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

Started by cyk, August 07, 2003, 01:55:46 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

cyk

#15
August 08, 2003, 11:39:13 AM
Quote from: Mesh
Quote from: cyk"hollywood" uses a popular formular that is sure to bring money in
to the studio....it's called "entertainment".

Caricature artists at the county fair use a popular formula that is sure to bring money into their tent....

...but the painting you bring home is still art, is it not?

Caricature artists are evil......EVIL I SAY!!!!!!
"The Wisdom Of Cyk"

"If your up to your chin in shit.........Don't make waves!"

Pas

#16
August 08, 2003, 11:53:44 AM
What the hell do you think Lord of The Rings is ? A low budget art film from New-Zealan ?! It's a fucking big budget hollywood eye candy non artsy, fairly good movie.

And shit, if only your so called artsy films were really art...Chasing Amy for christ's sake. Kevin Smith is to art as my love is to you.

Chocolate is not art yet it's pretty fucking good. Every cell of my body scream screw your kind.

modage

#17
August 08, 2003, 11:57:36 AM
i think he is implying when its good its "art" and when it sucks its not.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Pas

#18
August 08, 2003, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: themodernage02i think he is implying when its good its "art" and when it sucks its not.

That's what we understand, but since we like some Hollywood movies, we're from "the masses", so we wouldn't know

Sleuth

#19
August 08, 2003, 02:33:39 PM
Everything is art, whether you accept it or not.  You can't start making ART an OPINION
I like to hug dogs

Pas

#20
August 08, 2003, 02:41:27 PM
Quote from: tremoloslothEverything is art, whether you accept it or not.  You can't start making ART an OPINION

I don't completly agree... not everything is art. Lord of The Rings is not art because it is an adaptation of something already created. The book Lord of The Rings is art. The quality, the entertainment value or the budget of a project has nothing to do with the fact that it's art or not. Art has something to do with creation, originality, integrity ...

But the point of my earlier post was not really to discuss what is art and whatnot, I meant that something doesn't have to be "art" to be good, as Cyk seems to try to convince himself.

Sleuth

#21
August 08, 2003, 02:45:43 PM
Quote from: Pas Rapport
Quote from: tremoloslothEverything is art, whether you accept it or not.  You can't start making ART an OPINION

I don't completly agree... not everything is art. Lord of The Rings is not art because it is an adaptation of something already created. The book Lord of The Rings is art. The quality, the entertainment value or the budget of a project has nothing to do with the fact that it's art or not. Art has something to do with creation, originality, integrity ...

But the point of my earlier post was not really to discuss what is art and whatnot, I meant that something doesn't have to be "art" to be good, as Cyk seems to try to convince himself.

You're completely discrediting all the hard work and soul that many many many people put into making those movies.  That's their art
I like to hug dogs

Pas

#22
August 08, 2003, 02:47:26 PM
Quote from: tremolosloth
Quote from: Pas Rapport
Quote from: tremoloslothEverything is art, whether you accept it or not.  You can't start making ART an OPINION

I don't completly agree... not everything is art. Lord of The Rings is not art because it is an adaptation of something already created. The book Lord of The Rings is art. The quality, the entertainment value or the budget of a project has nothing to do with the fact that it's art or not. Art has something to do with creation, originality, integrity ...

But the point of my earlier post was not really to discuss what is art and whatnot, I meant that something doesn't have to be "art" to be good, as Cyk seems to try to convince himself.

You're completely discrediting all the hard work and soul that many many many people put into making those movies.  That's their art

Hard work has nothing to do with art. Is a truck loader an artist ? As for the soul... well... I don't see it in the Lord of the Rings MOVIE. The ADAPTATION of an already written story.

They may be artisans, but not artists

Sleuth

#23
August 08, 2003, 02:49:46 PM
But you really can't speak for them (and neither can I)

To some of those people, that's their art and you can't take that away from them
I like to hug dogs

Pas

#24
August 08, 2003, 02:52:07 PM
My art shall be answering the phone then

Sleuth

#25
August 08, 2003, 02:54:38 PM
Then it is
I like to hug dogs

Pubrick

#26
August 08, 2003, 03:47:49 PM
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.
under the paving stones.

Sleuth

#27
August 08, 2003, 03:47:49 PM
I don't see how that works, but I've never seen the movie
I like to hug dogs

SoNowThen

#28
August 08, 2003, 04:01:05 PM
read my quote. it might shed some light on the subject.


if i could put my two cents in, i'd say that anything done for a commerce reason is not art. if you do something to do it, because you love to do it, or you wanna discover how to do it, then that should qualify. therefore, something imperfect or shitty can still be art, if it has love and thought behind it. conversely, i might say a big budget hollywood action film is not art, but the dp who did the lighting (if i thought it was good) could still be an artist. so i could think the overall product was a piece of poo, but still think there were bits of art in certain things like sound design and photography. it's stupidly subjective though.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

modage

#29
August 08, 2003, 04:08:20 PM
well if thats true, than a painting that was commisioned is not art?  

plus, even hack directors love to direct.  they might like to get paid also, but are there because they love it as well.

this debate is ridiculous.  art is too subjective.  anyone can think whatever they want to about it and it wont change anything.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions