FILM IS NOT ART ?

[Chance1234]

went to this Q&A thing with Matthew Collins (hosts the Turner Prize, art critic, artist and author) last night, and had to admit it was very itneresting and has given me a new look on how to look at art,

some great thigns too,he mentioned the dumbing on the masses, and an interesting point how media has created art in the form of the celebrity, how that lines on the bricks on the floor is infact modernism in a post modernistic world(still think it is crap but it was a good argument) and how a lot of works by tracey emin and hirst is that there work is only design , the art is created from the auora around the piece of art, somethign design to shock liked pickled cows, also he went a great deal on about old masters like rembrandt saying how that is no argument of being art etc etc,

anyway it was a well held and good discussion and very educational, obvioulsy a man who knows his stuff,

then he came to film making, his opinion is that film making is not art, and an artist does not produce film, making film is like an artisit going to work with poorly mixed paint or cheap oil paint or without prepared brushes. ie it is a bad tool.

he also went on to say film making cant be art because of way it is a forced medium that there is a start adn end and a fix tiem the viewer is caught in, and a fixed athesic (ive got no idea how to even attempt to spell that word but i mean pleasing to the eye)

so do we go round and burn down his house or what do other people think ?

personally, i wouldnt say im an artist, id say im an illusionist but i would say film can be art,


got a signed book and i can now say had a drink at the Met Bar as well which was cewl :-)


Chance

------------------
www.5ylac.s5.com

[twister!]

Sounds like an interesting evening.

Art is completely subjective and no one person can say 'this is art 'and 'that is not art'. If that was the case who would be the person to make those decisions and where would that person 'draw the line' between what is and what isn't art.

When the first impressionist paintings were done at the turn of the century (20th) the public and critics completely ridiculed them and said that it was not art - the word 'impressionism' was originally used as a very derogatory term by a critic to describe these paintings. How foolish this now seems - people eventually realised that indeed these paintnigs WERE art - great art in fact. Following which, the Impressionist movement proceeded to revolutionise the face of art from then on to today.

This is probably the equivalent to someone today saying that someone such as Damian Hirst is not an artist. Only time will tell which peices of 'art' will be remebered and which will be forgotten.

I think that (in the right hands) film is art in the same way that photography and literature are.

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

[eddie]

So a great artist, like Salvador Dali makes a film, does that make it art?

Why are there ARTHOUSE cinemas?

what the fuck is art anyway? Does anyone care?
I dont think many films are art, they might be artistic.

Illusionist is probably a much better term than artist.

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

[eddie]

something else

Since when did using poor tools make a difference whether something is art or not?
There is a crayon drawing hanging in the Tate gallery drawn by a homeless guy.

If art is the aura generated by something, then what about Harry Potter? there is a fair bit of talk floating around that. Is that not art?


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

[wolfwood]

Performance artist are confined to a set time limit, and they get to call what they do art. (I wouldn't call it art though). If you think you are making art, then your making art. No matter what the medium.

------------------
"I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it"

[Matt J Heaton]

I can tell that I'd really hate this guy if I met him.

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

[nate_dog]

Art is really your interpretation. I heard a story in the US about a man who tortured a cat in the name of art and was not arrested because of that. If that kind of sick shit is considered art and filmaking is not, then something is seriously wrong!

------------------
I LOVE THE SMELL OF NAPALM IN THE MORNING

[Red House Painter]

I just had a lecture at college today (i am an art student) from Neil Cummings, leading artist and theorist, and he made the piont that nothing is srt until someone puts a value to it, whether the value is in terms of money, going to look at it in a gallery or just discusssing it. AS for poor tools and all that, eddie, you should'nt take it too literally. Show me a film that in no way panders to the audience and it is taking a huge step towards becoming art.

------------------
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the frying pan!

[yak]

wow
this is an interesting topic,
what is art,what is art in film, where does art exists in movies, where is reality in art, where is reality in movies, how many frames/sec has art, has reality, what are precious tools for art.
from the semiotic point of view, films contain symbols, art contains symbol, means film is art, seeing a van gogh for example, is observing a canvas with oil, colours, film is light on canvas, film is time based art.
ok
whatever

------------------
'be the one who is it'

[Mr Blackstock]

I think there should be recognised divisions between the various interpretations of what art is. Art can be anything you create, depending on what and how you create it. Picasso may have been enamoured with a crickets leg, drawn a sketch, and loved it, and called it art. However, when trying to sell the sketch is another thing! That depends on what the public call art. That depends on what school of thought is in vogue at the time, this depends on what the wealthiest are willing to be convinced is art.
This is how a tortured cat, and the mona lisa, are both considered art.
Personally i beleive art begins with ones motive for creating the object, and how it is created.

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