 
|
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 |
In Reply to: let me ask a few questions... posted by Fang on November 27, 2002 at 10:45:41:
such as "pop art", "folk art", etc. - But what they all do is reflect and communicate the individual artist's interface with reality. In film, this does not need to be limited to one genre - the so-called "art film". A film like "Saving Private Ryan" could have been art - if Spielberg would have drawn on his personal emotions or experiences and show us (through the performance of an actor, dialogue, lighting, cinematography, whatever) those emotions or experiences.You can have an action/adventure, a comedy, a drama, a sci-fi movie, and they can all be "art".
Also, a lot of the great classic films DID make money in their day. The problem is that today's audience wants the movie equivalent of fast food.
I gave at the office!
Follow Ups:
A film like "Saving Private Ryan" could have been art - if Spielberg would have drawn on his personal emotions or experiences and show us (through the performance of an actor, dialogue, lighting, cinematography, whatever) those emotions or experiences.It's too much to define what art is. A film like Saving Private Ryan, IMO, demands the director to be as objective as possible. Spieldberg clearly has enough crafts and skills to be qualified as an artist. But it's not about the knowledge but the choices that he makes. It appears his recent films are always made in a "timely" fashion with respect to current politics and culture to satisfy popular demands. If that has always been his intention, then the film values won't last very long as politics as well as culture change.
OTH, there's no reason for an artist not to make a little cash once in a while. Deniro did it; Brando did it, perhaps ahead of his time.
mvwine, you seem very attached to this idea of "personal connection" in art. i think you need to consider that a little more.does it matter if i told you that michelangelo's greatest work was commissioned by someone who wanted him to decorate their ceiling with a certain theme in mind? or that a painting of leonardo da vinci's was paid for by a rich man who told him what he wanted in the painting?
the art that we find in these things is the application of technique.
contrast this with stephen king, who probably writes horror because that's what he's personally most into, and who's rich enough that he can write whatever he wants without thinking about how much it'll sell.
so it all goes back to my question to you, which is, "what's the value of making these distinctions?"
the fact that something made money, or was comissioned does not necessarily preclude it from being art. The definition of art is that it reflects something personal.And the importance of making these distinction is, well, personal.
I gave at the office!
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
