The purpose of art film?

[Robert Pottorff]

so, jumping back to the theme of the thread - what is the purpose of art fim?

to demonstrate "quality" the self-define kind of quality

but i guess that is the purpose of film in general, right?

 

[dcho787]

to demonstrate "quality" the self-define kind of quality

but i guess that is the purpose of film in general, right?

Yes! maybe you hit it on the mark.... to demonstrate "quality" - i like that.

I guess art film isn't that different from regular films.
Just art filmmakers have a different definition of "quality"
and art film lovers have a different definition of "quality"

but there will always be art film lovers saying "hollywood movies are trite and lacking true emotion" - and regular film lovers saying "art films are boring as hell and pretentious garbage"

 

[Huy Vu]

This is why discussions on what is art and true art and true quality can go on forever, in a circle, until the end of time.

But the discussion itself is fun nevertheless. I'll bring up another point. Is there such a thing as absolute crap and such a thing as absolute art? I'll use beauty as an analogy. Everybody knows that different people have different values for what beauty is, eyes of the beholder and whatnot, but is there beauty such that everyone has to acknowledge that it is beautiful, regardless of whether it's to their taste or not?

By the same note, are there films out there that everyone must admit that it's absolute crap whether they're a fan of the arthouse genre or not? And vice versa?

 

[Robert Pottorff]

but there will always be art film lovers saying "hollywood movies are trite and lacking true emotion" - and regular film lovers saying "art films are boring as hell and pretentious garbage"

always perhaps they would just need to read this thread

By the same note, are there films out there that everyone must admit that it's absolute crap whether they're a fan of the arthouse genre or not? And vice versa?

you cant make a blanket statement for everyone...dcho said it -
Just art filmmakers have a different definition of "quality" and art film lovers have a different definition of "quality"

all a film has to do to prove your "everyone" statement wrong is have 1 person enjoy it, namely the filmmaker

 

[-D-]

all a film has to do to prove your "everyone" statement wrong is have 1 person enjoy it, namely the filmmaker

Can art be called art if nobody other than the artist see it? Kinda like the adage: "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Surely, ultimately, art has something to do with communication?

I'll bring up another point. Is there such a thing as absolute crap and such a thing as absolute art? I'll use beauty as an analogy. Everybody knows that different people have different values for what beauty is, eyes of the beholder and whatnot, but is there beauty such that everyone has to acknowledge that it is beautiful, regardless of whether it's to their taste or not?

I think this hits the nail on the head.

 

[bklyndv]

Anyone who doubts the existence of absolute crap has never sat through a Bruckheimer or Emmerich "film"

 

[dcho787]

Everybody knows that different people have different values for what beauty is, eyes of the beholder and whatnot, but is there beauty such that everyone has to acknowledge that it is beautiful, regardless of whether it's to their taste or not?

You mean, for example, a situation where a guy who hates fuzzy pictures acknowledges the beauty of a monet painting?

Nobody has to acknowledge anything as beautiful. If he doesn't enjoy the painting, understand it, or feel anything from it, how can he call it beautiful? If he acknowledges the beauty of something he doesn't understand, it means that he is heavily influenced by peers, critics, and the majority. He can't think for himself and doesn't know what he truly likes.

I fall victim to this MANY times and it's definitely hard (maybe impossible) to actually think for yourself without outside influences.

 

[Huy Vu]

You mean, for example, a situation where a guy who hates fuzzy pictures acknowledges the beauty of a monet painting?

Nobody has to acknowledge anything as beautiful. If he doesn't enjoy the painting, understand it, or feel anything from it, how can he call it beautiful? If he acknowledges the beauty of something he doesn't understand, it means that he is heavily influenced by peers, critics, and the majority. He can't think for himself and doesn't know what he truly likes.

.

I'll give a basic example. If I see a girl, I can still admit that she's beautiful even if she's not my type. That's acknowledging beauty even though it's not to my taste.

 

[Huy Vu]

Anyone who doubts the existence of absolute crap has never sat through a Bruckheimer or Emmerich "film"

Then again I actually enjoy most of Bruckheimer's films. Sure they're full of plot holes but they're admittedly entertaining. As long as I'm entertained by a film I see little point in poking fun at whether it makes sense or not.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

This is where the conversation get's annoying; when we start talking about tree's falling and whether or not the squirrel saw it happen.

