FILM IS NOT ART ?

[yak]

hallo

had a reading, or whatever that is called in your language with joel p.witkin, he is a photographer, who places subjects like heads arms whatever of people together and creats a great morbid athmosphere in order to get people think about live, he influenced maker of the cell, or damien hirst in their work.

film is art if it creats a symbol, a symbol in the semiotic way of thinking.

what is art if a movie like metropolis is no art, just because its a movie?

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

[wageslave]

OK, I knew what bereft means, that was supposed to be a joke.

>If five people are standing in a field and >all look up at the same time, to the clouds
>moving overhead.
>1 sees a dragon.
>
>1 sees a puppy dog.
>
>and
>
>3 see a "Whatever."
>
>Who is right if any?

All and None.
Whats your point?

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

[twister!]

He's saying that art is subjective

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

[Ralph Snart]

emotive

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

[hairbrain]

and film isn't??? I don't get the point here. I wasn't saying some art is crap some art is good. If I had your point may have been valid. I wasn't making any qualitative assumptions about art at all. You have to remember that Matthew Collins was the one who did that when he stood up and said film wasn't art.

I was, instead, trying to explain that filmmakers are taking a proud profession of art and exploration of narrative and non-narrative forward from its ancestors... rembrandt, turner, giotto, picasso, monet, warhol...etc Because of its bigotry against photography the art world paints a picture of the history of art which neatly skirts around photography and film. It denies that these are true artforms compared to the history of paint and sculpture. And yet, within the same breath, asks the question of whether paint and sculpture are still valid within contemporary society.

This is not a question of whether I like painting or not. This is me merely stating that the current history of art, which leaves out film and photography, is a sham. Instead if we see photography as coming out of the traditions of art and then film developing on from that we can clearly see that contemporary art is alive and well within cinema. Works to stand alongside Rembrandt are not things like a sausage on a stool... instead it should be `Apocalypse Now`.

When the old masters like Leonardo DiVinci created a painting they would often have tens of people at work on it. They would sketch the idea, decide what aspect of a story they wanted to dwell upon, then get their apprentices to fill it in under their direction. Finally they would step in and add the finishing touches. It must have been just like walking onto a movie set.

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

[Mr Blackstock]

I think hairbrain is way off the mark by proclaiming film as the art of today.

Art is 100% subjective, to the creator and the audience, to say film is more relevant today than two dimentional art is reckless at least. Has anyone considered the idea that film is peaking in popularity because it is easy to absorb? All one has to do is watch it, let it do the feeling for you, make the characters drag you along the emotional path, let the special effects dazzle you like a stunned rabbit.

Most people these days have a very short attention span, they get bored looking at a painting or sculpture, surely films deserve more than being the default winner of your art war simply because they are more exiting?

hairbrain's statement "Art is dead. It uses out moded materials in an out moded 2 dimensional way" is shortsighted and ignorant.

This one got me going, "film is...FAR more complicated than painting, sculpture etc" How do you come to this conclusion? By being bored with such art? Not taking time to think about it? it worries me to think that people with ideas like this roam the world. Since such art is outdated and simplistic, should we not destroy it lest it make our films look contrived? We should also re-write the history books and emphasise the old masters lack of immagination, hell, lets just plug everyone into a bloody great mainframe and beam nice immages straight to the optical nerves!

Fool!

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

[Chance1234]

heres a thought, music as well as being music is also science and highly complex mathematics,

is art in fact science and mathematics ready to eb dsicovered ?


Chance

(who is going to the lord of the Rings premiere and party)

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

[hairbrain]

So I take it Mr Blackstock that you DO think that a sausage sitting on a stool in some gallery somewhere has more relevence to contemporary society than `Apocalypse Now` or that yet another canvas of stripes lovingly painted with dulux emulsion has more artistic majesty than `Days of Heaven`.

It's strange the kind of special protection people give to art. As if it were something sacred to them. Sure no one is denying the profundity of VanGoghs works or the awe I feel when faced with a Giotto or a Brancusi but.... I dare you to name me one bit of art created after 1965 which wouldn't be vastly improved by a bit of lighter fluid and a match.

No film is not art, we are told, but video art is! So let me get this straight... film is not art but video is?!? I dare you to find me a piece of video art which wouldn't be markedly bettered if your gran accidentally video'd `ren&stimpy` over the lot of it.

Great art works in various ways. It acts upon the viewer and opens its doors to them upon greater inspection. It can pull people in with a well thought out palette which acts psychologically and/or a composition which leads the eye towards questions and perhaps answers. It is perhaps firstly powerfully awe inspiring and then lingeringly thought provoking... just like great film.
Today an artist takes a piss in the corner of the gallery and explains that the work of art is about `taking a piss in the corner of the gallery`. Those who don't believe me should really get out and see more contemporary art before they think I'm being closed minded and biggoted. When I say that nothing new has been done in fine art since about 1965 and that even the leading lights of the art world have simply been retreading old ground, I say that as someone who has studied art history extensively, gone to art college, and seen too many contemporary art shows where someone puts a sausage on a stool and expects you to be `shocked`. For crying out loud Dada did all this in the 20's/30's.... and it was relevent and truly shocking then.

Some artists have recognised the importance of film as a possible artistic medium. Leger's `Ballet Mechanique`, Brunuel's `Chien AnDalou` (or however its spelt), `The Cabinet of Dr Cagliari`, `Last Year at Marienblad`, even Fritz Langs `Metropolis` are all great works of art made on film.

Just because film is, at times, popular and accessible doesn't mean it is crass low art. Giotto used to parade his works through the streets to the applause of city folk, does that mean his art was just a glorified banner campaign. Like painting or sculpture, there are some films that are more difficult to sit through (`EraserHead` is not what I'd term comfortable and easy viewing) and demand a certain dedication to penetrate. Also like painting and sculpture there are bad films just made to titilate or pay off the debt collectors, this does not mean we should brandish all film or painting as crass.

phew my fingers are worn out... anyway Ithink I've probably said enough... still it was fun.

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

[miker]

there are artists, architects, conceptualists

just because an architect doesn't mix the cement, does that mean he is not responsible for his art?

most of the 'great' artists were just maing a living doing portraits, they were doing it FOR THE MONEY

it took expressionism to elevate art to the more abstract, and now art has reached the dizzying heights of it's own lower-colon and is heading to the stomach, final exit from the mouth and then shower down with some filtrates of the 'high' art reaching the 'high' street.

art is an adjective, not a craft

------------------
N305UDB M173UBM
(B55VOR)
(WGO963W)

[Ralph Snart]

emotive


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