Jump to content

To become DAVID FINCHER or STANLEY KUBRICK?


Recommended Posts

I think that's also called business...or science...or witchcraft...

Of course there are additional functional and aesthetic qualifications, especially as to the nature of this "idea," but the aspect I mentioned is the one that dispels Evan's idea of art as primarily a communicative process.

 

Yeah, I haven't read Heidegger extensively yet, but from the summaries I've read he's got some fascinating ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So I feel its the opposite of your approach: First allow the students to explore their forms and themselves, and then slowly bring them towards an understanding of how to apply what they have learned in a more constrained story setting.

 

AJB

 

That's much closer to my view as well.

 

And then again there are many forms of film that are not storytelling in the literal sense...

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's also called business...or science...or witchcraft...

 

That's the worst definition of art I've ever heard...I've never considered myself an artist...but I do now...

 

The bag-lady down my street is a great artist...because she materialized something in my alley the other day...sure it smelled really bad and lots of flies were hanging out...but sometimes WE artists have to suffer a little bit...

 

I apologize already...

 

Ya want a defintion of art? Art is that which speaks to men's souls. One can find art in most everything if one looks but all art shares that one common element, the ability to speak to man, inspire man and move man to action. B)

Edited by James Steven Beverly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya want a defintion of art? Art is that which speaks to men's souls. One can find art in most everything if one looks but all art shares that one common element, the ability to speak toi man, inspire man and move man to action. B)

 

But not the girls... let the girls find their own thing. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey David,

 

The definition of art that you have provided does not in any way, 'dispel [my] idea of art as primarily a communicative process.' The definition you have provided suffers from a common problem in language today (even moreso than the definition I provided) in that it is so vague and abstract that it is meaningless. Moreover, I will argue that it is actually harmful.

 

If the true definition of art is to say that 'art is the materialization of an idea within a medium' then, using this definition, all propaganda materials become art. What's more, they become the very definition of art.

 

It would be awfully simple to argue, effectively, that the definition you have chosen places the Army (Army of one!) and the Nazi regime as the creators of some of the best art from the past 100 years. Thus, your conception of art seems particularly flawed.

 

Additionally, you have misunderstood me. I did not propose an all-inclusive definition of art. My post says, "At the end of the day art is about communication. The ultimate desire of the true artist is almost always to impart to others some sense of the world as they saw, experienced, or imagined it."

 

The 'almost always' is meant to indicate that art can be or do things other than what I have suggested. And as for my opening sentence, "...art is about communication' - I'd argue that your definition says much the same thing, '...materialization of an idea' - the materialization or making real of an idea seems very much to be about communication to me.

 

My main point, however, is that your definition makes propaganda the best art and while some propaganda materials surely are art a definition that counts them as the prototypical form that art takes seems a little odd.

 

Evan

aNorthEast.gifcLeftTop.gifcRightTop.gifcLeftBottom.gifcRightBottom.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey David,

 

The definition of art that you have provided does not in any way, 'dispel [my] idea of art as primarily a communicative process.' The definition you have provided suffers from a common problem in language today (even moreso than the definition I provided) in that it is so vague and abstract that it is meaningless. Moreover, I will argue that it is actually harmful.

 

If the true definition of art is to say that 'art is the materialization of an idea within a medium' then, using this definition, all propaganda materials become art. What's more, they become the very definition of art.

 

It would be awfully simple to argue, effectively, that the definition you have chosen places the Army (Army of one!) and the Nazi regime as the creators of some of the best art from the past 100 years. Thus, your conception of art seems particularly flawed.

 

Additionally, you have misunderstood me. I did not propose an all-inclusive definition of art. My post says, "At the end of the day art is about communication. The ultimate desire of the true artist is almost always to impart to others some sense of the world as they saw, experienced, or imagined it."

 

The 'almost always' is meant to indicate that art can be or do things other than what I have suggested. And as for my opening sentence, "...art is about communication' - I'd argue that your definition says much the same thing, '...materialization of an idea' - the materialization or making real of an idea seems very much to be about communication to me.

