James Steven Beverly Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Indication of the number of people who think Spielberg is a genuis. I don't know why people involved in the arts seem to think art has to be reserved for the select few. Van Gogh's The Starry Night is one of the most known paintings on the planet and loved by almost everyone who's seen it. That doesn't mean it isn't art. I admire the HELL out of Jerry Brucheimer and happen to believe he is a GREAT artist. What, is he suppose ti be penialized because his films are popular? The whole idea of art is to ellisit emotion from an audeance and he does that in spades. I would suggest you stop being so elletist in your concept of what art is and give the devil his due. After all Casablanca and the Maltese Falcon were popular when they came out and their still popular today. Perhaps within the context of the time, gladitorial games were art I mean after all it takes a great sense of the theartical to stage a full naval sea battle in the middle of Rome. We find it barbaric by OUR standards but at the time, given their standards of morality, it WAS art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaan Shenberger Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 old navy and the gap create the greatest fashion designs because they sell the most clothes and are most popular with the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 (edited) Most of those clothes are copies of designer lables redesign to be appealling and affordable to the general public, therefore, yes there is art in thier designs. Not all fashion has to be coature just as not all film has to be iconic masterpieces. Both Spielberg and Brucheimer have made iconic masterpieces that have had enormous audeance appeal. They should not be dimissed by the art community simply because people went to SEE their movies? Black Hawk Down, Remeber the Titians and Glory Road, are all great movies and you want to talk Iconic what about Flashdance? Edited March 11, 2006 by Capt.Video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 The whole idea of art is to ellisit emotion from an audeance and he does that in spades. So, if I shoot a slide of my bottom, and project in in cinema for 10 seconds. Is that art? It would cause a lot of emotions in the audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 (edited) Well, speaking of Bruckheimer, let's take Gone in 60 seconds as an example.. why did people like that movie? Well it has expensive cars, it has an attractive blonde woman, it has a bunch of people doing the forbiden thing. So in a nutshell it has pretty cars going really fast, it has sex, and it has violence. Of course, so that the movie appears less shalow, there is an excuse to all the stealing going on: they are being blackmailed. Now while the movie was done professionally in terms of production, cinematography etc. , all it really takes to bring that to the screen is money, you pay a bunch of people to do the obvious. People like the obvious. To me art is all about that which is not obvious. In fact I'd call it definition of art: showing of the not-obvious Edited March 11, 2006 by Filip Plesha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 I'm sorry, that argument is ubserd and I have no answer for it. Besides what makes you think a 10 second movie of you ass wold alissette any emotion at all? Maybe most people wouldn't care after all most of them have seen an ass before (no pun intended, I don't want this to degrade into a verbal brawl) but it might BE art under the right circumstances, it just depends. If a painting done with elephant dung or a cucifix in a jar of pee or a Mapelthorrpe photo can be concidered art why not your ass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Because it carries no message, no vision. It's just wierd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 (edited) Well, speaking of Bruckheimer, let's take Gone in 60 seconds as an example.. why did people like that movie? Well it has expensive cars, it has an attractive blonde woman, it has a bunch of people doing the forbiden thing. So in a nutshell it has pretty cars going really fast, it has sex, and it has violence. Of course, so that the movie appears less shalow, there is an excuse to all the stealing going on: they are being blackmailed. Now while the movies was done professionally in terms of production, cinematography etc. , all it really takes to bring that to the screen is money, you pay a bunch of people to do the obvious. People like the obvious. To me art is all about that which is not obvious. In fact I'd call it definition of art: showing of the not-obvious Where you see just sex, speed and violence I see a man battling his obcession, the very definition a a classic plot that has bee used sense Homer's time. What could be more artistic than that? Memphis must posses Elinore that is the core of the piece the rest is just window dressing to enhance the expirence. How many movies with sex and violence but without a great story do you still remember. Hell, Hamlet has sex and violence and appealed to it's audeance, does that mean it's not art? Because it carries no message, no vision. It's just wierd Exactly my point. that is something