|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Uhhh...yeah, no shit. That's kind of what one does when one critiques a movie. Wtf.
not when it's based on the simply terminology of
Quote:
saying that it's not 'good' or 'artistic' or hasn't enough 'good artistic qualities'.
because the above terms mean nothing.
Quote:
I showed you why the things you claim as good qualities are not actually borne out by what is on screen.
no, you haven't. you tried and failed.
Quote:
It doesn't show how light can be used to enhance film.
i never said that. i said it (the lightning) shows how a cinematographer can highlight and make dramatic a fucking lemon. that's the point. you still don't get it, either that, or you just simply think that's a bad idea, which means nothing. you think it's bad how? because it isn't artistic and it doesn't communicate anything? it communicated plenty to filmmakers. that's the point you seem to be unable to grasp. that you're not the arbiter of what's "bad" just through your judgement that "it has no qualities and it's bad". that's not an explanation. it's a poor excuse for a judgement, that's based on nothing, in and of itself.
you missed the point of the film. you missed why it's relevant, and why it has endured as piece of filmic artistry. you don't have to agree, but like i said, give a reason that has substance more than "it's just bad, it's bad because it has nothing good, so it's bad".
you've already been shown how you're wrong.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said:
Quote:
saying that it's not 'good' or 'artistic' or hasn't enough 'good artistic qualities'.
because the above terms mean nothing.

That's just fucking stupid.
Quote:
i never said that. i said it (the lightning) shows how a cinematographer can highlight and make dramatic a fucking lemon. that's the point. you still don't get it, either that, or you just simply think that's a bad idea, which means nothing. you think it's bad how? because it isn't artistic and it doesn't communicate anything? it communicated plenty to filmmakers. that's the point you seem to be unable to grasp. that you're not the arbiter of what's "bad" just through your judgement that "it has no qualities and it's bad". that's not an explanation. it's a poor excuse for a judgement, that's based on nothing, in and of itself.
you missed the point of the film. you missed why it's relevant, and why it has endured as piece of filmic artistry. you don't have to agree, but like i said, give a reason that has substance more than "it's just bad, it's bad because it has nothing good, so it's bad".
you've already been shown how you're wrong.
This is asinine. You obviously don't give a shit about what I have to say about the movie. I say something and you dismiss it out of hand. I said things in my last post that addressed this dumb ass shit you have here and you ignored it. I'm done talking to you about this. You're ridiculous.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
That's just fucking stupid.
not really.
saying "this film is not good" or "this film is not artistic" or "this film hasn't enough good artistic qualities" are baseless moronic statements that have no critical thought behind them. just empty words.
try giving an actual critique that amounts to more than "i don't like this film, it's bad, just bad, cause i say so."
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
considering that we already covered the notion of preferences, i guess we're done here. you can't really show anything to me other than, "i don't like this film thus it's bad".
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
clock_of_omens said: They're not inherently different beasts. They are both films and they both have a narrative, no matter how much some may claim Lemon does not. The narrative is 'lemon with light moving across it'. It's a shitty narrative. Labeling it a 'structuralist film' does nothing but apologize for the lack of any real quality. It just attempts to place it in a new category as if it is something special when really it's just a bogus movie about a lemon. Seriously. It's pretentious and it is old pretension. People are always trying to create their school of art and trying to create their own criteria. The truth is they are mostly just bad artists who can't create anything of any real value, so they have to console themselves with obfuscation and feigned abstruseness.
Right.
also i find this funny.
he's right....not. you can't compare Taxi Driver, a 2 hour Hollywood drama, to a structuralist film. well, you could try, that's why i started this discussion in the first place, but you'd end up with alot more content to be taken into account with Taxi Driver, whilst not being able to compare the two in terms of how they were filmed, either. one is a Drama film...the other is a structuralist. what is more 'right' is this post here.
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I don't know. I sense that there are both objective and subjective elements to it. I think clock is right, though, when he says that some works are objectively better than others. Without going into why, it's clear that Taxi Driver is more substantive in every way than Lemon. If that's objectively true, which it is, then there must be some criteria that we can agree upon. The difficulty here is that the avenue toward reaching a consensus is fully couched in subjectivity.
So we're not in crystal-clear waters here.
this is actually "right" or otherwise known as "correct", ie, "not total bullshit".
it's weird how people will not understand something (or won't take what something actually is into consideration), and thus it's 'poor'.
