 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.140.46.61
In Reply to: RE: Is "Titanic" great art, too? And that Terminator film of Cameron's? nt posted by tinear on January 07, 2010 at 08:05:29
Too often the work of other big budget blockbuster directors doesn't live up to the hype, but Cameron's movies always deliver!Not everything has to be defined as "great art" except perhaps by the euro-mustard set. And here's some food for thought to go along with the condiment: too often films defined by "de uppa-crust" critics as superb artistic achievements suck pond water as entertainment.
I assess the value of a movie-going experience by whether the feature entertains me (first) and deserves repeated viewing (second). If the film communicates something enriching on a personal level (grey poupon "meaning" in the artsy-fartsy context), that's fine, but it isn't a prerequisite for entertainment.
If you don't like James Cameron's films, that's perfectly OK, but it's YOUR personal problem. Avatar has raked in over a billion dollars ($$$) worldwide and counting, and there is a good reason for that: lots of folks are excited about seeing this film and come away happy.
One final question: Why do you feel a persistent need to be the lead ant trying to raid the happy camper's picnic?
Concerned,
AuPh
Edits: 01/07/10Follow Ups:
The reason that I care about this difference is that Hollywood stops making good films because of these blockbusters. They aren't that good. As to all the people who buy tickets and popcorn, PT Barnum had that explanation.
How right you are.
People see movies they enjoy. That makes them fools. Hmmmm.............
How can internet dweebs feel superior to anyone? :-)
-Wendell
it is easy to entertain. However, its the money being spent on these movies and concessions which springs the quote. If you don't give a crap about the quality of what you watch, fine. There are some that do.
I think you're delusional to think that doing away with "blockbusters" would result in more "artistic" films being made.
-Wendell
Compare the last few decades and tell me how much good art is being made now by Hollywood. Almost the only sources for plot driven movies are foreign or independents.
I don't care. I see what I like and ignore the rest. It doesn't matter to me what what type of film others like or don't like. I don't consider someone a fool for liking a film a I don't care for. I don't consider myself a fool for liking something that doesn't meet someone's artistic standard.
-Wendell
First you say that blockbusters don't affect the quality of film and then you say you don't care whether quality films are being made. Do you actually have a point? If you don't care about the quality of film and are happy with popcorn movies, fine. Own that position and stop trying to make other points which you apparently don't even believe.
Whatever you say. Who am I to argue with a self-appointed arbiter of quality and judge of art?
-Wendell
Edits: 01/08/10
Or a pop tune and a symphony.
Or a sit-com and a play.
Great art is entertaining, eternal, and meaningful.
You'd equate pure entertainment and art.
That's insidious.
... of those who share a differing POV about James Cameron's work. Trust me, the whine coming from your keyboard as you make it your mission to decry Avatar's success says more about you than it does about the film itself. In this instance you happen to be in the minority as borne out by both the Box Office and critical consensus about Avatar, but that apparently does nothing but make you squeak louder. Of course the louder you squeak the more grease you get and the concept of trolling negativism for responses isn't lost on folks around here.
> > > "You seem unwilling or unable to see the difference between cartooning and painting." < < <
As an established artist, I have the credentials and career to deflect your misguided personal insult, but if you're asking me about cartooning I do have a notion for you. My suggestion would be to seek out Kurt Vonnegut's satirical SF novel Breakfast of Champions and peruse the illustrations that the author included. Based upon one simple icon (*) I could wave my usual fee and do a representational caricature of either you or patrick without even having access to your mug shots! ;O)
Cheers,
AuPh
cartooning and painting.
;O)
"Great art is entertaining, eternal, and meaningful."
Of those 3 things I'd agree that great art is meaningful—it has to be or it communicates nothing and great art certainly does communicate something to us. As to the other two, let's take the easy one first:
Great art isn't eternal—nothing is eternal. We've got some art from Homer's period including his epic poems but a lot of the painting and sculpture is destroyed and we have no idea what was lost. Do you really expect people to believe that only the not great artworks were lost and all of the great ones were saved? Sorry but it doesn't happen like that. Greatness does not guarantee that art will be preserved and great art can be destroyed as easily as trash. We're lucky that some of Bach's manuscripts were found being used as wrapping paper by a butcher but some had been used and those works were lost. Those lost manuscripts were destroyed as easily as the previous days newspapers and their artistic value was incalculably greater. Sadly, very sadly, great art can be destroyed and lost just as easily as much lesser art and even trash and if that happens and we have no record of it you certainly can't claim that it was eternal.
Now to the harder one, great art is entertaining. Not always. There are works of music I don't listen to for entertainment—some requiem masses and similar music comes to mind. They communicate deeply and they leave me feeling sorrow, sometimes even harrowed. I listen to them for their powerful communication of some emotions but while they touch me deeply, I don't think I'd say that what they do is "entertain" me, not based on the usual way the word "entertain" is used. Art can do other things to and for us besides entertaining us, and it doesn't necessarily have to entertain us. Certainly it sometimes does but works of art don't necessarily have to be entertaining and great art doesn't have to be be entertaining either.
On the other hand, there are a lot of films and music around which definitely aren't great art, which don't communicate anything profound, but which leave us with a smile on our face or laughing in the aisles, something that much great art doesn't do. What these lesser films and music do is entertain us and while they may not be as deserving of longevity as great art, they sometimes outlive great art and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a film or music which is nothing more than genuinely entertaining. Producing something that entertains may not be as hard to do as producing great art but it isn't easy either, and things which simply entertain should be appreciated also.
There are an awful lot of films which aren't great art, are simply entertaining, and are definitely worth seeing for what they offer and a lot of the time what they offer is what I want rather than great art. Great art is like rich food, it leaves me full and needs time and space for digestion. I listen to music each day but I don't listen to great music each day simply because I'd be intellectually and emotionally overloaded if I did. I can listen to enjoyable music every day but I don't want to listen to great music more than once every week or two, simply because I need to give it space and, strangely, as I get older I seem to need to give great art more space. That may well be in part because I often seem to find more in it than I did when I was younger.
As for Avatar, no comment from me. I haven't seen it though I probably will go and do so sometime in the future. I'm definitely not expecting it to be great art but I do expect it to be entertaining and enjoyable.
David Aiken
About the only thing I would add is that each person defines the level of greatness of any acclaimed work of art (music, film, etc.) in accordance with their own individual tastes, cultural upbringing and how it inspires them (or touches them emotionally). One person's art may be another's trash and vice versa, but art criticism should be tempered by a reasonably objective perspective rather than a subjective bias or agenda.
The bottom line is that the points you've made are spot-on (IMO) and I concur wholeheartedly.
Cheers,
AuPh
nt
Advice.
Gotcha.......
OK. We are.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
