 
|
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 |
207.200.116.68
In Reply to: Hahahah exactly.... posted by RGA on January 5, 2006 at 13:20:32:
...is to critique and judge on artistic merits, not on "entertainment value".Otherwise Neil Diamond and Britney Spears, audience favorites, would be the darlings of the pop/rock music critics.
Follow Ups:
"...is to critique and judge on artistic merits, not on "entertainment value"."Which artistic merit -- the "I think this is great art therefore it is" or the "I think there is no artistic value in Jurassic park therefore Ebert's not a real critic"
In fact Jurassic Park has an incredible amount of artisitic merit - visuals, sound effects, set design. All artistic merits. The visual impressiveness of this film is better than any non Hollywood film in existence. One could easily make the case that it is "artistically superior" to anything before 1980. Or umm Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.
None of these are on my top 100 list though because I, like Aristotle, do no put a major importance - or any importance - on a spectacle - Aristotle was primarily about Plot and secondly Character study. He was referring to the play but film is the closest thing - a much inferiror thing but close.
People go to movies to be entertained -- I go to an art film and a documentary and I still want to be entertained -- if a film does not entertain me then it gets a thumbs down because it failed to do what a film is suppose to do - entertain.
is to critique and judge on artistic merits, not on "entertainment value".So a food critic should not discuss the taste of the dish? Only the presentation? I would think that taste is closer to entertainment, the presentation closer to art. How about the video game critic? How about a automobile reviewer? Damned if the thing did not drive smoothly, was fun, but, man, the looks. Who designed these features? Not recommended."
A critic should not review films and music designed to simply entertain an audience? I lauged, but, I cannot recommend this mindless piece of you know what to anyone. "I tapped my toes, but, by golly, it is too simple, heck, only three chords, obviously has no artistic value, so, thumbs down?
"Britney Spears, audience favorites, would be the darlings of the pop/rock music critics."
Britney Spears lack of critical acclaim has less to do with the music, and more to do with the fact that the critics who review her are not within her demographic. The critics blasted Elvis when he plopped on the scene in 1954-1955. They were out of the demographic. Critics praised his "comeback special" in 1969. Ironically, with much of the same material. They were now in the demographic.
I guess I need to stop watching Animal House.
Seems to me presentation and taste can both be artistic and entertaining; they shouldn't necessarily be exclusive to one another.
For example, in food, presentation can be aesthetically pleasing to
the eye via symmetric-asymmetic arrangements etc., while taste can be similarly pleasing to the palate via various combinations of culinary items, seasonings, etc. In these ways, both art and entertainment
can merge together in complimentary fashion. ~AH
Whether you like a dish or not is ultimately taste. Have you ever eaten a meal, anywhere, and concluded that you loved the look, but the taste was subpar, but boy, did you get your monies worth, and would recommend the restaurant to a friend? Doubtful. While the presentation may be important, is it a replacement for the taste? No.I am not sure how you can pigeonhole taste into art. There are times that a Big Mac tastes good to me, but calling it art is a stretch. Depends upon the mood. Taste is more equivalent to entertainment. And the argument that a critic only judges "art" would seem to imply that a food critic cannot rate the taste of the dish, only the presentation.
Some films are designed to do nothing more than to entertain. What is wrong with that? Some food is designed to taste good, and provide no nutritional value, or no presentation value. As Rico wrote, sometimes I want steak, sometimes I want ice cream. Here in Cincy, we were fortunate to have the country's preeminent five star restaurant, plus a healthy does of cheap chili parlors. Guess what? I enjoyed 'em both, for different reasons. Why should films be any different?
I think we are not in large disagreement. My comments were meant as
a sidepoint. I surely wouldn't think taste could be reducible to
art. Complimentarity is not reductionism or sameness-equivalence,etc.
I have questions about your dividing presentation as art and
taste as entertainment in food as analogous to film. (Of course, I referred to taste as a sense,
and not in the more general semantic of 'preference'.) If we agree
art in film as craft(wo)manship, hence, degrees of quality, viz
how well something is executed-performed,e.g., direction,acting,photography,writing,etc., then I take it that individuals judge ultimately for themselves those degrees(the art)and interrelate that to their entertainment. I expect critics to give me both
artistic and entertainment values as tentative guidlines, then I make
my decisions after viewing as to artistic-entertainment values.
Getting back to your division: I'm not sure presentation would be the
most appropriate term in film vis-a-vis food; maybe performance would be better,
e.g., 'I believe direction was excellent', 's-he acted superb', and so on.
If this view is feasible, then art, IMO, would affect,to some degrees,
entertainment-enjoyment or lack of. Those degrees, however, would be not be
predictable-reducible-readily quantifible via objective correlates.
This due to many variables, including moods of viewer-consumer, as you
said. For instance, evaluation of acting performances from individual to individual, can be very variable and subjective, VK
thought Audrey Hepburn's perfomance in 'After Dark' was atrocious,
I thought it was great. Who's right? Who's wrong? Can't say. Only that he disliked her performance and I liked it. He didn't enjoy it,
I did. IMO, art and entertainment are predominately subjective, though art aspects may be more arguable in objective terms. Moreover, I
think science-technicals can add to artistic executions in some aspects of filmmaking, hence, can, at times, add to my enjoyment.
~AH
Again this is what i said about Jurassic Park -- until they get a handle on what artistic merit is it is just a bunch of people who want to feel they're always right and they hold the one and only answer to what artistic merit is.As I said on visuals most films today are superior to anything before 1970 or 1980. So if we're placing value on visuals then they're argument falls flat. If we're talking about acting -- well if you talk to ANY of the major stage directors the major acting philosophies by those performers up to the 1970s was considered junk. So all those "classics" are in a lot of trouble.
Barbara Streisand has a much better voice than Madonna - I can objectively argue the merits of their vocal quality and Streisand is miles better --- I'd far rather buy a Madonna Album - and I would far rather play her music because I don't want to be put into a Coma.
So if compare them as artists then I am going to be put into a difficult spot...though I could point to record sales -- well to the self appointed art house the best movie or artist is the one who closes opening night.
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 ]
