more 'fine art' focused?

[Andrzej Ford]

part of private message David suggested i post in this thread to give my work more understanding and seem less stupid. Link to work is in the second quote.

 

 

"I also wanted to give you my concept behind 'unwitnessed' and also mention there are 3 mistakes. Firstly there are 2 scenes where you see the mans head which aren't supposed to be there; and i **(obscenity removed)**ed up the audio.

 

Anyway the idea is about injecting life into objects and detracting it from humans. So the objects are supposed to be invading a location currently inhabited by other objects; because the concept of invasion is a very animalistic/human thing. And the man is supposed to be losing his humanity by performing a task that has repetitive elements and following orders, similar to an object/machine.

 

After discussing it with tutors/friends i maybe need to rethink the analogies to make the video clearer to viewers. But i still think it's interesting to say the least?"

 

 

 

 

I agree... and I watched his 'fine art' and tho I was courteous (some would say sympathetic)... I still don't get what the hell he is doing! :blink:

 

See This Thread

[Paul Bruening]

Our society already, widely accepts the relationship between art and movies. We have common phrases applied to it: "Art film, art movie house, art movie circuit." But the OP's question was, as I understand it, can movies be considered fine art? I would like to make a distinction. Yes, film and video have been used in art in presentations that can clearly be labeled as "art" and not mistaken for anything else. In the same way cadmium is used in the finest red oil paints and can be found on many of the greatest paintings since the period of Impressionism. That doesn't make my neighbor's red painted barn a work of fine art.

 

Movies as a presentation are closer to the dramatic and theatrical arts than anything fine like painting or sculpture. They are a populace medium, even the "art movies." I feel pretty strongly saying that they are too common a thing to be classified as "fine art."

[David Rakoczy]

part of private message David suggested i post in this thread to give my work more understanding and seem less stupid.

 

I never thought your were stupid. Esoteric yes. Stupid no. :)

 

Has anyone else watched Unwitnessed? The See This Thread above will lead you to it. Taking a psychedelic might help. Of course with the explanation it takes a bit of the edge off compared to a raw unprepped viewing such as what I experienced. I could not figure out what the hell he was doing.

[Andrzej Ford]

Our society already, widely accepts the relationship between art and movies. We have common phrases applied to it: "Art film, art movie house, art movie circuit." But the OP's question was, as I understand it, can movies be considered fine art? I would like to make a distinction. Yes, film and video have been used in art in presentations that can clearly be labeled as "art" and not mistaken for anything else. In the same way cadmium is used in the finest red oil paints and can be found on many of the greatest paintings since the period of Impressionism. That doesn't make my neighbor's red painted barn a work of fine art.

 

Movies as a presentation are closer to the dramatic and theatrical arts than anything fine like painting or sculpture. They are a populace medium, even the "art movies." I feel pretty strongly saying that they are too common a thing to be classified as "fine art."

 

Most likely through experience you have explained my point better than any of my attempts; and i don't question whether movies can be considered as art, because if i did i'd be questioning my own art in a very negative way. All i genuinely wanted to know is if there was another site like this that was maybe more 'art film' orientated. However because i enjoy and appreciate this site, maybe i should continue with posting work/ideas here but give a warning that my work is 'art film' and maybe explain the concept aswell.

[Paul Bruening]

Most likely through experience you have explained my point better than any of my attempts; and i don't question whether movies can be considered as art, because if i did i'd be questioning my own art in a very negative way. All i genuinely wanted to know is if there was another site like this that was maybe more 'art film' orientated. However because i enjoy and appreciate this site, maybe i should continue with posting work/ideas here but give a warning that my work is 'art film' and maybe explain the concept aswell.

 

Five years of art school.

[Paul Bruening]

because i enjoy and appreciate this site, maybe i should continue with posting work/ideas here but give a warning that my work is 'art film' and maybe explain the concept aswell.

