In Reply to: Okay, but our views on what constitutes art are very different. posted by Audiophilander on January 3, 2002 at 14:08:20:
The link unfortunately doesn't work.I see some of your point and there is no question that cinema is a different form of art. What that means that it is better suited for expressing certain things... or actually, that it is EXPECTED to behave in a particular way that is different from for instance painting. Historically speaking.
However, here we have not as much the limitation of the art form itself, as much as our vision of it, and to certain degree our desire to pigeon-hole things.
One can certainly make the case that the art of cinema has largely evolved into well, "moving picture with story" direction. But "largely" doesn't have the exclusive nature. The incisive, "intravertial" art has always been with us in all forms.
It is also very much local culture dependent, with for instance the Japanese movies gravitating towards the observation far more than the action-driven American counterparts. The Europeans are sort of in the middle.
Again, I never argue against people not liking a particular artwork - that is completely normal. I just thought that assigning a particular expectation regarding well, action, really, to a whole media was somewhat incorrect.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Okay, but our views on what constitutes art are very different. - Victor Khomenko 14:34:18 01/03/02 (4)
- Sorry about the link; I accidently posted the 1st draft with mistyped link. - Audiophilander 15:27:30 01/03/02 (3)
- Re: Sorry about the link; I accidently posted the 1st draft with mistyped link. - Victor Khomenko 19:05:04 01/03/02 (2)
- Solaris is like that 6'x10' canvis with the yellow dot ... - Audiophilander 08:20:44 01/04/02 (1)
- More like a Corot - Victor Khomenko 12:06:41 01/04/02 (0)