| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
razzle them dazzle them Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 4,097 Last seen: 1 year, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Intelligently discuss this movie by Hollis Frampton
| |||||||
|
razzle them dazzle them Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 4,097 Last seen: 1 year, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
I'm moving it from the other thread so as to not piss everyone off.
Quote: Quote: Care to tell us why yourself is wrong? 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. 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. 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.
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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: a lemon can be art. also the filming, itself, and what went into making that continuous shot, which is the film, is 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.
| |||||||
|
razzle them dazzle them Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 4,097 Last seen: 1 year, 2 months |
| ||||||
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. 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. Quote: So? No bearing on the quality of the art. 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. 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. Quote: Good enough for what? To spend 7 minutes watching? Perhaps, but debatable. Quote: It's not good art. 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, 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.
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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/structuralis Quote: no, not quite. but the time and place and the artist might. Quote: you weren't there, and you simply don't know your history. 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. Quote: good enough for what it is. Quote: your opinion is not really mine. Quote: no, because it's been done. we have the film above exemplifying the same point. Quote: yes, i did. there is more than the "rudimentary amount" of intellectual capacity, as i've already explained. address said explanation, or yield.
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,831 |
| ||||||
|
I would say you could call it art but I would also say it's poor art.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
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)
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,831 |
| ||||||
|
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
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
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.
| |||||||
|
razzle them dazzle them Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 4,097 Last seen: 1 year, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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/structuralis 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.
| |||||||
|
razzle them dazzle them Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 4,097 Last seen: 1 year, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
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.
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,831 |
| ||||||
Quote: Right. -------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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: no, just auteurs. ![]() 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. Quote: look who is pontificating now. Quote: the public conscious? does that conscious really decide what art is? i beg to differ. Quote: your opinion is subjective, meaning correct is hardly attributable. it's merely 'condemning' that you are. 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. the speculation isn't really relevant. you think it's speculation, when it is in fact not speculation. 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. 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.
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
-- 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.
| |||||||
|
razzle them dazzle them Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 4,097 Last seen: 1 year, 2 months |
| ||||||
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. 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: It's really not. Quote: 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: You were the one who brought up speculation: 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. Quote: Come on dude. If you're going to read stupid shit into what I say, at least try a little harder. Quote: No. I have provided ample evidence for my opinion. You have claimed things not backed by the actual movie. Quote: You really think Lemon was the first so called 'portraiture' film ever? I highly doubt it. Quote: Lol. Once again, you were the one who brought up speculation. I was just quoting you. 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. Quote: Come on dude. If you're going to read stupid shit into what I say, at least try a little harder.
| |||||||
|
razzle them dazzle them Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 4,097 Last seen: 1 year, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
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: 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.
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: it's of a time and place that is historically relevant for the film industry. Quote: wrong. come up with an argument. instead of just 'no, you!' and i'll tell you how your wrong,...again. 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. Quote: you said it, not me. Quote: 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: 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: 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: sure it is. you just don't want it to be. Quote: you said it, not me. i'm only asking you to clarify your statements. Edited by akira_akuma (08/30/16 10:57 PM)
| |||||||
|
razzle them dazzle them Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 4,097 Last seen: 1 year, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I never said anything about the pictures needing to be aesthetically pleasing. Quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: This is meaningless. Quote: 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: 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: Fine: Quote: 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: 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.
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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)
| |||||||
|
razzle them dazzle them Registered: 04/10/14 Posts: 4,097 Last seen: 1 year, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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: 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.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Peter Frampton covers | 549 | 4 | 08/08/11 04:35 AM by Funjee Jumper | ||
![]() |
Re: Peter Frampton-Do you feel like we do | 555 | 1 | 07/24/00 02:29 AM by Anonymous | ||
![]() |
. | 722 | 6 | 10/27/06 06:41 PM by bobjones | ||
![]() |
Can some one give me a history lesson/ explanation on punk? ( |
3,036 | 21 | 01/10/05 01:16 PM by Shroomism | ||
![]() |
Re: Lost Highway Explanation | 827 | 1 | 07/06/00 08:47 AM by jalien | ||
![]() |
Lemon Jelly! | 681 | 3 | 01/01/03 09:16 AM by Revelation | ||
![]() |
A poem on the subject | 506 | 0 | 09/16/04 07:19 AM by theorganicdomino | ||
![]() |
Can someone explain hooking up a guitar to my computer | 785 | 6 | 01/29/06 07:12 AM by Grav |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, automan, DividedQuantum 1,549 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


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.