PS: film is pictures. they are not required to have narrative. narrative is not required for film. just like it is not required for photography, or music.
it's just simply not required, and to assume it is...is idiocy.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
.500 is a good average.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
that doesn't really sound like an argument. i'm just gonna presume that no one will admit that they are wrong, and simply won't address anything being said.
film = pictures. pictures do not require narratives, or for the most part, even have narratives (unless they're attached to said pictures), hence, the narratives in movies are additional material to be judged, on top of the original merits of the filmmaker's pictorial endeavor.
ie content does indeed count for something while comparing things, at least within the same medium. (from previous thread)
and when you add narrative elements to pictorial art, you can be said to be adding more content to be judged, and thus, it can be said that that makes judging the work with more positives easier than judging a smaller work with a less amount of positives.
it's that simple.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: i'm just gonna presume that no one will admit that they are wrong, and simply won't address anything being said.
Lead by example.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
is that a self-affirmation?
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
PS: i already addressed everything you said. please point out what i've perhaps missed, but i don't think i missed anything.
also: check this out Oman: tell me what you think of this shit. it's creepy, so be forewarned.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Lol wtf. That was entirely ridiculous.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
i know, so, so, details. c'mon. musically, i think it's pretty cool. the video is really WTF.
did you like it? you fucking...nice guy, yous.
BTW that fuckin' batting average metaphor/comment, i can't believe that shit, DQ. i'll serve you up too. explain how i am wrong. get your hands dirty, don't just make quips at the batter. we were pretty much on middle ground before you decided Omen was right. but how is he right?
PS: lol, i finally got your damn sport metaphor, DQ. i had to google 500. batting average to be sure, but i got it. just popped in my head. why in the fuck i would have guess it, i don't know, but thanks for that. LOL
Edited by akira_akuma (09/01/16 07:50 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Honestly, I meant absolutely nothing by it. I was just referring to the fact that you disagreed with one post, and agreed with another.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
all the better. i knew what you meant, actually. literally, i inferred that mathematically. seriously. it's like you get me. i suck at math and sports.
but really, you didn't mean batting average, guess i just smoked some shit and that shit just popped in my head, and i had to check to confirm. i thought you might be saying something like what i always say...you win some, you lose some. batting average.
BTW, i don't care if i am wrong. if i am wrong, then i am wrong. i'll find out somehow. but i don't see how i am not right, i need that explained, because so far, it hasn't been explained. but it's not really important.
i'm just listening to music now. so i don't care about this argument so much, per se, as i do to come to a bedrock assumption that we can conclude this argument with. such as, the two films aren't comparable. seems pretty fitting since the two types of filmmaking are so freakin' different. anyways, i'm babbling.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
The song was pretty cool. The video was ridic.
As for the topic, this is the last I'm going to say about it, the argument is pointless. I say things are bad about the movie, you claim I gave no reasoning, I just don't like the movie. We just disagree on the fundamentals of art. We aren't going to reach common ground. You claim good and bad are subjective. The argument stops there. You can't argue anything if you think it's all subjective.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
the last thing is not the last thing.
you say i claim good and bad are subjective? no. good and bad are objective claims. the perception or impression of what defines good and/or bad is rather a matter for philosopher's, no?
i never claimed they are subjective in our argument. i claimed that art cannot be simply good or bad, ie, there has to be a reason for there to like and dislike, and to put one piece of art, whatever genre, over another, would require an assessment of why it's so disliked. there is no moral reason, surely, not from you. right? (or no?) but there must be a reason why it's disliked for you to make an objective statement on the work, because the work isn't defined by good or bad; it's not like pain bad, pleasure good. that's not what art is. art is more than that. who disagrees with me? i'm sure you can find a way.
i merely claimed that art is subjective, not that good and bad are.
you simply, in your words, have to go to like/dislike.
you call this sophistry? explain how it is. surely you can't just say "sophist" and give no explanation why?
but we are probably done here. this is surely more than about how we define art. this is, to you, apparently about good and bad being subjective, while that's a complete misunderstanding of my argument. you can call it bad, but it's subjective, so why is it bad is a better question. you say, "it's got no talent. anyone can do it". you say, "Lemon has a narrative". i say it doesn't, nor should it have to, but you say, "it's the same thing". no? you also say, that the artist's narrative on the work, his meaning behind the work, the prospects discovered for the artist from the work, are all meaningless and have no bearing on the work. it's a contradiction. a picture, with no words, somehow has and must have narrative, to you, in your own words; yet, the artist cannot provide it his or herself? see. that is not being objective, not at all.
because you aren't taking everything into account.
|
|