you can't say about the films of Spielberg and Bruckheimer. Edited March 11, 2006 by Capt.Video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 The intention is what defines art in the end. Do you trully believe that Jerry was sitting alone in his room when he was a young man thinking: oh one day I must become a producer so that I can make a point to the world about a man battling his obessions. ooor... did he think: Being a producer of hollywoods most commercial films is the way to profit, so let's make commercial films. And if he is such an artist, then why is he a producer? That's like being a lawyer to express your own philosophy. Exactly my point. that is something you can't say about the films of Spielberg and Bruckheimer. Is it message... or is it a message so beaten to death that everyone gets it so you can succesfully repack it and sell it in large quantities? Let's face it. The CG dinosaurs made Jurassic park, and the cars made 60 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 (edited) there have been a lot of movie with animated dinosaurs and fast cars, how many ofthem do you remember? I'm amazed you don't think producers should be considered artists. Without producers there would be no art evern if the director/writer is also his own producer. They're the guys who decide what director would be right for any given peice, what actors can do the role what production designer has the vision to see how it should look and what cinematographer has the style to bring it to life. He has more to do with what the film will be than anyone else. Artistically, his decisions have more influence over the final picture than anyone else incuding the director. That's art my friend. If you think Jerry sat around his office thinking what's a good way to make money, then you sould know he would have decided the film industry ain't it. Of course he thinks about the artist aspects of film making. There are a hell of a lot easier ways to make money as you probably already know. Art is what drives him. You can see it in his work, but just because he want's to continue to make movies and therefore MUST pay attention to the bottom line, doesn't make him a phillistine. Nobody wants to make a movie that noone will see. Do you? He has to make films for mass apeal because this is the film business and he is GOOD at it. You don't think that gives him artistic satisfaction? In every interview I've seen he stresses quality and the great joy of being a filmmaker. He is an artist my friend. He's just more successful than you or I. Edited March 11, 2006 by Capt.Video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted March 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 11, 2006 Indication of the number of people who think Spielberg is a genuis. I don't know why people involved in the arts seem to think art has to be reserved for the select few. Van Gogh's The Starry Night is one of the most known paintings on the planet and loved by almost everyone who's seen it. That doesn't mean it isn't art. You're actually proving the point you're arguing against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 You're actually proving the point you're arguing against. Maybe I'm missing something, How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted March 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 11, 2006 They're the guys who decide what director would be right for any given peice, what actors can do the role what production designer has the vision to see how it should look and what cinematographer has the style to bring it to life. He has more to do with what the film will be than anyone else. Artistically, his decisions have more influence over the final picture than anyone else incuding the director. That's art my friend. Hiring someone because they are known to be good at what they do has nothing to do with art. Smart business maybe, but not art. If you think Jerry sat around his office thinking what's a good way to make money, then you sould know he would have decided the film industry ain't it. Really? When did he tell you that? Because he's certainly made plenty of money in this business. For you to say he could have made more money in some other business is a bit shocking. It would be quite an accomplishment to make as much money than him in ANY business. He has to make films for mass apeal because this is the film business and he is GOOD at it. So he "has" to make films for mass appeal because it's "the film business" and he's "good at it"? You can't be serious. Jerry Bruckheimer (that's how's it's spelled, by the way) doesn't HAVE to do anything. He can make $10,000 short films if he wants, or quit the business all together. He's made enough money for 10 lifetimes. I don't doubt that he enjoys what he does, but I bet if you asked him if he considered himself an artist he would say no. I certainly don't begrudge him making the movies he does, or even that people enjoy them, but I think it's important to realize that this guy is just a business man, plain and simple. Calling him an artist is offensive to real artists. And arguing that Bruckheimer is the "true" artist behind all his movies is just a ridiculous claim. Maybe I'm missing something, How so? Because