 

Please, do keep posting. There is a tendency towards the technical, here. I have enjoyed and appreciated that a great deal. I have learned so much from the people here, as well. But, it wouldn't hurt us to confront our mediums from aesthetic, theoretical and abstract perspectives. Please, continue to post and throw whatever suits your fancy at us. Wrestling with your ideas is our challenge and pleasure. If you can get enough activity in this area going, a separate forum category could be made just to hash out these kinds of ideas; a thread where strong opinion and emotion could be accepted as inherent in the process of working out these kinds of topics.

[Andrzej Ford]

Please, do keep posting. There is a tendency towards the technical, here. I have enjoyed and appreciated that a great deal. I have learned so much from the people here, as well. But, it wouldn't hurt us to confront our mediums from aesthetic, theoretical and abstract perspectives. Please, continue to post and throw whatever suits your fancy at us. Wrestling with your ideas is our challenge and pleasure. If you can get enough activity in this area going, a separate forum category could be made just to hash out these kinds of ideas; a thread where strong opinion and emotion could be accepted as inherent in the process of working out these kinds of topics.

 

 

I will definitely keep posting here, i love the help i've been given with technical issues. And the discussion that has arose in this thread has strengthened my possibly reactions to questions in my interviews. But yes a new category/area even if its a subtext inside students or at the bottom of the list based on what you just said would be amazing.

[Scott Bryant]

What is your definition of art cinema, and are you saying that all of his work fits into that category?

 

Well, i'm obviously not going to try to define art and I'm not restricting art in cinema to the french new wave or avant garde films etc etc. Any medium is going to have work that falls into categories people would say are art and others would say are worthless or whatever. Not to say that I don't believe there is objective beauty or understanding (as I don't subscribe to the post-modern world view), but I don't have the energy, knowledge, or want to try to work up a universal definition.

 

I also am not saying all his films fall into this category. I haven't even seen all of his films (just October, Strike, and Potempkin), but i don't think it is unreasonable to say that artists have works that can fall into different categories. As you know, he, Pudovken, and others put a lot of work into the way film is edited, and the messages, ideas, and feelings film can bring about. I think this consideration of creating a bigger message is something that qualifies it for art (even if the message of the film is that there is no message). I'm also not trying to make it seem that I am an expert or anything, fyi.

[David Rakoczy]

It seems I am the only one who has actually watched 'Unwitnessed'.. therefore I am the only one who knows what the heck he is talking about :lol: :P

 

...besides Andrzej of course! :lol:

[Bruce Taylor]

This is an interesting and unexpected thread. I think fine art often gets a bad rap simply because of its name. Like it's more "fine" than "regular" art. That's not the case, it's just its name, a way to identify it shorthand. I once had a ceramist oversimplify it this way: if you can use my work to hold a cup of coffee it's pottery, if it has no practical use, it's fine art. It doesn't mean the "useless" piece has more or less value than the coffee cup, it just has a different purpose.

 

I think one reason you may be finding it hard to find specific publications that discuss fine art using film or video as a medium is that in the fine art world film and video live in the same pool as performance art, conceptual art and to a lesser degree painting and sculpture. Fine art moving pictures are generally out of the realm of what we generally think of as "the movies." As Paul pointed out, movies as we normally think of them are a theatrical art. We suspend disbelief and accept that what we see in front of us is the real world playing itself out. That's a useful convention for theater arts, but it is generally not applicable to contemporary fine art. A recording of a conceptual art performance is a limited historical record of something that existed at another time and space, it isn't a representation of the performance experience nor does it pretend to be (Chris Burden's Trans-Fixed as an example). Or take Warhol's hours and hours of the Empire state building or a man sleeping. This is more like a moving painting or even sculpture, it is certainly something entirely different from going to the cinema.

Two of my favorite works that make some statements about what fine art is are Magritte's painting of a pipe titled "This is not a pipe" and Duchamp's sculpture "Fountain," which was a mass produced ceramic urinal hung in a gallery. Magritte's lesson to me was to remember that art is a representation, it is not the actual thing (though this was challenged by conceptual artists later, but the idea holds true most of the time). Duchamp hung his mass produced urinal on the wall of a gallery and called it art, because he said it was. That forces the viewer to consider what art is, and pushes the boundaries far from representational concepts.

