|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Lemon - Hollis Frampton
#23595126 - 08/30/16 07:46 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Intelligently discuss this movie by Hollis Frampton
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
I'm moving it from the other thread so as to not piss everyone off.
Quote:
akira_akuma said:
Quote:
Yes relevance is 'a quality' that an art work can possess, but relevance does not impact the 'quality' of the art.
wrong.
Quote:
historical relevance has no bearing on the quality of the art itself? no
Care to tell us why yourself is wrong?
Quote:
and that's why they are there, to further the art. just like the film you so misapprehended the content of.
Please enlighten me as to the content in the movie I missed. You better be able to provide some concrete evidence from the film itself to support your claims.
Quote:
but so what? those techniques are there to further the art. any competent lighting tech could do so? so? is there much films regarding this content...not now. and not then. there is no intellectual skill involved filming a lemon...but it wasn't just filming a lemon, it had more intellectual heft than that, but you simply won't give credit where credit is due, because it would make fault with your notion of what qualifies as quality.
There has to be art there in the first place in order for the techniques to further it. A lemon isn't art. Sorry.
It doesn't matter whether there are zero or a million films of a lemon. The fact is that it takes no intellectual skill to create a movie of a lemon. Anyone can do it, whether they did or not. Once you tell me what intellectual heft you see in the movie, I'll explain to you why it isn't actually there.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Care to tell us why yourself is wrong?
lol, we'll have to start all over again. care to tell you why myself is wrong? i'd love to do what you ask but first i'd have make sense of what you mean.
Quote:
Please enlighten me as to the content in the movie I missed. You better be able to provide some concrete evidence from the film itself to support your claims.
the content in the movie is not the only content of the art of the movie. but what you missed is not entirely superficial, such as the subject, the lemon. unless you take something from that subject. some might. some might see as the characterization and dramaticism of a static object. some might see the light as it's own object, moving across the static plane, as being it's own characterization and dramaticism. the technique in filming bring out qualities that usually cannot be associated with any ordinary amateur shot of a lemon.
it's called structuralist film. it's an innovation of the modern art movement, but it's also relevant in showing how we tell stories, and how we exemplify that story in film, using filmic techniques.
that's good enough.
Quote:
There has to be art there in the first place in order for the techniques to further it. A lemon isn't art. Sorry.
a lemon can be art. also the filming, itself, and what went into making that continuous shot, which is the film, is art.
Quote:
It doesn't matter whether there are zero or a million films of a lemon. The fact is that it takes no intellectual skill to create a movie of a lemon. Anyone can do it, whether they did or not. Once you tell me what intellectual heft you see in the movie, I'll explain to you why it isn't actually there.
wrong. it matters. if there was more than a couple lemon films the concept my stop really being relevant. but that doesn't take away from the relevance of the original. also, i already explained to you, earlier, and now again, the intellectual capacity required to make the film, and it's more than you ascribe to it. that's simply it. that's on you. it matters not to me. you can either take the explanation or leave it.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: lol, we'll have to start all over again. care to tell you why myself is wrong? i'd love to do what you ask but first i'd have make sense of what you mean.
I said that historical relevance does not affect the quality of the art. You agreed with that, as shown in the quote. You then played a semantic game. I repeated what I had already said, and then you said I was wrong, despite having agreed to what I said two posts previous. So tell us why you were wrong.
Quote:
the content in the movie is not the only content of the art of the movie. but what you missed is not entirely superficial, such as the subject, the lemon. unless you take something from that subject. some might. some might see as the characterization and dramaticism of a static object. some might see the light as it's own object, moving across the static plane, as being it's own characterization and dramaticism. the technique in filming bring out qualities that usually cannot be associated with any ordinary amateur shot of a lemon.
So there is a lemon with light moving across it? Yeah, I can see that. You describing exactly what happens in the movie in pseudo-intellectual terms doesn't heighten the art, as much as many would hope that such does.
Alright, I'll grant you that Lemon by Hollis Frampton is a better work of art than a static shot of a lemon sans the lighting. But still, so what? It doesn't communicate anything deep at all.
Quote:
it's called structuralist film.
So? No bearing on the quality of the art.
Quote:
it's an innovation of the modern art movement
So? No bearing on the quality of the art. And if that is what constitutes innovation in modern art, then modern art is the barren landscape it seems to be.
Quote:
but it's also relevant in showing how we tell stories, and how we exemplify that story in film, using filmic techniques.
How is the film relevant in any way in showing any of this? I'm going to need some concrete evidence from the movie for these claims. Anyone can look at a movie and pontificate about it all day long, but unless some evidence is presented from the movie, then they are just blowing out their ass.
Quote:
that's good enough.
Good enough for what? To spend 7 minutes watching? Perhaps, but debatable.
Quote:
a lemon can be art. also the filming, itself, and what went into making that continuous shot, which is the film, is art.
It's not good art.
