FILM IS NOT ART PART DEUX

[Chance1234]

The other thread was getting a bit long, but to continues where i started

<font size="24">FILM IS NOT ART</font>

The problem why film is not an art is down to what the viewer sees, the viewer has no choice. the decision have already been made by the director.

A lot of what people have said, in the last post arguing against, is just moving more to prove the point , if you re read.

Mikers mentioned the word design, and thats a word i'm going to use in this post as well ;-)

In regards to the flippin through pages malarkey,

JB mentioned

"If you can't work out what your audience needs to see in order to make your film... "

Exactly in film you use a series of well tried and tested devices and techniques to get your film across to the audience, innovation is rare and far between. You are recycling tried and tested things done many times before. choosing the right combinations of the thousands there are is arguably a art , but the end product isnt art. It's just a step up from painting by numbers.

Where Eddie says act like a filter, in the case of my fast flippin dante, yeap exactly that i could do the reverse and flip the book painfully slow and loose my audience. i could use RSVP and apeal it to the speed readers out there, i could blow it up 100 foot high letters and lots of people could read it at the same time. or i could really piss off the partially sigthed and print it on a dark background in dark red text. End of the day, i'm presenting it how i want. The end viewer has no choice but to go with what i have decided.

Going to the painting example and Emjens commment

"But comparing paintings with films is horseshit though. Film is a moving medium, and unlike telling things through small objects somewhere in a corner, it tells things through story and character. It can't put minor details in the frame because that's not what film is about. That doesn't mean it isn't art though"

I wasn't comparing paintings to films, i was comparing art to films. If film is art why hasnt anyone bought up the similiarities ?

[Yammeryammeryammer]

I think you are confused as to what your definition of "see" is, compared to other people. When you say that directors are responsible for what the audience sees, and that they have no choice, you are obviously referring to the physical film projection. Yes, directors are responsible for that just as painters for their paintings. But what the audience interprets is still out of the director's hands. You could watch one film and see it is a great analysis or society or something, and I could see it as a giant waste of time. We both "see" the same thing, but we interpret it differently. Film watching is subjective. That is what makes it an art.

[Kev Owens]

With my first argument within this argument within Nigel's now most infamous debated thread; 'this is not to start a debate' thread I must say that I don't care what anyone thinks.

The question over 'what art is' ain't gonna be solved in this forum or any other god-damn forum. It isn't gonna be solved: It's opinion! As art will always be!

The most prized works of art nowadays were either ignored pieces of shit or laughed at in their day and so it will continue. I won't say film is an art because as hisory has proved it takes a long time and your own death to prove that your work is art....

...so who the fuck cares???

JUST GET ON WITH IT!!!

[peter_g]

Amen

[vt220]

Originally posted by Chance1234:
The problem why film is not an art is down to what the viewer sees, the viewer has no choice. the decision have already been made by the director.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">film is entertainment, film is art, film teaches people how to install their new toilet. intended use has a lot to do with what a movie is.

"film" is just an acquisition medium. all that other crap is just pretense and flawed logic.

[Nigel]

Once again....

Similar to this analogy--Construction is a craft:Architecture is an art.

Moviemaking is both.

Good Luck
PS--I have always liked "Movie" over "Film" since Fuji and Kodak make film. I just burn images onto it.

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 12, 2004 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Nigel ]</font></font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 12, 2004 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Nigel ]</font>

[eidde]

I have to agree with most of what people have said - is it important to you (Chance) to know whether it is 'art' or not that you are making?
Does it really matter?
I have a big problem accepting your arguament:
'the viewer has no choice. the decision have already been made by the director'
- why should this stop it being 'art'.
Every thing people do has techniques and skills which either need to be learnt or improved on - you can use these as you like for what you like.
The more you use a skill/technique the better you get at using it.
Ive seen films that could be described as 'science', if you like, but they arent.
I dont think the world is black and white divided by 'science' and 'art' - it blurs.
Perhaps its for other people to decide whether what you do is art or not. If you dont consider yourself an artist - then fine. Why does it matter?

[twister!]

I agree with most comment so far - apart from Chance's of course.

You're really gettting hung up on this 'choice' thing - 'the viewer has no choice in what he sees'. As others have already said quite a few times - WHAT THE F*CK HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING!? It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Besides (good) films DO make the viewer think and interpret - they also have an emotional impact on the viewer.

To take your ridiculous argument to an extreme level. What about works by Dali, Bunuel, Warhol, Duchamp, Jarman to name just a few - I assume that you would agree that these people are 'artists'. Why would you say the work of these artists in some mediums (painting, photography, sculpture etc) is art and their work in the medium of film not art.

I think it is fair to say (although some will disagree) that SOME films - the most mainstream, commercial, formulaic, popcorn friendly, no-brain, video game style 'entertainment' are not art. In the same way it can be said that paintings by, say, Rolf Harris are not art (although some will disagree). But to say ALL films are not art is as crazy as saying that ALL paintings are not art.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 13, 2004 06:13 AM: Message edited by: Justin M. ]</font>

[eidde]

&gt; In the same way it can be said that paintings by
&gt; Rolf Harris are not art (although some will
&gt; disagree).

Id disagree :-) (quite strongly)
He's a really accomplished painter, and its not all Rolf-a-roos you know!

[MatJimMood]

Since you seem so certain that film isn't art can you tell us what is art and what it is about it that makes it art.


"The problem why film is not an art is down to what the viewer sees, the viewer has no choice. the decision have already been made by the director."

How does this differ from any artform?