Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Music, Art, and Media

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleDirtMcgirt
in a pinch
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2,213
Loc: city of angels
EDITED: Film
    #3518385 - 12/18/04 11:03 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

I hate film.

I personally am very conflicted with calling movies an art form because of my personal bias against them. I hate movies and I might enjoy 1 out of 50 and actually consider a movie "good" in relation to other art forms very rarely if ever. To me movies are bastardizations of dramatic plays. Theater's strength is it puts on a personal interpretation by the director and a bunch of faggy actors of a play for all to see and consider. It is on step away from the actual work. This personal interpretation is what makes art "art". So while the play itself it the piece of art the theater production is the interpretation. A movie is an interpretation of an interpretation. The final product is a movie director and crew's interpretation of a screenplay-which often is an interpretation of a real play (3 steps away from the artwork)or piece of literature(2 steps). If not the screenplay was written specifically for film-it was written to show a plot and force emotion by combining visuals and sound specifically. Therefore, movies leave little for personal interpretation. Even the most artsy movies forces emotion on the viewer instead of the viewer interpreting an art piece and forcing emotion onto the work. This is why I find film to be a second rate art form.

Any comments or deficiencies in my thoughts? Discuss...


--------------------
"And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything."


Edited by DirtMcgirt (12/20/04 08:06 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekadakuda
The Great"Green".......East
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 3 months, 22 days
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3518657 - 12/19/04 12:14 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

not all "film" are movies.

is a picture an art? or even a painting? so why not if that picture/painting moves?


--------------------
The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDirtMcgirt
in a pinch
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2,213
Loc: city of angels
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: kadakuda]
    #3518675 - 12/19/04 12:21 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

ya lost me.

movies, motion pictures, film are all synonyms to me,

is a picture an art? or even a painting? so why not if that picture/painting moves

of course paintings/pictures are art. What I'm talking of is movies i guess or moving pictures tied into a plot combined with a score.

moving pictures if it is visual then I wouldn't disagree with you. Even tied in with dynamic music...but once it is combined with plot then that is where it gets foggy for me.


--------------------
"And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3518968 - 12/19/04 01:23 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

interface with stan brakhage

he avoided plot or music or sound.

do you consider books to not be art?
if you dont, read ullyses or finnegan's wake by joyce and tell me
those are not incredible pieces of art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: Vvellum]
    #3519287 - 12/19/04 02:54 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Is kung-fu an art?

The problem with saying what is and is not art, is that you must first define art. What is art?

I think that art is a creative process, both in perception and conception. It is the material formulation and understanding of each others thoughts. I may be wrong though, because it is tough to define art.

Film is art, in my opinion. But, with every form of art, you have the subjectively good and the subjectively bad. You just have to pick and choose your films. When I am watching a movie/film that I don't like, I analyze it to my liking. It turns watching "Chasing Liberty" from another boring girl romance junk film into a fun time.

A film is only as deep as you make it.

P.S. "Star Wars" is an incredible work of art.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDeusExMachina
Stranger
Registered: 12/18/04
Posts: 4
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3521315 - 12/19/04 06:58 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

A couple of points:

1) Not everything I like is art. I like the news, I like drugs, I like my friends...I don't consider those things to be art in and of themselves. Conversely, just because something is art doesn't mean I like it. You seem to be mistaking opinion for art and art for opinion. That is to say, just because you don't like it (or, more specifically, just because you don't like art with a plot) does not mean it isn't art. Further, you shouldn't have opened a proof of film not being an art with your opinion on film; that should, in theory, have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not film is art.

2) Are interpretations not art? Anything a painter paints is essentially his interpretation of the world. Does this mean that the only true art is that which exists in nature, and everything man made can not be art?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekadakuda
The Great"Green".......East
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 3 months, 22 days
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3521420 - 12/19/04 07:24 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

putting a definition to art is like giving proof of god.

i call art an expression of anyone or anything. can be sounds, sight, feeling, whatever. but im sure tehres a couple billion people who disagree.

to each his/her own.