Quote:
wrong. it matters. if there was more than a couple lemon films the concept my stop really being relevant. but that doesn't take away from the relevance of the original. also, i already explained to you, earlier, and now again, the intellectual capacity required to make the film, and it's more than you ascribe to it. that's simply it. that's on you. it matters not to me. you can either take the explanation or leave it.
Again speaking about the supposed relevance of the movie. That has no effect on whether it is actually a good movie. I bet there are no movies out there with a stack of horse shit with some light moving across it. If I come back tomorrow with such a movie will you pontificate on that as well?
No, you did not explain the intellectual capacity to make the movie. If you serious think any but the most rudimentary amount of intellectual capacity is needed to film a lemon with light moving across it, then I just don't know what to say.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
I said that historical relevance does not affect the quality of the art. You agreed with that, as shown in the quote. You then played a semantic game. I repeated what I had already said, and then you said I was wrong, despite having agreed to what I said two posts previous. So tell us why you were wrong.
i never said that i agreed with that. i think you're playing semantic games, because honestly, i don't agree with that sentiment, even if that's i may have implied in response to you. point it out, so we can interpret that conjecture, please.
Quote:
So there is a lemon with light moving across it? Yeah, I can see that. You describing exactly what happens in the movie in pseudo-intellectual terms doesn't heighten the art, as much as many would hope that such does.
Alright, I'll grant you that Lemon by Hollis Frampton is a better work of art than a static shot of a lemon sans the lighting. But still, so what? It doesn't communicate anything deep at all.
it communicates how lighting can effect a scene so dramatically as to being able to make it solely about a lemon, and it communicates how minimal filmic qualities can amount to a great amount of technique. also abstract/minimalist/structuralist film plays off the subtleties of technique in film making, and uses usually no actors or characters of any sort. it communicates that film can portray a work that includes no narrative, but can be speculated upon, nevertheless. sorta like how realist films (especially in the French New Wave and Italian neorealist dramas) portray narratives using less narrative techniques, in favor of improvisation and purely filmic technique and aspect.
Quote:
So? No bearing on the quality of the art.
no, not quite. but the time and place and the artist might.
Quote:
So? No bearing on the quality of the art. And if that is what constitutes innovation in modern art, then modern art is the barren landscape it seems to be.
you weren't there, and you simply don't know your history.
Quote:
How is the film relevant in any way in showing any of this? I'm going to need some concrete evidence from the movie for these claims. Anyone can look at a movie and pontificate about it all day long, but unless some evidence is presented from the movie, then they are just blowing out their ass.
Terminator sucked, nothing to pontificate about. Terminator 2: Judgement Day was good. nothing to pontificate about, i guess. we'll just stick to these terms from now on, if you'd prefer.
Quote:
Good enough for what? To spend 7 minutes watching? Perhaps, but debatable.
good enough for what it is.
Quote:
It's not good art.
your opinion is not really mine.
Quote:
Again speaking about the supposed relevance of the movie. That has no effect on whether it is actually a good movie. I bet there are no movies out there with a stack of horse shit with some light moving across it. If I come back tomorrow with such a movie will you pontificate on that as well?
no, because it's been done. we have the film above exemplifying the same point.
Quote:
No, you did not explain the intellectual capacity to make the movie. If you serious think any but the most rudimentary amount of intellectual capacity is needed to film a lemon with light moving across it, then I just don't know what to say.
yes, i did. there is more than the "rudimentary amount" of intellectual capacity, as i've already explained. address said explanation, or yield.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
I would say you could call it art but I would also say it's poor art.
-------------------- 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
|
|
but could you explain why?
is structuralist film poor art?
is minimalism poor art? abstract art, poor?
Edited by akira_akuma (08/30/16 09:30 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
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.
-------------------- 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
|
|
clearly Taxi Driver cannot be compared to a structuralist film.
but does that make Lemon poor? i don't think so.
i think the objective merits of two comparable objects should be admitted to having different criteria of artistic quality, if they are going to be compared, especially if they are inherently different beasts.
|
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 never said that i agreed with that. i think you're playing semantic games, because honestly, i don't agree with that sentiment, even if that's i may have implied in response to you. point it out, so we can interpret that conjecture, please.
Alright, how about instead of just saying 'wrong', you provide some reasoning. How exactly does historical relevance affect the artistic quality of an art work? Historical relevance is just that: historical, i.e. after the fact. Does the art work, which itself stays the same through time, become better as it gains historical relevance? How is that the case? It's still the same art work. Doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
it communicates how lighting can effect a scene so dramatically as to being able to make it solely about a lemon, and it communicates how minimal filmic qualities can amount to a great amount of technique. also abstract/minimalist/structuralist film plays off the subtleties of technique in film making, and uses usually no actors or characters of any sort. it communicates that film can portray a work that includes no narrative, but can be speculated upon, nevertheless. sorta like how realist films (especially in the French New Wave and Italian neorealist dramas) portray narratives using less narrative techniques, in favor of improvisation and purely filmic technique and aspect.