-

I think art is like the question of porn

What is porn ? You'll know it when you see it. What is art ? I think we all know it when we see it.

 

[dcho787]

I'll give a basic example. If I see a girl, I can still admit that she's beautiful even if she's not my type. That's acknowledging beauty even though it's not to my taste.

Whoa, when it comes to girls its a totally different story. But still, let me try and constuct a parallel.

When you acknowledge a girl's beauty, you are observing that the girl is not your type, but that she fits society's standards of beauty. Maybe she is tall, slender, blue eyes, good teeth.

I guess this can also correspond to film. When you watch a film that is not your type, you are observing that the film fits society's standards of a good film, therefore you may acknowledge its beauty.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

 

[Robert Pottorff]

its 11:40 in the twilight zone, do you know where your children are?

 

[chromeboy007]

its 11:40 in the twilight zone, do you know where your children are?

still in my balls.....

anyways. back to the topic... artsy films don't have a different purpose than not so artsy films. all films are there to reflect life, entertain, make a societal statement, present a point of view, etc., any or all of the above. Art films are only different in their method and approach, not in their purpose.

 

[Huy Vu]

When you acknowledge a girl's beauty, you are observing that the girl is not your type, but that she fits society's standards of beauty. Maybe she is tall, slender, blue eyes, good teeth.

By "society" do you mean human society or the society that we live in? If you mean a society that we live in then does that mean someone who is considered ugly in America might be considered beautiful in Albania? I very interested in exploring whether an absolute standard for ugliness exists.

 

[thematthewbone]

" I (am) very interested in exploring whether an absolute standard for ugliness exists."

i dont think there is. I dont think that there can be. How often when you are with your friends and one of your buddies says a girl is beautiful and you or one of your other buddies completely disagrees. If the defination of "beautiful" cannot transcend people that have been raised with the same societal standards how could we expect someone raised in a completely different social structure find the same attributes ugly/beautiful.

that was a rant. not even sure if it was coherent.

 

[PUNCH]

This is like....an art post....

 

[Chris Stearns]

I dug through my archives and found this... no story, no implied meaning...

untitled 2000 (7.5mb)
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=808639202&n=2
Myspace chewed this to bits, oh well.

If you thought that was hard to watch, the full film is 7 minutes long.:huh:

I made this while taking an experimental film studies class at SIU. Towards the end of the semester the professor offered up 3% extra credit for anyone who made a short film for the class. I had a few hundred feet of clear 16mm leader lying around so I started making a "paint" film. I used Sharpies, oil paint, acrylic paint, watercolors (fixed with acrylic), anything that would leave a mark. I composed a soundtrack, projected the film onto a wall, and videotaped it.

I didn't think it was anything special. I just wanted to see what the various media looked like projected on a big screen. My favorite, (which is the second half of the clip), is the oil sequence (although it didn't transfer very well to the web).

So, I got the extra credit. My professor loved it, and still shows it to all the incoming film students in Cinema 101 as part of the experimental block. I went to one of the screenings and it was no surprise to see that most of the students were having a difficult time watching it.

Love it, hate it, I don't care. Just thought I'd share it.rogar-Smoke(DBG): :beer:

 

[PUNCH]

neat...I like.

I don't think I missed out on any part of my life while watching this. Kudos!

Have you used the technique since then? My guess is you have. I think these experiments eventually find their way into structures where they take on some significance. Hating this is like hating the colors and shapes of rock...there's no point..

The fact that your professor loved it does unfortunately support the condemnation that started this post.

 

[Huy Vu]

" I (am) very interested in exploring whether an absolute standard for ugliness exists."

i dont think there is. I dont think that there can be. How often when you are with your friends and one of your buddies says a girl is beautiful and you or one of your other buddies completely disagrees. If the defination of "beautiful" cannot transcend people that have been raised with the same societal standards how could we expect someone raised in a completely different social structure find the same attributes ugly/beautiful.

The middle of the road case aren't really applicable here. Of course there's a lot of gray areas but I'm talking about extremes. Imagine someone who has no redeeming feature whatsoever (I don't want to list out any physical characteristics because I might offend somebody). But imagine the most wretched and misshapen human being you can conjure and you tell me that they won't be regarded as ugly everywhere, regardless of social climate.