 

Back in my art daze I got most of my news about fine art film and video from fine art publications, I would look there.

 

 

Bruce Taylor

www.indi35.com

[Mike Lary]

I think fine art often gets a bad rap simply because of its name. Like it's more "fine" than "regular" art. That's not the case, it's just its name, a way to identify it shorthand.

 

That's not true. The definition of the word 'fine' means of exceptional quality. A fine wine, a fine cheese, and a fine painting are of a higher quality than the majority. In common usage, 'fine art' means 'of higher artistic merit' or 'art for arts sake'. Historically it's been used as a way to exclude other art forms from being exhibited in galleries and influencing the masses. Now it's being used to invalidate large volumes of work within a medium.

 

We suspend disbelief and accept that what we see in front of us is the real world playing itself out. That's a useful convention for theater arts, but it is generally not applicable to contemporary fine art.

 

That's because the contemporary definition is rigid and short sighted, as it needs to be because it's used to validate dead art forms. An older definition of 'fine art' is roughly "art that is created for the purpose of showing the artist's creativity or to lead the viewer's mind and imagination toward the finer things". Suspension of disbelief fits in there quite nicely, as does all the craftsmanship and ingenuity required to make it happen. That's the power that cinema has over other art forms. Film that is stripped down to a non-immersive, two dimensional experience that aims to confront the viewer intellectually might be an 'art film', but it's by no means fine. If there is any subset of an art that is to be considered fine, it must be the one that utilizes the full potential of the medium.

[Andrzej Ford]

This is an interesting and unexpected thread. I think fine art often gets a bad rap simply because of its name. Like it's more "fine" than "regular" art. That's not the case, it's just its name, a way to identify it shorthand. I once had a ceramist oversimplify it this way: if you can use my work to hold a cup of coffee it's pottery, if it has no practical use, it's fine art. It doesn't mean the "useless" piece has more or less value than the coffee cup, it just has a different purpose.

 

I think one reason you may be finding it hard to find specific publications that discuss fine art using film or video as a medium is that in the fine art world film and video live in the same pool as performance art, conceptual art and to a lesser degree painting and sculpture. Fine art moving pictures are generally out of the realm of what we generally think of as "the movies." As Paul pointed out, movies as we normally think of them are a theatrical art. We suspend disbelief and accept that what we see in front of us is the real world playing itself out. That's a useful convention for theater arts, but it is generally not applicable to contemporary fine art. A recording of a conceptual art performance is a limited historical record of something that existed at another time and space, it isn't a representation of the performance experience nor does it pretend to be (Chris Burden's Trans-Fixed as an example). Or take Warhol's hours and hours of the Empire state building or a man sleeping. This is more like a moving painting or even sculpture, it is certainly something entirely different from going to the cinema.

Two of my favorite works that make some statements about what fine art is are Magritte's painting of a pipe titled "This is not a pipe" and Duchamp's sculpture "Fountain," which was a mass produced ceramic urinal hung in a gallery. Magritte's lesson to me was to remember that art is a representation, it is not the actual thing (though this was challenged by conceptual artists later, but the idea holds true most of the time). Duchamp hung his mass produced urinal on the wall of a gallery and called it art, because he said it was. That forces the viewer to consider what art is, and pushes the boundaries far from representational concepts.

 

Back in my art daze I got most of my news about fine art film and video from fine art publications, I would look there.