Who cares about any of the stuff you just claimed the film shows? Seriously. The only people who would care about that are film school dorks. None of that is deep or relevant to anything. Aside from that, you are just reading that stuff into a movie showing a lemon with light moving across it. I mean really. That stuff isn't really in the movie.
So called realist films usually aren't just technical masturbation to be endlessly pontificated over by pretentious film theorists. The ones that are actually good have something to say and say it well. How exactly does it 'communicate how minimal filmic qualities can amount to a great amount of technique'? There isn't even a great amount of technique in the movie. There is just light moving across a lemon. Even if we were to grant that in fact it does show that, who cares? Who cares if this film with no narrative can still be speculated upon. Those speculations are boring and pointless, as evidenced by your speculations above.
Quote:
no, not quite. but the time and place and the artist might.
Time? Somewhat. If you are the first to use a technique or whatever that later becomes cliche, your art isn't marred by the cliche as later art would be. Place? Nah. That artist? Only in the sense that the artist is the one who made the work. Just the name attached to the art work doesn't change the quality of the work. A mediocre Woody Allen movie isn't great because he also made great movies.
Quote:
you weren't there, and you simply don't know your history.
I don't need to have been there. The movie is lame as hell today and it was lame as hell in 1969, the year after 2001 came out incidentally. Yes it was so very filmically innovative. Once again, the history has no bearing on the quality of the work in itself.
Quote:
Terminator sucked, nothing to pontificate about. Terminator 2: Judgement Day was good. nothing to pontificate about, i guess. we'll just stick to these terms from now on, if you'd prefer.
If you actually presented evidence from the movie as to why you think T1 sucked and T2 was good, we could maybe have an actual discussion. If you came out with the type of nonsense you were claiming about Lemon, sans any actual evidence from the movie to support the claims you were making, then I would have to just say you were pontificating.
Seriously, if you're going to make a claim about a movie being about something or showing something or that a movie is good or bad, you have to present concrete reasons from the movie that support your claim. It is just like an argument. If you just come out of the blue making a statement about something without giving reasoning, then someone else can't really argue against you and you haven't actually shown anything.
Quote:
good enough for what it is.
Ok? Not good enough to be remembered in 100 years, which it won't be. And before you jump on me here about historical relevance, I'm not saying something is good because it is remembered in 100 years, I'm saying that if something is remembered in 100 years, it is more likely than not good. Obviously some crap remains in the public consciousness, but most falls away in favor of worthy stuff.
Quote:
your opinion is not really mine.
My opinion is correct. You have presented no evidence as to why the movie is good. The movie says nothing of real relevance or depth. It's a lemon with light moving across it. Most people could have made the movie, there is almost no real skill involved.
Quote:
no, because it's been done. we have the film above exemplifying the same point.
Alright. What if I make a movie with a pile of horse shit wherein flies slowly consume the shit over a time period and I speed the film up. Are you going to pontificate upon how my movie shows how time can so dramatically affect a film? Or how my minimalist/abstract/structuralist movie plays upon the notion that non-narrative films can be speculated upon? If so, that's dumb. It would be a bad movie just like Lemon.
Quote:
yes, i did. there is more than the "rudimentary amount" of intellectual capacity, as i've already explained. address said explanation, or yield.
Dude, you didn't. Unless you are talking about the ridiculous shit you read into the movie above, in which case, I addressed it. It's silly.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
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.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
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.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Quote:
the fact. Does the art work, which itself stays the same through time, become better as it gains historical relevance? How is that the case? It's still the same art work. Doesn't make any sense.
what you said makes no sense. historical relevance is equatable to more than just adding on 'betterment' is not what i said, you said that.
an arrowhead can be considered art. it's really a matter of perspective, but, this is actually how you can find artistic quality in historical relevance -- the arrowhead can be merely qualified as art based on it's historical relevance, that is it's particular value, as art. you don't have to look at it as art, i'm just saying that it is.
Quote:
Who cares about any of the stuff you just claimed the film shows? Seriously. The only people who would care about that are film school dorks. None of that is deep or relevant to anything. Aside from that, you are just reading that stuff into a movie showing a lemon with light moving across it. I mean really. That stuff isn't really in the movie.
no, it is in the movie. it's directly attributable to the visuals in the movie. the visuals, in otherwords, tell all. that's the point of structuralist film.
and it may be relevant to film school dorks, and especially so because it's artistic quality is directly attributable to the technique, just like photography, say. same difference.
Quote:
So called realist films usually aren't just technical masturbation to be endlessly pontificated over by pretentious film theorists.
no, just auteurs. 
