 
|
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 |
68.1.145.72
In Reply to: Re: A critic's job.... posted by jamesgarvin on January 5, 2006 at 15:48:37:
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
Follow Ups:
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
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 ]
