Value for money?.........I think not!

[SoNowThen]

what i meant was that if the painter is painting the picture simply because someone is paying him, then yes, it's not art. meaning you're doing it on another level, to do it. of course the commerce is alongside it, but some hack directors don't actually want to do hack material like Showcase Softcore. they do it for the paycheck.

i think i mentioned this before: the greater one can encompass the other. you can do art, and still end up getting paid for it. but if all you want is the paycheck, and don't give a shit how you get it, how can it be art?

does that make me kinda clearer?

[Sleuth]

That's a good way to think of it

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Ok this is a bit of a pet hate for me, so plz bear with me on this.

i want to know the last film (in a cinema) you walked out of thinking

a. gee that movie was worth every cent of the huge admittance fee.

b. gee i think i'll hunt that prodution company down
and make them give me a refund. (or kill em on principal)

for me the answer is,

a. Lord of the rings 1 & 2

b. hmmmm let see....everything out of hollywood in the last 15 years.

to me it seem the more money spent makeing it the worse value
for money at the box office....

i have been enthralled for three hours watching/reading a movie based
on a day in the life of a homeless french man, that had a $20 budget.
i allmost cryed when he got hit but a car...four times.

but when i walk out of a bigbudget movie like DareDevil and the only
going through my mind is "that fuck'in cheap ass popcorn is still caught between my teeth!"
there is somthing wrong.....

bring back movies that move ppl, thats what i say.



sorry about the rant......but i feel a little better now.

You went about this from a horrible angle.  Budget has nothing to do with a movie.  LOTR had a huge budget, and you seem to like it.  It also was a Hollywood flick IMO.  No "artsy" films get the respect they deserve from the general public, but that's just it.  Artsy films aren't for the general public.  Again, another opinion here, art is for artists.  Art is a way of expressing yourself, but when it boils down to it, the people who do it are the people who truly understand it.  

Very skilled musicians downtalk pop because popstars buy their lyrics and they buy their music, which is synthesized anyway.  Not saying that other people won't like pop, though.  It's all a game of preference.  So rant on bad movies all you want, but don't toss around words like Art.  It just causes confusion.

[Gamblour.]

The preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray:

"The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.

The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.

No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type.

All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless."

Oscar Wilde

[Redlum]

anybody seen/read Death in Venice?

that answers this art thing.. ur definition of art might be debatable but beauty isn't. there is such a thing and it's beyond hard work and logic.