacks or art. If they make their living from the work they create then they are commercial and work within the parameters defined by their constituency otherwise they have no constituency and are no longer commercial as they cease making money off their work.

In that sense, a ditch digger isn't commercial if he's out of work. But when is commercial, he's going to dig that ditch how ever the paying client wants it. To do otherwise means becoming "uncommercial" again. wink

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

Do not be mistaken that I am against commercial art. I enjoy it as much as the next person. But to say that it is the only choice for success is silly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But, again, that's a totally different argument than the one transpiring here.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

Thread: Slight digression - Interesting article

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions