You mean, will she be considered ugly by the majority of people in the world? Yes. But is the standard actually absolute? Can the majority actually set what is absolute and what isn't? By saying "absolute" standard, you are thinking of a standard that is complete, total, fully decided, pure. As long as there is a minority of people in this world that disagree with the majority, there will never be an absolute standard.
The purpose of art film?
- Thread starter Huy Vu
- Start date
Chris Stearns
Well-known member
OK. Yes, I am quoting my own post, but this is a new page and I think we should keep this topic going and not let it disintegrate into an argument about "what is art", and "what is beauty."
I mean really, all the stuff about someone so hideous that they would be considered ugly across the board is ridiculus, if he's charming and hooks up with a blind chick with an intellect.
I don't deal in absolutes. I thank John Hudson for that.
Anyway, watch my movie. It's "arty."
I mean really, all the stuff about someone so hideous that they would be considered ugly across the board is ridiculus, if he's charming and hooks up with a blind chick with an intellect.
I don't deal in absolutes. I thank John Hudson for that.
Anyway, watch my movie. It's "arty."
dieselfoot said: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:
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
You really did quote your own post.
That's funny.
That's funny.
Chris Stearns
Well-known member
Sorry, I felt that it needed to be done.
I was feeling under-appreciated.
I was feeling under-appreciated.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Lol !
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
And I am gonna watch your movie!
---nemesis---
Member
That was trippy dieselfoot. How long did it take you to do that?
I'm usually not a fan of experimental film. In fact I usually hate it because it's pretentious crap. But to each his own.
For most experimental films I've seen, that wasn't bad. Kind of fun in a way, but not what I regularly watch or ever want to make. I like a story and how the details you put into the images compliment the story. But, again, to each his own.
I'm usually not a fan of experimental film. In fact I usually hate it because it's pretentious crap. But to each his own.
For most experimental films I've seen, that wasn't bad. Kind of fun in a way, but not what I regularly watch or ever want to make. I like a story and how the details you put into the images compliment the story. But, again, to each his own.
The purpose of art film. Well, I'm (very) late into the game, but here are my two cents:
I think its all a matter of comunication of the Artist- that being the director and, if there's one, the rest of the creative team. If the Artist thinks that what he needs to do in order to communicate is to make an Art Film approach, than that's the way he should go. The merit is on what the artists achieves either for himself or what he wants to comunicate and to whom. I myself want to communicate to as many people as possible, and relate to the cinema approach to film. I think its a lot harder to communicate complex things and my own personal feelings and views to a vast audience than to someone that thinks like me, on a more "Arty" approach. But that doesn't negate the validity and importance of Art films at all.
I think its all a matter of comunication of the Artist- that being the director and, if there's one, the rest of the creative team. If the Artist thinks that what he needs to do in order to communicate is to make an Art Film approach, than that's the way he should go. The merit is on what the artists achieves either for himself or what he wants to comunicate and to whom. I myself want to communicate to as many people as possible, and relate to the cinema approach to film. I think its a lot harder to communicate complex things and my own personal feelings and views to a vast audience than to someone that thinks like me, on a more "Arty" approach. But that doesn't negate the validity and importance of Art films at all.
snodart
Veteran
How have I missed this discussion!
Realism is a necessary means toward abstraction.
A good majority of art students begin by attempting to create abstract works of art. Why? Because they have the impression that they can vomit on a canvas and call it art (and they can). I had the same mindset. It took me a while to realize that it is essential to be able to mimic/recreate what we see, feel, taste, etc before something abstract and with substance (for viewers) can be created.
Painting in a more photorealistic style helped me to realize this. How could I possibly attempt to recreate that which was in my mind or thoughts if I could not recreate a picture or something sitting in front of me first?
I feel that the same holds true for filmmaking. If an artist can't mimic, on film, the sensations that surround us (as in reality), then how could they possibly accurately express an abstraction of that reality.