--------------------
The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAmber_Glow
Sat Chit Anand

Registered: 09/02/02
Posts: 1,543
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: Darcho]
    #3521435 - 12/19/04 07:27 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Darcho said:
The problem with saying what is and is not art, is that you must first define art. What is art?




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3522506 - 12/19/04 11:52 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Maybe you are watching them strangely? When I watch movies I expect some things, ie; good movies simply must be opinionated somewhere to a degree. The opinions and feelings are part of the scene - they're not being imposed on you; you are expected to reflect on the use of emotion, not to create emotion based on your own beliefs.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 10 days
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3522657 - 12/20/04 12:40 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

A movie is an interpretation of an interpretation. The final product is a movie director and crew's interpretation of a screenplay-which often is an interpretation of a real play (3 steps away from the artwork)or piece of literature(2 steps).

That's dumb. The screenplay isn't the only art in film. Film is a mixture of design, photography, narrative, storytelling, and theater. You can manipulate images in film in a way that is impossible in theater, and narrative structure is also far more malleable in a film.

It's silly to think that these things are not also art forms.

If not the screenplay was written specifically for film-it was written to show a plot and force emotion by combining visuals and sound specifically. Therefore, movies leave little for personal interpretation. Even the most artsy movies forces emotion on the viewer instead of the viewer interpreting an art piece and forcing emotion onto the work.

Following this logic, handing someone a pen and a blank piece of paper would be the greatest artistic feat possible. Simply providing additional aspects to a piece of art does not take away from its value at all. It changes the way it is experienced by the viewer, but providing these elements for the viewer does not mean it is a lesser piece of art.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 10 days
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: Phluck]
    #3522664 - 12/20/04 12:42 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

One other note, you should probably take a film studies course, or at least read a film studies textbook before completely brushing off an artform you don't seem to know a whole lot about.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDirtMcgirt
in a pinch
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2,213
Loc: city of angels
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: kadakuda]
    #3523269 - 12/20/04 04:04 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Cool posts, I am the first to wear my bias on my sleeve.

To all who assume I don't consider plot as an artwork in of itself you misread me. Literature, poetry and fiction is an ancient art and a very intense art at that.


This is truer that anything in this thread so far:

Quote:

The problem with saying what is and is not art, is that you must first define art. What is art?

I think that art is a creative process, both in perception and conception. It is the material formulation and understanding of each others thoughts.





Very well said....nobody can dispute that. Some of the greatest philosophers have tried to say what art is from Plato to Derrida and have failed. I will retract my attempt to define art as I am nobody to do so.


My qualm with film is IMO it forces emotion (see my first post) onto the viewer more than other forms. The ambiguity that art forms possess (IE. the distance between the artist's creation of emotion and the viewer's interpretation of it) is what I personally consider as the most important feature of art. Of course this is MY interpretation of art and any dispute is welcomed. I feel movies are a modern version of theater homogenized for the masses as a film's elements don't differ from that of theater. This is what I am conflicted about.


--------------------
"And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDirtMcgirt
in a pinch
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2,213
Loc: city of angels
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: Phluck]
    #3523284 - 12/20/04 04:15 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

narrative structure is also far more malleable in a film




That is bullshit. Sorry. The elements in film are no less malleable than in fiction or theater. Does a writer have less an ability to form a narrative than a filmmaker? You will have to explain your thought on that....



Quote:

One other note, you should probably take a film studies course, or at least read a film studies textbook before completely brushing off an art form you don't seem to know a whole lot about.




You must take me for a complete idiot. I have studied film in coursework and textbook, these are actually part of the reason of my post. To assume these things would help me or anybody else in understanding film is stupid. I currently date/live with a struggling film director here in Los Angeles. This has no bearing on my argument but you seem to assume I have no exposure to film and the film making process.