 

My main point, however, is that your definition makes propaganda the best art and while some propaganda materials surely are art a definition that counts them as the prototypical form that art takes seems a little odd.

 

Evan

aNorthEast.gifcLeftTop.gifcRightTop.gifcLeftBottom.gifcRightBottom.gif

 

 

Weellll, One can argue, Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Olympia Part One: Festival of the Nations/ Olympia Part Two: Festival of Beauty where TREMEDOUS works of art used to extall the vertues of the most evil empire to have ever sourged the face of this Earth, the NAZI party. There is NO dehighing these film ARE art yet they WERE created BY a member of the NAZI party for the EXPRESS purpose of shameless propoganda iin the name of Hitler. Art is not always beautiful or GOOD in it's intentions, but it does ALWAYS Move men. Comunication is much too vague a term to decribe art. We comunicate and are understood ALL the time but very little of that communication is art. It is only when that communication sparks some profound inner truth within us that it moves into the realm of art. B)

Edited by James Steven Beverly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Art usually comes from an artist that doesn't know they're truly making art. When we scrutinize art, we try to make it clear the artist was intentional. Maybe they were, maybe they were just drunk, it?s all pretty silly. Trouble is, we get a rush from making films, whether good or not in other people?s eyes. We hope they are good. We hope people enjoy our work, or we would be devastated? which I am frequently. In the end, I hope to fool everybody into thinking I?m an artist, but, at the same time, I truly want to make cool stuff.

 

This is coming from a true non-artist...

 

Or is that what I want you to think I think?

 

Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main point, however, is that your definition makes propaganda the best art and while some propaganda materials surely are art a definition that counts them as the prototypical form that art takes seems a little odd.

Well if someone truly believes Nazi propoganda is the epitome of artistic expression, how can you convince him otherwise? Therefore the objective definition of art must be inclusive. The subjective definitions, different from person to person, may be much more narrow (art must address man's moral condition, art must communicate, art must be implemented with proficiency) but these cannot be proven or imposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Michael Bay I feel is a competent director who can tell a story pretty well. He's also a phenomenally hard worker and a brilliant photographer, so his films are usually only decent, but gorgeously photographed nonetheless. There's an arbitrariness and predictability to his choices (fast cutting, high contrast, super rich colors) that almost makes their efficacy offensive, but his choices still work and are surprisingly hard to replicate. Con Air looks way worse than The Rock and is far less visceral.

 

Simon West directed Con Air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon West directed Con Air.

 

My point exactly, although I can see how what I wrote was poorly phrased and may have implied that I meant otherwise.

 

Con Air and the Rock had similar casts, the same producer, similar budgets (I believe), etc.

 

One looked a lot better than the other. Michael Bay does have some unique style and talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point exactly, although I can see how what I wrote was poorly phrased and may have implied that I meant otherwise.

 

Con Air and the Rock had similar casts, the same producer, similar budgets (I believe), etc.

 

One looked a lot better than the other. Michael Bay does have some unique style and talent.

 

I think one of the real questions is did they have the same cinematographers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think one of the real questions is did they have the same cinematographers?

 

No, David Tattersal shot "Con Air" and John Schwartzman shot "The Rock".

 

Michael Bay, to my mind, definitely has a talent for flashy, music-video-style images -- the only question is whether that is an advantage to making narrative fiction cinema, or a distraction.

 

I guess it depends on the content, or lack thereof, in his movies. But I definitely think it takes some technical skill to create that kind of commercial slickness on a feature film schedule, even a long schedule like his are, although of course his cinematographers have a hand in that too. I like looking at "Armageddon" even if most of the story elements, dialogue, and editing style are pretty annoying. But without any intellectual weight or emotional maturity to anchor his visual talents to, the odds that he'll make a decent movie someday are low. He's sort of a low-brow version of Tony Scott, which says something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...