Quote:
The ones that are actually good have something to say and say it well. How exactly does it 'communicate how minimal filmic qualities can amount to a great amount of technique'? There isn't even a great amount of technique in the movie. There is just light moving across a lemon. Even if we were to grant that in fact it does show that, who cares? Who cares if this film with no narrative can still be speculated upon. Those speculations are boring and pointless, as evidenced by your speculations above.
i'm not speculating. i'm explaining. there's a difference. there is a constrained amount of technique in the film, and it's seven minutes of a portrait, if you may, in film; that's what i'd call it. i like portraiture. i'm easily impressed upon by artistry. i can appreciate it. you don't have to. just stop confusing an explanation for speculation. then we can get somewhere. maybe.
Quote:
Ok? Not good enough to be remembered in 100 years, which it won't be.
look who is pontificating now.
Quote:
And before you jump on me here about historical relevance, I'm not saying something is good because it is remembered in 100 years, I'm saying that if something is remembered in 100 years, it is more likely than not good. Obviously some crap remains in the public consciousness, but most falls away in favor of worthy stuff.
the public conscious? does that conscious really decide what art is? i beg to differ.
Quote:
My opinion is correct. You have presented no evidence as to why the movie is good. The movie says nothing of real relevance or depth. It's a lemon with light moving across it. Most people could have made the movie, there is almost no real skill involved.
your opinion is subjective, meaning correct is hardly attributable. it's merely 'condemning' that you are.
Quote:
Alright. What if I make a movie with a pile of horse shit wherein flies slowly consume the shit over a time period and I speed the film up. Are you going to pontificate upon how my movie shows how time can so dramatically affect a film? Or how my minimalist/abstract/structuralist movie plays upon the notion that non-narrative films can be speculated upon? If so, that's dumb. It would be a bad movie just like Lemon.
not at all. first off, the first time-lapse film was probably very impressive, and if it was curated and/or documented in some way, we'd have a good look -- but here is Birth Of A Flower by F. Percy Smith. an early (pioneering) time-lapse film.
the speculation isn't really relevant. you think it's speculation, when it is in fact not speculation.
Quote:
Dude, you didn't. Unless you are talking about the ridiculous shit you read into the movie above, in which case, I addressed it. It's silly.
dude, i did. you're just either being intentionally dense, or are simply not getting the words that are a-commin' outta my mouth.
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.
all artistic quality to be gleaned from film is based on narrative? film is based on pictures....
that's absurd. you've both proven yourselves to be absurd. congrats.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
-- double post --
in before omen tells me i'm absurd for pointing out the obvious, that film is based on pictures, and not narrative plot. which is why structuralist film is based on the themes it is based on; and abstract film and minimal film as well. it's an art form.
and DQ, you're trying to compare Taxi Driver to a structuralist film, whilst not really taking into account the merits of structuralist film, which inherently is a niche subject, but let's not compare apples and oranges, at the very least, i ask.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: what you said makes no sense. historical relevance is equatable to more than just adding on 'betterment' is not what i said, you said that.
an arrowhead can be considered art. it's really a matter of perspective, but, this is actually how you can find artistic quality in historical relevance -- the arrowhead can be merely qualified as art based on it's historical relevance, that is it's particular value, as art. you don't have to look at it as art, i'm just saying that it is.
I'm not even going to get into what is and isn't art with you again, but I'll just say an arrowhead is most certainly not art. It is a tool. You are claiming the historical relevance of said arrowhead is what constitutes its being art? That is ridiculous. Is an old arrowhead art and a new arrowhead not art? If yes, ridiculous. If no, then it isn't really the historical relevance that makes it art. Also, even if I grant you all you just said, you still haven't said anything about how historical relevance affects the quality of the art, you know what we were actually talking about.
Just regarding Lemon. What effect does the supposed historical relevance of Lemon have on the artistic quality of it?
Quote:
no, it is in the movie. it's directly attributable to the visuals in the movie. the visuals, in otherwords, tell all. that's the point of structuralist film.
It's really not.
Quote:
it communicates how lighting can effect a scene so dramatically as to being able to make it solely about a lemon
This doesn't even make sense. It isn't the lighting that makes the movie solely about a lemon, it is the fact that all it is about is a lemon. That's just a basic fact about the movie. The lighting has nothing to do with the fact that it is about a lemon. Also, there is no drama in the light moving across the lemon. That is just something you made up about the movie that is not actually there.
Quote:
i'm not speculating. i'm explaining. there's a difference. there is a constrained amount of technique in the film, and it's seven minutes of a portrait, if you may, in film; that's what i'd call it. i like portraiture. i'm easily impressed upon by artistry. i can appreciate it. you don't have to. just stop confusing an explanation for speculation. then we can get somewhere. maybe.
You were the one who brought up speculation:
Quote:
it communicates that film can portray a work that includes no narrative, but can be speculated upon, nevertheless
Anything can be speculated upon. Lemon does not show that non-narrative films can be speculated upon. Basic facts of reality show that anything can be speculated upon. Once again something you just claim about the movie not borne out by the facts of the actual movie.