you're arguing that since Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is very popular that that proves your point that art can be popular, which was never argued against to begin with. The statement you were arguing against was that it takes time for people to really find and love art, that it doesn't just happen in the first weekend it's shown to the public. Van Gogh's paintings were not a smash hit right away, it took time. You're making a very circular argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Being a producer of hollywoods most commercial films is the way to profit, so let's make commercial films. If he is such an artist, then why is he a producer? That's like being a lawyer to express your own philosophy. Okay let's bash producers if we must... They're easy targets---they're slimey, snakey, chessy, ugly, liars, perv, theives and a bunch of other things And all of us know one or two producers we don't really like... It's called the film industry for a reason...it's a multi-billion dollar industry It's just like the car industry or the steel industry or etc... which means it must make money... We all love the idea of art working outside of the real world parameters suchas politics, religion, and money But it doesn't. Film is a particular artform because unlike painting or writing it requires two things that change it A factory enviroment that involves the collaborations of hundreds of people & tons of money. So we can't judge film on the standards we judge a painting. And what we're really arguing is not whether it's art or not--because all film is art (Yes even Gone in 60 Seconds is art) What you're really arguing is whether it's good art or bad art, which is a matter of taste and that's personal. Ultimately the success of any work of art is whether it reaches the audience it intends to reach So if that's case Gone in 60 Seconds which was seen by millions of thrill-seeking viewers Is more successful than the art film some college student did but never release because they felt ashamed. So what I'm saying stop bashing Producers Jerry Bruckheimer is a good producer he makes movies that are generally successful And he makes a ton of movies (which is what all of us want to do.) I might not like some of his movies but he's made enough I must have like one or two... So let's leave the producers to be.... Somebody's gotta stand up to the producers. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaan Shenberger Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 http://imdb.com/title/tt0257568/fullcredits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 (edited) Ah Mr. Grimmett, Let's take these one at a time shall we. Firstly, Hiring the right people for the job is the definition of art as a producer. If all he had to do was hire someone good then why not use the same director on every film? It's like using the right color in a painting or the right model for a scuptor. Secondly, He told me that in the interviews I've seen as I mentioned before and the reason he did make as much money as he did was because he's a genius at what he does and an artist. Thirdly, if he made enough money for 10 lifetime then why keep working at something he doesn't love and need to do? He does in deed love what he does otherwise he wouldn't do it for exactly the reason you just stated. Saying that this guy is "just a businessman" and not a "real artist " only proves you have a very limited view of what art is. If you find the mantle of artist offencive went discribing Mr. Bruckheimer (Thank you so much for he spelling I just copied it for annother post) then I would say it's your problem after all what is a "Real Artist" anyway? Is Van Gogh more of a real artist than Peter Max? Is Beverly Sills more of a real artist than Aretha Franklin? Is Balanchine more of a real artist than Bob Fosse? Art is subjective which means artists are deemed to be so by the public. Bruckheimer IS an artist Fourthly, My point about the Starry Night was that it was not Dissmissed as art simply because it was popular which seems to be what your doing with Spielberg and Bruckheimer. And finally Jaan, My old friend, everyone knows Bruckheimer made Kagaroo Jack. Not every stone you find is gonna be a diamond, sometimes even the best make a mistake or two but if most, or even ONE peice, becomes Iconic, then you truely are an artist. Edited March 11, 2006 by Capt.Video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 all this leads me to my next question: do you consider porn to be true art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Carreon Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 It hurts my head when I come onto this site and I see a thread like this... Are we really debating whether Bruckheimer is an artist?!? Who cares!!! Last time I checked this is a cinematography forum...and when I see someone's 450 word (self-masturbatory) essay arguing for or against "Producers"...it makes me sad... Take the 9 hours you spent writing your thesis and go shoot something...or read a book... I come on this website to learn...and the only thing I learn from a post like this is that people are stupid...and I already knew that... Thanks, John P.S. I really liked "Kangaroo