Slight digression - Interesting article

[rollemfilm]

what does the american cinematographer say? i'm very interested...

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

[MovieStuff]

One reason that I think bringing the work of the old masters into a discussion like this is inappropriate is no one seems to take into account the differences in the times and conditions of the past and the present. An artist (or even a non-artist) now can consciously take their time and decide what type of painting they wish to create, what type of paints to buy, where to buy them, etc. They can do this all the while knowing that they won't starve to death or die from exposure because they had no place to live. If they can't find a muse, then they can bag groceries until they are hit with a fit of inspiration and go back to painting; be it abstract or realistic.

Now, why is this revelant? Well, too many people make a distinction between realistic and abstract art in the same way they make a dinstinction between commercial and fine art and ALWAYS use the works of the old masters as the bench mark for the latter.

However, the truth is that the masters didn't just paint to satisfy some creative inner need like the movies seem to portray. They did it to please their patrons and they painted what ever their patrons damned well demanded and were allowed, on their own time (such as it was), to experiment with other forms. But, in the end, the old masters were every bit the "commercial artist" as any modern day commercial artist, possibly more so. Because if the masters didn't paint, they starved or lost their patron. No sacking groceries back then!

In that sense, very few successful artists are lucky enough to really paint what ever they want to paint or to interpret life as they really see fit. If they make a living at what they do, there is ALWAYS a watchful eye on the bank account and that will subconsciously steer their work to repetition of successful style.

People like Piccasso that later experimented with different expressions could only afford to do so because of their earlier success with more traditional art forms. I have yet to see anyone that I would consider a real artist that started absract from day one and was successful enough to support themselves full time. Those that have done so I think are more the result of good PR than real talent. I cetainly know of no artist that started abstract and then later moved into realism.

My daddy once said,"If it don't sell, it ain't art." I don't necessarily agree with that totally, but it does sort of whittle down the conceptual differences a bit.
So, in the end, I see no difference between the "fine artist" and the "commercial artist" if they both make a living at what they do.

Ultimately, we talk about art because we can afford to sit here at our computers and wax philosophically about it. Artists several hundred years ago would be spending this time wondering where tomorrow's meal would be coming from and not about the conceptual differences between impressionistic and realistic painting styles.

I think we read much more into the masters' works than they ever could have imagined or intended. What we see as textbook examples of form, content and inspiration they saw as that week's loaf of bread.

My two cents.....

Roger

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

[Matt Pacini]

Agree with you totally, Roger.
I have my own opinions about how this perception has been formed in recent times; that "true artists" don't create for monitary gain, only to further the arts, etc., and those who create for commercial reasons, are somehow "artistic whores".
I think this is all BS, and it probably started with the very popular socialist leanings starting in the early 20th century.

If you study any art history, you will clearly see what Roger is referring to.
My background is in music, so most of my study has been in that arena, so I can't comment in detail about painters, although what I have read, certainly gels with everything Roger jsut said:
These guys painted what their "bosses" commissioned them to paint, and usually NOTHING else! Michaelangelo is known for his work that was commissioned by Rome/The Catholic Church.
It's still brilliant art, but if the guy said "what I REALLY want to paint/sculpt is birds", we would never have heard of him.
One interesteing thing about him, was that he considered himself a sculpter, NOT a painter, and didn't particularly enjoy it.
In other words, HE DID IT FOR THE MONEY!!!! But it's still great stuff!

I've studied the music and lives of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and a little of Hayden and Handel, and those guys wrote almost all the music you've heard from them, from people commissioning works from them.
There simply was not a system of making money in the arts like there is now, with the artist creating what they want, THEN finding a market for it, and receiving royalties, etc.
Those guys sold their works flat out.
If you commissioned a Beethoven Sonata, you paid him, he wrote it, and IT WAS YOURS! You owned it now, not him, end of story.

So this whole "true art is never created for the money" is just so much BS it's ridiculous.
Only in the last 100 years, have artists attempted to look more dignified by claiming they aren't doing it for the money.
Back then, for better or for worse, artists were considered craftsmen, like a blacksmith, carpenter, etc., creating products that people (usually governments or aristocrats) would purchase for their enjoyment.
Sure, guys like Beethoven and Bach would ramble on about how they were creating music for God, but if they didn't get paid, there was total silence! J.S. Bach especially was always looking out for the better buck. In fact, in a letter to a freind, he complained that not enough people were dying lately, so he wasn't doing too well financially. (He used to do a lot of funeral gigs). And he was once actually jailed, because he wanted out of his post to go to another one that paid better, and he was really obnoxious about it to his boss, who had him locked up for about a week. These guys were always after the money, because they HAD to. Like Roger said, they had no other way to pay bills. There was no unemployment ensurance back then, and if you didn't bring in the money, you lived on the streets as a beggar.