So you like portraiture, so what? I've already explained to you many times in the past the difference between like/dislike and good/bad, so I'm not even about to get into that again.
Quote:
the public conscious? does that conscious really decide what art is? i beg to differ.
Come on dude. If you're going to read stupid shit into what I say, at least try a little harder.
Quote:
your opinion is subjective, meaning correct is hardly attributable. it's merely 'condemning' that you are.
No. I have provided ample evidence for my opinion. You have claimed things not backed by the actual movie.
Quote:
not at all. first off, the first time-lapse film was probably very impressive, and if it was curated and/or documented in some way, we'd have a good look -- but here is Birth Of A Flower by F. Percy Smith. an early (pioneering) time-lapse film.
You really think Lemon was the first so called 'portraiture' film ever? I highly doubt it.
Quote:
the speculation isn't really relevant. you think it's speculation, when it is in fact not speculation.
Lol. Once again, you were the one who brought up speculation. I was just quoting you.
Quote:
dude, i did. you're just either being intentionally dense, or are simply not getting the words that are a-commin' outta my mouth.
No, I perfectly well get the words that are coming out of your mouth. The problem is those words are not backed up by what is on the screen in Lemon.
Quote:
all artistic quality to be gleaned from film is based on narrative? film is based on pictures....
that's absurd. you've both proven yourselves to be absurd. congrats. 
Come on dude. If you're going to read stupid shit into what I say, at least try a little harder.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Film is not based on pictures. From the very beginning through the present, film is based on narrative. There are niche film movements here and there that claim to be non-narrative, but in reality, they just have bad narratives. Even more visual poetic movies such as 2001 and Days of Heaven are narrative based. Pictures are just used to tell the story, as words are used to tell the story in books.
Quote:
which is why structuralist film is based on the themes it is based on
Is not all film 'based on the themes it is based on'? Is that not just a tautology?
"Structuralist film" is a bogus term. It's just used by people who can't make actually great films like Taxi Driver to label their garbage to make them feel special. If you make Lemon (an apropos title) you have to label it something different so as to impress pretentious people. No one gives a shit about so called 'structuralist film'. I just explained this phenomenon in the arts to you.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
i'd agree that pictures tell a story, but they don't need to to be aesthetically pleasing. if i had Lemon playing in my living room, on repeat, i know i'd find it quite pleasing, albeit a bit cliche. maybe something else, but it'd be visually pleasing at least.
Quote:
Is not all film 'based on the themes it is based on'? Is that not just a tautology?
try not to mistake an explanation for something else. i just said 'that is why' it is based on the themes it's based.
Quote:
"Structuralist film" is a bogus term. It's just used by people who can't make actually great films like Taxi Driver to label their garbage to make them feel special. If you make Lemon (an apropos title) you have to label it something different so as to impress pretentious people. No one gives a shit about so called 'structuralist film'. I just explained this phenomenon in the arts to you.
no. those people whom made those great films take inspiration, oft times, from those filmists who do structural film...look at the likes of George Lucas for example...and read into what films influenced Martin Scorsese.
also, you can call it 'bunk' all you want. no one is trying to convince you to like it.
Quote:
I'm not even going to get into what is and isn't art with you again, but I'll just say an arrowhead is most certainly not art.
wrong. it's curated as history, but it's displayed as art by many person. swords, staffs, miniatures, ect ect. and yes, even arrowheads.
Quote:
Is an old arrowhead art and a new arrowhead not art?
no. a new arrowhead just doesn't have the relevance of the historical element of the piece. is it decorative? is it fine? this will be it's determining factors while discerning what merits is has a work of art. a duplication of an old arrowhead, that could also be art, because of the thought put behind it. it might not be art to you, you might not be all that interested.
Quote:
Just regarding Lemon. What effect does the supposed historical relevance of Lemon have on the artistic quality of it?
it's of a time and place that is historically relevant for the film industry.
Quote:
The lighting has nothing to do with the fact that it is about a lemon. Also, there is no drama in the light moving across the lemon. That is just something you made up about the movie that is not actually there.
wrong. come up with an argument. instead of just 'no, you!' and i'll tell you how your wrong,...again.
Quote:
Anything can be speculated upon. Lemon does not show that non-narrative films can be speculated upon. Basic facts of reality show that anything can be speculated upon. Once again something you just claim about the movie not borne out by the facts of the actual movie.
So you like portraiture, so what? I've already explained to you many times in the past the difference between like/dislike and good/bad, so I'm not even about to get into that again.
you've shown nothing. good/bad? subjective. like/dislike? subjective. what's your point?
and the fact of it nevertheless being able to be speculated upon, is regarding the narrative that can be attributed to a non-narrative work; but other than that it's not relevant. the work doesn't need a narrative.
Quote:
Come on dude. If you're going to read stupid shit into what I say, at least try a little harder.
you said it, not me.
Quote:
No. I have provided ample evidence for my opinion. You have claimed things not backed by the actual movie.
your opinion is not based on evidence, it's based on speculation. i have claimed things based on speculation, but also based on filmic principals, which are what is highlighted in the film.
Quote:
You really think Lemon was the first so called 'portraiture' film ever? I highly doubt it.
no, i said, i don't know what is, but Birth of a Rose is one of the first pioneering time-lapse films. i never said anything about Lemon being anything "first".
Quote:
Lol. Once again, you were the one who brought up speculation. I was just quoting you.
maybe you should stop confusing what relevance speculation has here. the work can stand on it's own without you speculating. same with Taxi Driver.
Quote:
No, I perfectly well get the words that are coming out of your mouth. The problem is those words are not backed up by what is on the screen in Lemon.
sure it is. you just don't want it to be.
Quote:
Come on dude. If you're going to read stupid shit into what I say, at least try a little harder.
you said it, not me. i'm only asking you to clarify your statements.
Edited by akira_akuma (08/30/16 10:57 PM)
|
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'd agree that pictures tell a story, but they don't need to to be aesthetically pleasing. if i had Lemon playing in my living room, on repeat, i know i'd find it quite pleasing, albeit a bit cliche. maybe something else, but it'd be visually pleasing at least.
I never said anything about the pictures needing to be aesthetically pleasing.
Quote:
try not to mistake an explanation for something else. i just said 'that is why' it is based on the themes it's based.
Then that makes even less sense. A tautology is true because it is a tautology, not because of whatever you gave as a supposed explanation for the tautology.
Quote:
no. those people whom made those great films take inspiration, oft times, from those filmists who do structural film...look at the likes of George Lucas for example...and read into what films influenced Martin Scorsese.
So? People can take influence from anything. Scorsese taking influence from a structuralist film doesn't make that film good. Also Lucas? Come on, I thought we were talking about people who made great films.
Quote:
wrong. it's curated as history, but it's displayed as art by many person. swords, staffs, miniatures, ect ect. and yes, even arrowheads.
So? Random people displaying something as art doesn't automatically make it art. Even if I were to grant you that arrowheads are art, they aren't good art.
Quote:
no. a new arrowhead just doesn't have the relevance of the historical element of the piece. is it decorative? is it fine? this will be it's determining factors while discerning what merits is has a work of art. a duplication of an old arrowhead, that could also be art, because of the thought put behind it. it might not be art to you, you might not be all that interested.
Dude, an arrowhead is not art. It is the head of an arrow. A tool made to hunt. Just because people now display it as art doesn't make it art.
Quote:
it's of a time and place that is historically relevant for the film industry.
This is just you once again stating that it is historically relevant. I asked you what effect that historical relevance has on the artistic quality.
Quote:
wrong. come up with an argument. instead of just 'no, you!' and i'll tell you how your wrong,...again.
You just replied to an argument. Fucking hell. The movie is solely about a lemon because that is all that's there on screen. The movement of the light across the lemon does not make the movie solely about a lemon. That is total nonsense. Why don't you come up with an argument for once instead of just projecting.
Quote:
you've shown nothing. good/bad? subjective. like/dislike? subjective. what's your point?
My point is that good/bad is not subjective while like/dislike is subjective, as I've explained to you several times in the past. If you aren't even going to make an attempt to remember the very basics of my arguments, why should I continue to argue with you time and time again?
Quote:
and the fact of it nevertheless being able to be speculated upon, is regarding the narrative that can be attributed to a non-narrative work; but other than that it's not relevant. the work doesn't need a narrative.
This is meaningless.
Quote:
no, i said, i don't know what is, but Birth of a Rose is one of the first pioneering time-lapse films. i never said anything about Lemon being anything "first".
I postulated a time-lapse film and asked if you would pontificate upon it. You said no and gave as a reason that it would not be a pioneering time lapse film. What am I supposed to take from that other than you think Lemon is indeed a pioneering film?
Quote:
maybe you should stop confusing what relevance speculation has here. the work can stand on it's own without you speculating. same with Taxi Driver.
Dude, this is what you do. You latch on to one word within a post and take it out of context and start saying a bunch of ridiculous shit about it as if my arguments hinge on the word. It's especially ridiculous in this situation as you were the one who brought up the word speculation. I didn't even say anything about Taxi Driver besides that it is a narrative film and that it is great. Neither of those things is speculation. They are both true. Why are you truly incapable of having an honest debate?
Quote:
you said it, not me. i'm only asking you to clarify your statements.
Fine:
Quote:
the public conscious? does that conscious really decide what art is? i beg to differ.
No, I was obviously not saying that. I just said that art works that are still known 100 years from now are more likely than no going to be good as the crap gets weeded out. You just took the term "public consciousness" and drew totally unrelated conclusions based on that single term while ignoring the rest of what I said. AKA your typical debate tactics.
Quote:
all artistic quality to be gleaned from film is based on narrative? film is based on pictures....
that's absurd. you've both proven yourselves to be absurd. congrats. 