Jack" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 ARTIST (art'ist) -------- (n) A person who practises or is skilled in an art; a person who has the qualities of imagination and taste required in art; a painter or draughstman; a performer; a person good at a particular activity; a learned man, someone who professes magic, astrology, alchemy, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted March 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 11, 2006 Indication of the number of people who think Spielberg is a genuis. I don't know why people involved in the arts seem to think art has to be reserved for the select few. Van Gogh's The Starry Night is one of the most known paintings on the planet and loved by almost everyone who's seen it. That doesn't mean it isn't art. Ever see a Van Gogh up close? I mean REALLY close? I've seen two with the freedom to view them from any distance, including so close that my nose was one inch from the surface of the painting, most recently, "Portrait of Alexander Reid". There is a level of three dimensionality, color, and detail up close to a Van Gogh that would be very difficult to translate into words. And yet his paintings can be viewed in poorly reproduced prints and still recognized as great art and wonderful images. I think all great art, including movies, is like the above: the creators are working on such intimate levels of detail and understanding that "everyone" gets it, the student who's barely beginning to become aware of art, the sophisticate who understands the work more fully, the creator's fellow artist who is very aware of the intricate nature of the techniques used, and the public, who don't know art, only what they like. The reason Stephen Spielberg is Stephen Spielberg is that he IS aware of all the detailed work that creates a motion picture as a work of art. I think his only weakness is he isn't quite crazy enough to transcend his art form totally, like Stanley Kubrick and Vincent Van Gogh were. But that's another subject and a book that needs to be written, "Insanity and Great Art". Edmond, OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Well I still think people with different levels of mental awareness discover different layers of art. How do you even begin to present artistic insight into something as complicated as relativity of reality or nature of human consciousness to someone who can't even visualise a box without seeing or touching it. I've seen a lot of people who can't watch films if they are not porn or comedy. Otherwise it's boring to them. Some people just have no imagination, so you can't reach them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 You didn't like ET? How could you not like ET? Anyway he has a talent for making epic adventures, which by nature are going to be a little over the top, but I never found that, in any way, distracting. In Schindler's list there were some wonderful, subtle moments. You may personally not care for his work, but if box office is any indication, you have to admit, you are vastly in the minority. ---'ET' is a syrupy KID'S movie. Maybe if I saw it when I was ten years old. Being a little over the top is not the same as being sacchrine and emotionally manipulative. Larry Olivier is often over the top, but one doesn't need a shot of insulin after watching one of his performances. Quantity and quality are not the same thing. I don't watch WWF or American Idol either. While one can be in the vast minority, which doesn't sound like that small of a minority; one cannot be VASTLY in the minority. ---LV http://imdb.com/title/tt0257568/fullcredits ---It only made 10% profit in 4 months. That hardly qualifies as art. ---LV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 ""---'ET' is a syrupy KID'S movie. Maybe if I saw it when I was ten years old. Being a little over the top is not the same as being sacchrine and emotionally manipulative."" :blink: "...sacchrine and emotionally manipulative"? ET is not a kid's movie. It's a human movie. Do I detect the pungent stench of arthouse-grade ignorance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 ET is not a kid's movie. It's a human movie Well it's not a movie only for kinds. It's one of these family movies for kids and their parents. Sort of like disney movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 That also doesn't disqualify it from being art. many so called "Artists" have this slanted view that "Real Art " has to be cutting edge or dark or wierd. Art can simply be beautiful and warm and inviting. Is anyone so jaded that they think Norman Rockwell isn't an artist because his work is family oriented? The definision of what art is that someone posted in this thread works for me, Flip. although I usually go with the old quote, " I don't know WHAT art is, but I know it when I see it.". I can't remember who said that, but they were right. As for the gentleman who is upset because we're dicussing whether Jerry is an artist or not and only wants to learn, then Dude, noone said you HAD to read this thread. There is plenty of other disscussions here, Read one of the others. I'm sure you'll find something you like. Other than that I don't know what to tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now