--------------------
"And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineel_duderino
member
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/22/04
Posts: 407
Loc: South Australia
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3523469 - 12/20/04 08:13 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

I'm not sure which films you are bitching about exactly, but the visual beauty of some film, paired with a beautiful score and good script can evoke great emotions and deep thinking with some movies. To me what makes a great piece of art is the emotion it evokes, it seems film is very proficient at evoking strong emotion and could be considered a GREATER form of art in my opinion. Many films have plenty of room for interpretation and don't FORCE emotion on you, but evoke them (um.. im trying to make a distinction that probably doesn't exist :p)

I have heard many a film reviewer and yuppy scum INTERPERETING film. I think it's unfair to discredit all the artists involved in the film making process by saying the work created is a lesser form of art because you feel there's less room for interpretation.

I mean sure LOTR was an incredibly long ass boring as fuck movie and on many levels a piece of shit (just the boring level really) but it was a pieace of art on so many levels. Most of all just the visual beauty. How can you say that all the effort the set and costume designers put in and the special effects fellas created a lesser form of art when the films are absolutely beautiful.

I'll probably get paid out when i say American Beauty was well a beautiful film, just because it won so many awards and got so much attention and is overrated, blah blah blah, but well its a beautiful piece of art. Same with road to Perdition, the director of photography was great in both flicks (forgot his name) smae with the music.

I'm sorry but i believe some of the coolest paintings just say what they say and even 'force' emotion on you. It's the abstract artsy crap that needs to be interpereted so much by yuppy scum wanting to lift their status in the social elite.

Tell me the scripts of Charlie Kaufman would work nearly as well in a novel or in the theatre. I mean sure they could make a great novel but they just work so well in film.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemoosehead
poop deck
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/04/02
Posts: 9,737
Loc: pnw
Last seen: 19 hours, 24 minutes
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3523538 - 12/20/04 08:52 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

I think I see where your comming from. I disagree, but I dont think its a right or wrong thing, just opinion. Ive always thought of film as art. My definition of art though, is very very loose, and if some one hawks up a cool lookin loogey on the wall, that, I guess, could be art, entertaining or shit.

I am wondering though, what you think of films such as Baraka, Fantasia, The Jungle book or Psycho. I cant see recreating the art in the first three movies under any other form. I guess you could just write it off as entertainment and put it in the same category as a game show. But I think one of the main goals of art is to instill some emotion, reaction or feeling. Like in psycho, at the end when bates busts into the basement (I LOVE horror by the way), that scene is amazing. It took a combination of aspects, the director, the make up people blah, the lighting, and the ACTOR especially to pull off this scene and creat the disired effect. Not sure if thats a good example but its a scene is cinema that sticks out in my mind. I realize that Alot of what I just explained could just as easily be put into a play. And better, or worse, its different. Film, in my opinion is not, what, this much further away from core art than a play. It is just anouther form, that is limited in some ways, and very flexible in others. Just like Pencil to Paint. Umm, I hope im making sense. Right now is where I conclude with my final point, but Im not sure if I have one. I realize alot of what is being made today is not ment to be art, its ment to make money. But theres alot of people out there, as im sure your more than well aware of, that want to create something new.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDirtMcgirt
in a pinch
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2,213
Loc: city of angels
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: moosehead]
    #3525279 - 12/20/04 08:32 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

I changed the title of this thread to just Film as y'all have done a pretty good job of disputing my first assumption of "second rate artform"


My arguement does overlook the photography of film and the visual beauty that accompanies them. And film score can be powerful in setting a scene and producing emotion. However, in relation to plot, are these necessary?

This is the forced emotion I'm taking about. Shouldn't the plot stand alone and produce its own emotion through irony, tragedy, sublimity or whatever? Does the addition of a score or cinimitography serve as anything more than a crutch or distraction in referance to the plot of a story and the emotion it is suppoosed to produce? True, they often are beautiful in of themselves but what's the point of making plot focused movies?

Wouldn't it serve film better if the general focus was more on the visual and musical beauty (as these, IMO, are what film is best suited for)of a film instead of a plot?