Matt Pacini

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

[rollemfilm]

the "great" masters, most anyway, i'll agree had the rich patrons, but not all. a big part of why we have such diverse art forms is because of the revoloution and education that the 1900 century was able to provide. the post-impressionist such as van gogh were not so lucky. but unlike the patronized earlier artists, he had go it alone and it's this kind of nerve and revolutionary thinking that has open so many doors. can you imagine a world without van gogh or picasso or louis armstrong or charlie chaplin or john lennon? we all would still be working as surfs if we were alive at all. my opinon, creating "personal" art is what art is about. commerical art and personal art (if it's is truely personal) are two oposing animals. commerical art is a by product for another reason. be it selling cars, tomato soup or getting joe smiles elected. or, it's about creating something just to be in the business, as hollywood often does. but there is good commerical art just as there is bad personal art, but they are not the
same. and those filmmakers, painters, musicians who decide to stay the course and create unpopular good personal art is one reason we have the national endowment for the arts. and here in ohio, the ohio arts council. the independent has always had it rough when it comes to money, but that is often what makes their art stand out from the rest. how can an unknown filmmaker break through the big dollar hype and make good? i don't know, but it's done all the time. and when it is done, it's usauly worth it. it's when the money cames and the art goes out the window that's disturbing to me. too many cooks...

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

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rollemfilm:
[B]the "great" masters, most anyway, i'll agree had the rich patrons, but not all..... can you imagine a world without van gogh or picasso or louis armstrong or charlie chaplin or john lennon? we all would still be working as surfs if we were alive at all. my opinon, creating "personal" art is what art is about. commerical art and personal art (if it's is truely personal) are two oposing animals.


(Matt Pacini resonds):
I find it hilarious that all your examples but one, includes totally "commercial" artists, who became multi-millionaires from their art, and were hugely commercially successful.
And Van Gogh is a marginal exception to that, because he died early and broke, before his work became commercially successful.
However, his brother marketed the hell out of his work, and because a rich man from it.

So obviously, you are ignoring what is painfully obvious, so you can continue your delusional opinion about art and commerce somehow being mutually exclusive.

If it were not for the fact that all these guys you name above were marketed to the hilt, using every commerical technique there is (advertising, the entire star/myth-building machine of the record companies and the Hollywood movie machine that Chaplin had much to do with), THAT is what would have caused us to never hear of these guys.

Sure, they were all great, but it's the commercialization of their art that made us aware of their work. Each of these guys' work has generated hundreds of millions of dollars for what are entire industries set up around them to make money off them.

You need to rethink your stance, because it doesn't make any sense at all.
If art isn't commercialized, it is never seen by anyone but the artist.
It's a simple function of capitalizm: at the point someone (either the artist or someone else, like Van Gogh's brother) decideds they can make money on a work or art, or artist, then they start getting the word out to commercialize the art, for the mazimum earning and profit potential: advertising, creating a "myth" or persona about the artist, etc., to get people aware of their work, so that individual can make the most money out of it.
THAT is what makes us all aware of these artists work.

We know of Lennon, Chaplin, Van Gogh, Loius Amrstrong, etc., from their "products"; reproductions of their artworks manufactured and marketed for financial gain for themselves and the machines that created the reproductions.
Period.

Matt Pacini

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


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

[rollemfilm]

Matt: you are correct saying that these artist "commericalized" their art. yes, we all want that. but they did their best not to bend to the trend. they created what they wanted and held themselves to higher standards. you can create something to sell, or you can create something you care about. many in fimmaking create with the idea to sell. that's first on their mind. of course i want to make money. i want to sell my art. but will i tweek it and pander to an audience that may not care anyway. no. i'll create what i want the way i want because it's the right way for me and it is best for the audience to leave something of worth and not a "commerical product"....i would rather make on good movie that makes no money than a string of hits that suck. how about you?

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

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:
you are correct saying that these artist "commericalized" their art. yes, we all want that. but they did their best not to bend to the trend. they created what they wanted and held themselves to higher standards.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not to be argumentative, but you nor I really know what they thought or what their original intentions were. All we do know is what the final outcome was.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

you can create something to sell, or you can create something you care about.....

i would rather make on good movie that makes no money than a string of hits that suck. how about you?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's a no brainer but has little if anything to do with this discussion. No one is saying that the work of the masters or of modern artists and film makers isn't any good just because it makes money. On the other hand, those that create "art for art's sake" get little publicity and usually live a life of obscurity, despite their artistic prowess.

What's revelant to this discussion is what they do AFTER they are discovered and strike that vein of gold. Do they continue digging in areas that MAY have gold or do they return to the vein, knowing that is definately where the gold is?

Again, I see no evidence that modern commercial artists operate any differently than the masters. Each does/did what they do for some sort of financial gain and that is the engine that drives their creative initiative. What they PREFER to do is supplanted by what the market demands. If the masters didn't succumb to what the market wanted, then they would have faded into obscurity and wouldn't be available to be used in discussions like this as examples!
Ultimately, no one points to Bubba Phillips in eastern Spunkville that paints abstract art on the side of milk cans, regardless of how creative he might be. As Matt pointed out, all the examples presented like Lennon and Picasso were hugely sucessful commercial artists. More importantly, non of them shunned or refused the commercial success that was so unfairly thust upon them. "Art for art's sake" is only a temporary rationale for a lack of commercial success. Once they strike gold, that motto seems to go right out the window in favor of predictable results.