Now, I'm not saying that abstract art sits at a level above realism by any means, but I do believe that one must have the skills to mimic "reality" before the can create something abstract from it (and I use the term reality loosely here). Otherwise it is like trying to create a square from looking at a circle without first having the knowledge to create the circle.
I have to say at this point that I do not think that most art that is considered abstract meets the above criteria. In fact I think that the success of many abstract works is BS. And by BS I mean that the success is simply a result of the art world that abuses suffixes like -ism, -ish, and -esk. I think people try to force themselves to connect with some abstract works to become part of the self-proclaimed elitist group that claims to have the ability to distinguish good abstract work from bad.
There is no true definition of art and there never will be. Each person carries their own definition of what art is. And as Bill Clinton noted, "that depends on what your definition of is, is". For something to exist as "art", as per my own definition, it simply needs to touch a singe person in some form or another. So yes, everything is art.
Art is a personal experience for both the artist and the viewer (if there is one). So art's true success is dependent on that experience and nothing else. Now, if an artist's goal is to reach a least a handful of viewers, I think that this is where realism truly becomes a necessary means toward abstraction.
Sorry for the soapbox, but I love this topic. Oh, and by the way, I'm most likely full of shi*.
Realism is a necessary means toward abstraction.
A good majority of art students begin by attempting to create abstract works of art. Why? Because they have the impression that they can vomit on a canvas and call it art (and they can). I had the same mindset. It took me a while to realize that it is essential to be able to mimic/recreate what we see, feel, taste, etc before something abstract and with substance (for viewers) can be created.
Painting in a more photorealistic style helped me to realize this. How could I possibly attempt to recreate that which was in my mind or thoughts if I could not recreate a picture or something sitting in front of me first?
I feel that the same holds true for filmmaking. If an artist can't mimic, on film, the sensations that surround us (as in reality), then how could they possibly accurately express an abstraction of that reality.
Now, I'm not saying that abstract art sits at a level above realism by any means, but I do believe that one must have the skills to mimic "reality" before the can create something abstract from it (and I use the term reality loosely here). Otherwise it is like trying to create a square from looking at a circle without first having the knowledge to create the circle.
I have to say at this point that I do not think that most art that is considered abstract meets the above criteria. In fact I think that the success of many abstract works is BS. And by BS I mean that the success is simply a result of the art world that abuses suffixes like -ism, -ish, and -esk. I think people try to force themselves to connect with some abstract works to become part of the self-proclaimed elitist group that claims to have the ability to distinguish good abstract work from bad.
There is no true definition of art and there never will be. Each person carries their own definition of what art is. And as Bill Clinton noted, "that depends on what your definition of is, is". For something to exist as "art", as per my own definition, it simply needs to touch a singe person in some form or another. So yes, everything is art.
Art is a personal experience for both the artist and the viewer (if there is one). So art's true success is dependent on that experience and nothing else. Now, if an artist's goal is to reach a least a handful of viewers, I think that this is where realism truly becomes a necessary means toward abstraction.
Sorry for the soapbox, but I love this topic. Oh, and by the way, I'm most likely full of shi*.
Snodart, excelent post. Let me add to your comment about the art world. Nowadays, the art world is very much lead by a "mercantile" and economic approach than by the merit of the work itself. Major artist from today are being pushed by vast economical interests and by the so called "art industry". In the era of Globalization, its more and more difficult to get "genuine" art . What is genuine art? In the era of the abstract, and of the "isms", I believe its very much to the eye of the beholder... I, for instance, love Mark Rodko paintings. They have this Oriental minimalism in them, and the use of color really takes me to a different state of varying emotion. Jackson Pollock also transmits huge energy from his paintings... But there are many contemporaries that really I can't feel a connection... There never was a problem with this in say, a work by Leonardo Da Vinci or Michaelangelo- They are unanimously considered "masters". I believe Mark Rodko is questionable to many, has is Pollock. The fact that they have Academic proof of their competence as painters , is it enough to legitimise their work as masterpieces? Van Gogh was no scholar, but is considered unanimously as a "Master"- this is indeed a very complex subject matter- but I love it!