No, I was obviously not saying that. I just said that both Lemon and Taxi Driver do indeed have narratives and therefore are not "inherently different beasts". You just took the term "narrative" and drew totally unrelated conclusions based on that single term while ignoring the rest of what I said. AKA your typical debate tactics.
Damn, apparently you can only have 15 quotes in a post. I had to cut back a few of my snarky replies.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
I just said that art works that are still known 100 years from now are more likely than no going to be good as the crap gets weeded out.
yet we've seen no evidence of Lemon being as such. only your subjective opinion. good/bad not subjective? that's hilarious. art is based on what is subjective, thus the good and bad you attribute to it is subjective, because there is no objective take on what you attribute as art, because art is subjective. and only subjective. i know you don't want to accept that, but that means nothing but you being hard-headed.
your opinion can be objective. but art is not a matter of regard for objectivity, unless it's propounded that way. art is subjective. beauty and meaning is found in the eye of the beholder, as the saying goes. simply put.
PS: there is no narrative in Lemon. you're being absurd.
there is a narrative to your speculation though. it's well acceptable for you to speculate, but it imparts nothing on the film itself, rather it's your opinion on the film. the film itself has no narrative, it's merely an idea.
Edited by akira_akuma (08/31/16 12:03 AM)
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: art is based on what is subjective, thus the good and bad you attribute to it is subjective, because there is no objective take on what you attribute as art, because art is subjective. and only subjective.
Why don't you read this again. That isn't a legitimate argument; it is circular. You just state the art is subjective and that there is no objectivity because it is subjective. We've been through this before. You are just stating that art is subjective as if true by fiat. You provide no argument for why that is.
Quote:
i know you don't want to accept that, but that means nothing but you being hard-headed.
Uhhh...no. More projection. I'm not going to accept it because you have never provided a single argument as to why it is the case, you just state that it is over and over as if it is a self-evident fact. I on the other hand have given arguments for my positions, and you disregard them out of hand because they don't agree with your positions because you are the one who is hard headed.
Quote:
your opinion can be objective. but art is not a matter of regard for objectivity, unless it's propounded that way. art is subjective. beauty and meaning is found in the eye of the beholder, as the saying goes. simply put.
PS: there is no narrative in Lemon. you're being absurd.
there is a narrative to your speculation though. it's well acceptable for you to speculate, but it imparts nothing on the film itself, rather it's your opinion on the film. the film itself has no narrative, it's merely an idea.
This is just more nonsense pontification. When I say something about the movie, it's just speculation. When you say something about the movie, it's there in the movie. Yet, I provide evidence from the movie and you do not. Fucking get real man. Pretentious ass shit.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
i'm gonna just saying, so i don't have to keep going and going...that you're still not able to comprehend simple things...like you're not speculating narrative...you're speculating speculation. i never said you couldn't speculate. you just can't read.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Lol ok buddy. You don't even know what a simple thing is. You always have to pseudo-intellectually attempt to make everything more complicated than it really is.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
not at all. you can keep strong that opinion all you'd like, though.
when i was referring to one thing, you considered it another. not what i had said, but something else...that's not my fault.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: when i was referring to one thing, you considered it another. not what i had said, but something else...that's not my fault.
Bro, that's all you do. Get some self awareness.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
not at all. i know what i'm referring to when i post, and if i realize i've been mistaken, maybe someone points it out, or whatever, i'll gladly admit it.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Lol ok. You mean like all the times you completely misrepresented what I said and when I called you out you ignored it?
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
no, i didn't misrepresent what you said. perhaps what you meant, but that, after all, needed clarification, clearly, because some of it was nonsense, which i pointed out. also, said pointing out, you ignored.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|

I replied to everything you said.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
yeah, sometimes with nonsense, which was played with and ended up not being able to be worked with, due to it being nonsense. so, essentially, this stuff is chewed up and spit out, as it were.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|

So now you're admitting that I didn't in fact ignore what you said. Interesting.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
you ignored what i said, when you postulated nonsense for a retort, more than once.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
If I replied to what you said, I didn't igore it, however that reply may have been taken by you. I can assure you it wasn't nonsense. I've never once in my life said something that didn't make perfect sense.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
thing is, you have. i pointed it out. you ignored the fact that you made no sense, and just continued to roll with it. also, within the last thread, before you made this here. i'm not keeping score or anything. we can start this over again, if you'd like. you can choose where to start off.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
In the beginning there was a lemon, and it was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the lemon. God said "let there be light", and there was light moving across the face of the lemon. Shit, yeah, you know what, I was wrong. Hollis Frampton is like God and his film is comparable to the creation of the world.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
no one said you had to like it.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|

Always talking about like.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
who cares? you're not discussing what is good or bad. you're just trying to dissuade me from liking something you thing is bad, whilst having no explanation of why it's bad because it's just something you don't like. 
try coming up with a rationale, that's sensible, and explain it to me. if it's sensible, i probably won't question your rationale to try dissuade you, personally. you're allowed your opinion, and i'm sure you can come up with something. just have it make sense please. this is why we're here. because we couldn't really make sense of what was being said.
i explained myself. you explain yourself. why is Lemon "bad"?