Roger

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

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited December 24, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:
roger: i would argue the contrary. for instance, john lennon later wrote songs like "don't worry, mommy's only looking for a hand in the snow" if you've never heard of this song, it dosen't suprise me. most folks haven't.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's the whole point. He could only afford to write that song AFTER he'd become a multi millionaire through commercial song writing. Put it this way, what is the liklihood that ANYONE would have heard of that song if he had not become successful through previous commercialism? What if he had produced those types of songs from the start? Obviously, he was capable of writing them but chose to write and capitalize on songs that had a wider, more popular appeal. THOSE are the songs that people point to when they call Lennon an "artist", not the song you mentioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

chaplin continued to make silent films years after sound was used on almost every other film and in great demand. he even spoofs the use of sound in "city lights", and he made "modern times" two of his greatest films ever.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I think Chaplin is highly over rated as a creative "genius". He was a hack film maker that couldn't handle a budget or a schedule and had to repeatedly have entire sets rebuilt because he was so disorganized.
I think the end results are sometimes entertaining, but to point to him as an example of someone bucking popular trend back then is merely being kind. He continued with the only methods he understood and closed his mind, eyes and ears to progresses in the industry because he was so arrogant.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this but to me calling Chaplin a great director when he routinely made hundreds of takes is like calling Ansel Adams a great photographer when he would produce hundreds of negatives of the same damned landscape, hoping that one of them would work. The end results may, indeed, look nice but the amount of time, money and effort expended was indicative of someone that had little clue about what they really were after and were simply hoping something would gel in the process. That isn't good art nor is it good business. It's just sloppy and indulgent.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rollemfilm:

this is my point: being a successful artist does not make you a commericial artist. a commerical artist is primarly driven by money and will do what is needed to sell. and being successful does not make you a good or respected artist. just rich.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you've got the cart before the horse. An artist may, very well, create art however he wants when he's poor. It's the path he takes after becoming successful that determines whether he's commercial or not. If he chooses to continue creating what ever he wants and risk poverty, then I would say that is one thing. (Lennon wasn't risking poverty when he wrote the song you mention.) But if he continues to create what the public demands then he is a commercial artist.

Now, I suppose one could argue that it is a coincidence that what the ARTIST wants and what the PUBLIC wants just happens to be the same thing but, historically, that only lasts for a little while. Then when the public demands change with the times, the artist goes his own separate way, creatively, or he bows to financial pressure and gives them what they want.

However, as such, Chaplin didn't buck the demands of the viewing audience. He was just unable to grasp the evolving stoytelling methods of the cinema much like Edison could not understand alternating current or its applications. Ignorance should not be mistaken for creative independence.

Lennon's music didn't "evolve" into something more sophisticated, just more commercial. Some that like Lennon's later music might defend it as more sophisticated because to do otherwise would mean they aren't for buying it. So, there's always the issue of P.R. Without good P.R. a Jasper Johns painting is indistinguishable from something my daughter produces in art class. Think one of her paintings would sell for a cool million? Not likely. Add Jasper John's signature to it and it becomes priceless, regardless of the real quality of the piece. Salvidor Dali could've taken a crap and have it bronzed and it would sell....now. But early in his career, before all the hype, he was lucky for dealers to let him use their toilet.

As I said, "Art for art's sake" is merely a rationale for lack of success. Once you start doing what the public wants, regardless of how good it might be, you are a commercial artist creating a commercial product. Lennon could only afford to dabble in the eccentric once he was financially secure and didn't have to worry about minor things like a roof over his head or food in his belly. The time he bought for himself by commercialism of his music means the end results of that time, no matter how abstract, are commercial as well. It is creative time bought and paid for by his constituency, whether they realize it or not. Without it, he would still be poor as a church mouse and hoping to write a commercial hit. Just ask Pete Best what it's like to be a Beatle with no money.

Roger


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

[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. 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. as far as your comments on chaplin, he did go on to produce sound films, embracing the new methods. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

[rollemfilm]

roger: i would argue the contrary. for instance, john lennon later wrote songs like "don't worry, mommy's only looking for a hand in the snow" if you've never heard of this song, it dosen't suprise me. most folks haven't. (and once they did they wish they had not heard it!)...my point is not about selling art, it's about "creating to sell". chaplin continued to make silent films years after sound was used on almost every other film and in great demand. he even spoofs the use of sound in "city lights", and he made "modern times" two of his greatest films ever. look what happened to disney. they followed public demand, became very wealthy, and now they make very stange and offensive movies. how can the public know better than the people that make the art? they can't. this is my point: being a successful artist does not make you a commericial artist. a commerical artist is primarly driven by money and will do what is needed to sell. and being successful does not make you a good or respected artist. just rich.

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