This is not to start a debate...

I think that film is both a craft and an art...

Construction is a craft--Architecture is an art.

This thread has morphed into somthing new. Perhaps you need to start a new one and continue??

Good Luck

I don't think comparing Painting to Film is "Horse-dung".
Dear God, please tell you have seen "The Girl with the pearl Earing" , "pollock","Frida", or
"basquiat"-Or "The passion of the Christ" Fine art and film have interwinded forever.....

Why do we bother to storyboard???- IF we are simply letting the camera tell us what to do- why "create" TENSION???with holding shots??- why light "For a look" uhn? Same as painting-why do you think paintings look as they do-it depends on the light source. Why do we Location scout? Why do we create Other world's in the studio's- Why do we edited?
Hey getting really tech...Painter's Gesso there
surface- we gray card/ white balance....

Every techiqnue we have is acquired from the fine arts- Painting ,Photography, sculpture....
Sci-Fi wouldn't have birthed w/out minitures.
The reason for this- Filmaking is an artform- the film itself(the finished product) is the Art!!!
And Chance can play Devil's advocate all he wants ,but those are the facts- Do with them as you will...

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 10, 2004 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Spunkey1pestic ]</font>

<font size="10">I JUST WANT TO MAKE ZOMBIE MOVIES!!!</font>

[img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img]

I also paint/draw. I can see where some comments chance makes comes from.

But first you have to ask yourself what 'art' is in the first place. For me, it has to have some meaning (and there shouldnt be 'one meaning to end them all') and it has to look pretty on the wall. Ugly art doesn't exist, if it's ugly then it isn't art.

While typing this I can see that this discussion is endless. "Ugly" is yet again a subjective term. What's ugly? I don't like Mondriaan, it's just a squares and lines jotted on white. I think the only reason why he is considered as 'art' and not as 'wallpaper' is simply because he made them in a time when all that post-modernism bullshit was all about meaninglessness - so it is 'art'.

A painter paints something small in a corner and mean nothing by it or it can mean the destruction of the womb for all I care, that small object in the painting can be viewed by anyone out there. Some people don't even see it. Some people write entire books about it. I think, because more than in film, paintings carry 'vision' more than theme. Filmmakers make everything according to 'theme' and most things that appear in frame have some sort of relationship to that theme, so the meanings can be guessed and are (most of the times) fairly logical. (Like the red roses in American Beauty when when Lester's being shot in the end).

A painting is just 'there', and you can do with it what you want to. There are more meanings in one single (good) painting than there are in an entire movie. But that's simply because those meanings all come from thinking about it, by all the people having their own views on that painting.

And if you go from that argument, then the Matrix 2 and 3 are absolute art.

I had a point somewhere in this post but I somehow lost it. I did want to say that chance is full of it though, but I can see where he comes from. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Untamed Aggression:
I JUST WANT TO MAKE ZOMBIE MOVIES!!!

[img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img]

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and from what i see, you are.

True, I just had nothing constructive to add to the argument [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I'm in the "film is an artform" camp. Sure, a director determines what's in a shot and how long a shot lasts etc, but as a whole, the film stands as one work, you can't just take each individual shot, erm, individually. Every shot means something, just like everything on a painter's canvas means something.

Other people have summed it up better than me, so I'll get me coat.