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Dude I already explained to you why it's bad. Sorry you couldn't make sense of it, but it was clearly laid out. My posts and points are always clear. I don't obfuscate of pseudo-intellectualize. If you want to see why it's bad, go back and read my other posts.
Quote:
who cares? you're not discussing what is good or bad. you're just trying to dissuade me from liking something you thing is bad, whilst having no explanation of why it's bad because it's just something you don't like. 
This is straight up nonsense. I never once said whether I liked or disliked the movie. I just said it was bad. It's bad because of the reasons I laid out, not because I supposedly dislike it. I wasn't trying to dissuade you from liking it. I couldn't care less if you like it or not. I was just explaining to you why it is bad and why your rationalizations of it were not evidenced by what is actually on screen in the movie.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
you laid out no reasoning whatsoever that isn't completely absurd nonsense.
you've only been making judgements on it based on what you define as good artistic quality, saying that it's not 'good' or 'artistic' or hasn't enough 'good artistic qualities'.
that is all pedantry. it bares no rationale except that you don't like it. i've told you what is 'good', 'relevant', 'artistic', and what other qualities it has. you haven't really told me what is 'bad'. just that it has none of the qualities that are, essentially, found in it. so that's kinda your problem, again, not mine. you're having trouble attributing anything to it concerning any sort of artistic "quality" that it has, because you say it has none in 'good quality' -- yet, you cannot point out where these 'bad qualities' are.
you're just basing your outlook on what you can't find in the film, rather than basing your outlook on what is 'bad', in the movie. try the latter, than get back to me about what's 'bad' in the movie.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Unbelievable.
Quote:
you've only been making judgements on it based on what you define as good artistic quality
Uhhh...yeah, no shit. That's kind of what one does when one critiques a movie. Wtf.
Ok, I've got it now. When you talk about things that are supposedly good in the movie, they are actually in the movie. But when I talk about what is bad about the movie, it's just that I dislike it. This is just straight up sophistry dude. Shameful.
I showed you why the things you claim as good qualities are not actually borne out by what is on screen. What else do you call a movie with a complete lack of good qualities other than bad? The bad quality of the movie is that it has absolutely no good qualities. It is lame and pointless. It says nothing of value and has no enduring artistic quality. It's not even technically innovative as you claim. It doesn't show how light can be used to enhance film. Actually great films that use light to enhance what is on screen show that. What amounts to basically nothing more than an experiment does not show that. Many many films prior to 1969 were using light to enhance what is on screen. Frampton filming light moving across a lemon showed exactly no one anything they didn't already know when they first learned basic lighting techniques. Fucking A man.
|
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.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: you say i claim good and bad are subjective? no.
Quote:
akira_akuma said: good/bad? subjective. like/dislike? subjective.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
i said: Quote:
it communicates how lighting can effect a scene so dramatically as to being able to make it solely about a lemon, and it communicates how minimal filmic qualities can amount to a great amount of technique. also abstract/minimalist/structuralist film plays off the subtleties of technique in film making, and uses usually no actors or characters of any sort. it communicates that film can portray a work that includes no narrative, but can be speculated upon, nevertheless. sorta like how realist films (especially in the French New Wave and Italian neorealist dramas) portray narratives using less narrative techniques, in favor of improvisation and purely filmic technique and aspect.
you then said: Quote:
Who cares about any of the stuff you just claimed the film shows? Seriously. The only people who would care about that are film school dorks. None of that is deep or relevant to anything. Aside from that, you are just reading that stuff into a movie showing a lemon with light moving across it. I mean really. That stuff isn't really in the movie.
you said: Quote:
Anything can be speculated upon. Lemon does not show that non-narrative films can be speculated upon. Basic facts of reality show that anything can be speculated upon. Once again something you just claim about the movie not borne out by the facts of the actual movie.
So you like portraiture, so what? I've already explained to you many times in the past the difference between like/dislike and good/bad, so I'm not even about to get into that again.
so i said: Quote:
you've shown nothing. good/bad? subjective. like/dislike? subjective. what's your point?
and the fact of it nevertheless being able to be speculated upon, is regarding the narrative that can be attributed to a non-narrative work; but other than that it's not relevant. the work doesn't need a narrative.
i was addressing your quick lapse into "the past", which is the past, so please, don't use such wankery as an argument.
when i said good/bad is subjective, i meant aesthetically subjective, but not in the pragmatic sense of loss vs reward. when i said like/dislike was subjective, i was saying just that.
what's your point?
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: what's your point?
That that's retarded.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
fair enough. but you're still kinda making shit up, plainly.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
|
|