 

 

Bruce Taylor

www.indi35.com

 

This is probably the most to my point i was trying to get, 'fine art' is abit of an outdated and exclusionary term but i really didnt mean it in that way. And the idea of lack of use, derives completely from Duchampian ideas (who made movies with Man Ray) is a very valid idea, because it can be argued that the whole point of conceptual art is to express an idea, if the 'art' then has a use aswell it is almost always detracting from the idea of the piece of art. And yes alot of video art is often seen as documentation/records but then the videos of Stan Brakhage which i urge any filmmaker to watch are not the same at all, his pieces consisted of practices such as placing moth wings/leaves inbetween two sheets of clear film stock, then presenting that; or other examples are painting straight onto the film and i am pretty sure he did some work for Disney but then was soon regarded as too abstract. "Zen for Film" by Nam June Paik is also a great example of film art where he projected a completely clear film for approx 23' and his concept behind this was the whole idea/beauty behind being able to project vision then the art was also considered as evolutionary as it would change and differ with the addition of dust/dots formed on the film.

 

And yes as i expected fine art publications are the best way to go, i was just wondering if there were any specifically focused on film, but now i realise that'd be quite negative to exclude myself from other art.

 

 

 

That's not true. The definition of the word 'fine' means of exceptional quality. A fine wine, a fine cheese, and a fine painting are of a higher quality than the majority. In common usage, 'fine art' means 'of higher artistic merit' or 'art for arts sake'. Historically it's been used as a way to exclude other art forms from being exhibited in galleries and influencing the masses. Now it's being used to invalidate large volumes of work within a medium.

 

That's because the contemporary definition is rigid and short sighted, as it needs to be because it's used to validate dead art forms. An older definition of 'fine art' is roughly "art that is created for the purpose of showing the artist's creativity or to lead the viewer's mind and imagination toward the finer things". Suspension of disbelief fits in there quite nicely, as does all the craftsmanship and ingenuity required to make it happen. That's the power that cinema has over other art forms. Film that is stripped down to a non-immersive, two dimensional experience that aims to confront the viewer intellectually might be an 'art film', but it's by no means fine. If there is any subset of an art that is to be considered fine, it must be the one that utilizes the full potential of the medium.

 

You're completely right with the idea of how fine art has been used aswell, but i definitely fail to see where it excludes volumes of work within a medium? As i previously mentioned 2008 Turner Prize i think all shortlisted pieces were film, and if not the winner was a piece of film art.

 

And i completely disagree with you saying that 'fine' results in the full potential of a medium, because some pieces of fine art do utilize and showcase this. But only if that is the related concept. Stan Brakhage's films are all about stopping the viewer from immersing themselves into another reality via the film, and are you saying his work isn't "fine"?

Furthermore i'm not quite sure where you back up the idea of 'fine' work utilizing the medium to it's full potential, because would you say a Monet painting isn't 'fine'? Because his paintings are't necessarily utilzing the medium to the full potential when compared to Rembrandts paintings?

[Mike Lary]

the videos of Stan Brakhage which i urge any filmmaker to watch .

Are you assuming that filmmakers are less educated in the history of their own medium than art students who chose other majors? This isn't the first suggestion you've made that makes it sound like you think most of the readers in this forum haven't made it through an entry level film history class.

Stan Brakhage's films are all about stopping the viewer from immersing themselves into another reality via the film, and are you saying his work isn't "fine"?

You clearly haven't seen many of Brakhage's films. Why don't you write your thesis on Brakhage and then tell the world what it was 'all about'.

Furthermore i'm not quite sure where you back up the idea of 'fine' work utilizing the medium to it's full potential, because would you say a Monet painting isn't 'fine'? Because his paintings are't necessarily utilzing the medium to the full potential when compared to Rembrandts paintings?

Are you comparing art films that are appreciated by a tiny segment of the population to the paintings of one of the most revered painters in history? Do you think you can back that up? Monet didn't hold up a blank canvas and tell everyone that his painting was actually a deconstruction of painting that was meant to challenge the viewer's perception of paint.

 

To clarify what I said before, there is no such thing as 'fine art'. There is no such thing as 'fine art cinema'. And to bring it a step further, art that intentionally strips itself of the aesthetics and mechanics that make it art, choosing instead to confront the viewer with an intellectual challenge, is no longer art.

[Andrzej Ford]

Are you assuming that filmmakers are less educated in the history of their own medium than art students who chose other majors? This isn't the first suggestion you've made that makes it sound like you think most of the readers in this forum haven't made it through an entry level film history class.

 

You clearly haven't seen many of Brakhage's films. Why don't you write your thesis on Brakhage and then tell the world what it was 'all about'.

 

Are you comparing art films that are appreciated by a tiny segment of the population to the paintings of one of the most revered painters in history? Do you think you can back that up? Monet didn't hold up a blank canvas and tell everyone that his painting was actually a deconstruction of painting that was meant to challenge the viewer's perception of paint.

 

To clarify what I said before, there is no such thing as 'fine art'. There is no such thing as 'fine art cinema'. And to bring it a step further, art that intentionally strips itself of the aesthetics and mechanics that make it art, choosing instead to confront the viewer with an intellectual challenge, is no longer art.

 

I think you should expect a response of similar tone when almost attacking other posters,

"Monet didn't hold up a blank canvas and tell everyone that his painting was actually a deconstruction of painting that was meant to challenge the viewer's perception of paint. " - And if you think comparing a film to a painting is wrong, i think that's a pretty void opinion. And no i dont think readers of this forum havent read about certain artists, but i was just backing up my points, and everyone forgets things.

"There is no such thing as 'fine art cinema'. And to bring it a step further, art that intentionally strips itself of the aesthetics and mechanics that make it art, choosing instead to confront the viewer with an intellectual challenge, is no longer art." is probably the most ridiculous sentence i've heard from someone who i thought was a learned person.

 

And lastly i was happy that quite a few people gave their opinions on an interesting topic, however i didnt think there'd be some overly defensive people who wanted to start an arguement in this thread. Without being rude, please add your aggressive opinions somewhere else. Also i believe i mentioned countless times that i didn't mean to offend anyone; my course like almost all courses in the UK and i'd assume other countries use the title "fine art", hense why i used that term. It wasn't for any of your nonsensical "im better than you" megalomaniac idea. So please i really mean this, please can you respond to somewhere elses thread if youre going to be bitter.

[Andrzej Ford]

"There is no such thing as 'fine art cinema'. And to bring it a step further, art that intentionally strips itself of the aesthetics and mechanics that make it art, choosing instead to confront the viewer with an intellectual challenge, is no longer art." is probably the most ridiculous sentence i've heard from someone who i thought was a learned person.

 

Maybe i was a bit hastey with this, but i at least think you have written the most accurate description of conceptual art, but and im not sure if youre being sarcastic, but denied it to be art. maybe its not the whole broad case of art, but it's definitely the most intelligient description of conceptual art.

[Mike Lary]

I think you should expect a response of similar tone when almost attacking other posters,

Andrzej, I never attacked you personally. I only attacked the dogmatic rhetoric that you've been fed. If you take that personally, you should try cutting the umbilical cord that your school attached to you on day one. Part of being a good student is questioning everything you're told and forming your own opinions.

[Paul Bruening]

.

[Andrzej Ford]

.

 

 

what if...

[Brian Drysdale]

Certainly the moving image has entered the work of art. The video installation can be found in many galleries and I have worked on a number of these with the artists. I know Seamus McGarvey has worked with an artist (I did Steadicam on a couple of the pieces), so there is a cross over. I wouldn't say that these pieces are narrative films, but perhaps there's a bit of what audiences know about film grammar and expectations being used in another manner. Although, I don't know if the artists involved would see it that way

Edited January 25, 2010 by Brian Drysdale

[Keneu Luca]

Interesting thread.

 

The bulk of this discussion is a film school cliche. There is alwyas a group of students who see themselves high above everyone else and are mesmerized by anything that isnt mainstream and because of its abstract nature, they champion it due to the suggestion of a superior intellect, simply because it is mysterious.

 

Really, this is in EVERY film school.