I realize these are all musings of opinion and any answer would also be opinion but I still ask the questions.


--------------------
"And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3525380 - 12/20/04 09:22 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Films that tend to focus on visual and musical beauty are most often documentaries or musicals: "Microcosmos" or "Fantasia" for example.

I think that a plot offers more possibilities to film. If "The Matrix" didn't have a plot, well, it wouldn't be a movie, and we would have never been able to enjoy such a groundbreaking film. A plot allows opinions and philosophies to be incorporated into film, which, in my opinion, enhance the product. Storytelling is an art; literature is an art, so why not incorporate them into film?

Film is an artform in itself, but it is also a combination of other artforms: cinematography, musical composition, storytelling, acting, CG effects, fashion, cosmetology, etc... . I am sure there is more, too. The great thing about this is that each artform can be extracted from a film, to produce additional art: soundtracks with original movie scores, posters, scripts adapted to novel, etc... .

Films without plot are good, and films with plots are good. Likewise, films without music are good, and films with music are good. There are endless possibilities with film, and there will be more so as technology develops.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMycoJunkie
Psilanthropist

Registered: 11/04/04
Posts: 963
Loc: .4merica
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: Darcho]
    #3525397 - 12/20/04 09:27 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Art is an opinion not a fact.

Yes, shitty movies are much more common than good ones.

What is your point?


--------------------
:cussing::whip:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekadakuda
The Great"Green".......East
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 3 months, 22 days
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3525502 - 12/20/04 10:16 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

"And film score can be powerful in setting a scene and producing emotion. However, in relation to plot, are these necessary? "

thats the key right there! that made me click as to what your saying.

i think the closest i can come at present is saying that teh stopping of these is what opens one mind to different possibilities. for example say in a space movie at the end when all is about to be discovered in some cool interplanetary computer video thing it stops jsut before the question (whic is more or less teh plot) is answered. i think that visual is sort of a setup for the audio. perhaps. dotn know but ya got me thinking about it...kinda interesting point.


--------------------
The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 10 days
Re: Film = second rate artform [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #3527097 - 12/21/04 11:14 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

That is bullshit. Sorry. The elements in film are no less malleable than in fiction or theater. Does a writer have less an ability to form a narrative than a filmmaker? You will have to explain your thought on that....

I meant than in theater. In theater it's pretty close to impossible to do something like a closeup of a hammer on the floor, and a dead body next to it. You're forced to spell out a lot more things.

Authors use all kinds of tricks to provoke emotions from their readers, just because they have to do this without the visual element, or music, doesn't mean that it's superior.

This has no bearing on my argument but you seem to assume I have no exposure to film and the film making process.

The fact that the thread was titled "Film is stupid" or something like that, and the fact that you left out any notion that photography and design are artforms in the initial post didn't make it seem like you had spent a lot of time learning about film.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Music, Art, and Media

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* your top 5 films of 2004 *DELETED* ricochet 576 1 01/05/05 06:28 PM
by Todcasil
* Film: A History of Violence (Cronenberg) Lakefingers 1,073 12 10/30/11 08:57 PM
by FoxDie
* top ten films
( 1 2 all )
Positronius 1,779 21 12/06/04 04:07 PM
by zachary
* One of my student films, finally uploaded.... YellowSubmarine 829 8 09/25/03 04:41 AM
by YellowSubmarine
* independent films
( 1 2 all )
CleverName 2,998 30 10/29/02 12:42 PM
by evolvingfucker
* A Short Film Dedicated To All Of The Members At Shroomery.org cognitiveshift 1,109 10 09/14/07 01:53 PM
by herfenara
* need ideas for a 4 minute film about free speech for scholarship samueljackson 1,009 18 10/01/05 11:30 AM
by IAmTheWalrus212
* Another new great jackie Chan Serious Film mjshroomer 428 0 08/02/04 02:06 AM
by mjshroomer

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, automan, sui, DividedQuantum
2,247 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.104 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.