 

And then after graduating school and maturing and realizing the balance between subtext and literal work, the freedom to create without limits versus working under a budget, and understanding what objectivity is, you begin to look back at the pretentious snobbery and laugh. Its cool. Its a phase. Many people go through it. And then of course there are some who maintain it throughout their lives and career. Hey..whatever works.

 

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but perhaps we all have a different understanding of what "art" is. Has anyone ever tried to define it. what does that term mean to you?

 

To me:

Art is anything created that reflects the personality of its creator.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Keneu Luca

[Andrzej Ford]

Interesting thread.

 

The bulk of this discussion is a film school cliche. There is alwyas a group of students who see themselves high above everyone else and are mesmerized by anything that isnt mainstream and because of its abstract nature, they champion it due to the suggestion of a superior intellect, simply because it is mysterious.

 

Really, this is in EVERY film school.

 

And then after graduating school and maturing and realizing the balance between subtext and literal work, the freedom to create without limits versus working under a budget, and understanding what objectivity is, you begin to look back at the pretentious snobbery and laugh. Its cool. Its a phase. Many people go through it. And then of course there are some who maintain it throughout their lives and career. Hey..whatever works.

 

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but perhaps we all have a different understanding of what "art" is. Has anyone ever tried to define it. what does that term mean to you?

 

To me:

Art is anything created that reflects the personality of its creator.

 

These are the kind of responses that im very happy to have in this thread, and if i did come across as pretentious i really didn't mean to; because i really appreciate all the help from this website and respect all types of art (be they conceptual or not, professional or not).

 

But this is a good point to make, that art is as subjective as beauty.

[Bruce Taylor]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but perhaps we all have a different understanding of what "art" is. Has anyone ever tried to define it. what does that term mean to you?

 

To me:

Art is anything created that reflects the personality of its creator.

 

Hey, I like that, Keneu!

 

And to excitable Mike Lara (stay passionate fella): my thoughts to your response to my defining the term "fine art" as a term, not a judgement: maybe you're talking about renaissance masters that have survived for 500 years? I would agree, that's "fine" stuff. But contemporary fine art... are you kidding? (I'm still not over Schnabel's plate "paintings," but some people love them.) Back to my ceramist's analogy, depending on the work put in front of me and the time of day, I may find a filled coffee cup more "fine" than the "fine art."

 

In the end, very little of this matters much, if at all. When I was young, art was like religion to me. I loved it, it got me up in the morning. Unfortunately, there are very few other people in this world that feel the same way, and in the end, fine art's (especially visual art) ability to influence lives is limited. There are a few grand exeptions to this, but very few.

 

Bruce Taylor

[David Rakoczy]

Great posts Bruce and Keneu!

 

Thanks for the thread Andrzej... though I still feel like you owe me the eight minutes I spent watching 'Unwitnessed"! :lol:

 

(just kidding)

[Mike Lary]

And to excitable Mike Lara (stay passionate fella):

 

Not only am I not excitable, but I'm also not Lara (which is a girl's name).

 

my thoughts to your response to my defining the term "fine art" as a term, not a judgement: maybe you're talking about renaissance masters that have survived for 500 years? I would agree, that's "fine" stuff. But contemporary fine art... are you kidding?

 

How could this possibly be a response to anything I've said in this thread? Maybe you have me mixed up with the OP.

[Bruce Taylor]

Not only am I not excitable, but I'm also not Lara (which is a girl's name).

 

How could this possibly be a response to anything I've said in this thread? Maybe you have me mixed up with the OP.

 

Mike Lary! my apologies for misspelling your name.

 

This is what you said:

"The definition of the word 'fine' means of exceptional quality. A fine wine, a fine cheese, and a fine painting are of a higher quality than the majority."

 

So I replied,

"..."fine art" as a term, not a judgement: maybe you're talking about renaissance masters that have survived for 500 years? I would agree, that's "fine" stuff. But contemporary fine art... are you kidding?"

 

That is how my statement could be a response to specific statements you've made in this thread.

 

No need to get riled. I don't get the aggressive attitude that internet forums seem to inspire.

 

Bruce Taylor