Anyway, this ends on the discussion of "when it is art", which leads to the inevitable "What is art"? And this is the topic of many college essays untill today. Interesting debate, but subjective- and resposnible for the suicides and deaths of many great philosophers !
Anyway, this ends on the discussion of "when it is art", which leads to the inevitable "What is art"? And this is the topic of many college essays untill today. Interesting debate, but subjective- and resposnible for the suicides and deaths of many great philosophers !
chromeboy007
Well-known member
snodart said:
Care to give any examples of these successful BS's?
bklyndv
Well-known member
I think the whole idea of "BS" winning out in the "elitist" art circles is really the tragedy of post-modernism, which elevates concept above execution, and pretty much fails the average person. Many of the wildly successful "artists" today seem much more capable of discussing their work than they do creating work that is affecting. Even when the Impressionists did their work to dissolve traditional painting style, they were steeped in an appreciation for nature and a sense that their works had to ultimately reach people. I'm not saying this is the only consideration when judging a piece but I often think it should be one of the key elements -- can it still affect people? Or, as Hitchcock would say -- people don't want a slice of life, they want a slice of cake.
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that if, as an artist, you overshoot your available audience, you're not going to reach them -- and yet your work may still have plenty of merit. There's a long history of new art making the status quo audience revolt in its presence -- the premiere of the Rules of The Game, people rioted and lit small fires in the audience; similarly with Stravinsky's work, people charged the stage because no one had ever used strings as percussion; and reading over the piece in the Voice this week about the Antonioni retrospective, the audience (largely critics) at Cannes shouted "Cut, cut!!" repeatedly during the long takes when L'Avventura had its premiere. And yet, many of the things that violated the sensibilities of their audiences at the time are things we take for granted today. So artists are only as free to communicate as their audiences are willing to and capable of "listening" (with their whole being -- eyes, ears, memories...)
In this way I think the audience is obligated to really go into something with as open eyes as they possibly can, and critics have failed in the assistance of this miserably. If you've ever read any of Bazin's work, Truffaut's criticisms, or Godard's writings, you get two understandings consistently: they deeply loved film, not just enjoyed the job of writing about it; and they were constantly trying to take a film out of their expectations and put it against different contexts, re-examine it, and appreciate small, otherwise overlooked elements. Also, these men had a greater sense of film's place as a form of expression, and judged it against other forms, not just movie to movie. Today's "critics" rehearse people to expect easy answers -- two thumbs up or down, but no real depth to the discussion -- and how does this prepare the audience for expanding film's grammar? As the audience's capacity to dig and work to appreciate new things shrinks, so too does the filmmaker's opportunity to find new ways of expression.
So for me, it's agonizing to read what I feel is essentially a cop-out, when people write "Welp, you can't put art in a bottle so there's no point in the discussion." Or "Well, one man's art is another's trash" because I think it goes deeper than that -- I think art has a very honorable and necessary function if you allow it the chance. I think there are critical judgements to be made, and it does nobody any good to be less informed about them. This idea that abstraction is "lesser" and narrative is "real film" is just short-sighted, and I think ultimately only cheats people out of the chance for more life.
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that if, as an artist, you overshoot your available audience, you're not going to reach them -- and yet your work may still have plenty of merit. There's a long history of new art making the status quo audience revolt in its presence -- the premiere of the Rules of The Game, people rioted and lit small fires in the audience; similarly with Stravinsky's work, people charged the stage because no one had ever used strings as percussion; and reading over the piece in the Voice this week about the Antonioni retrospective, the audience (largely critics) at Cannes shouted "Cut, cut!!" repeatedly during the long takes when L'Avventura had its premiere. And yet, many of the things that violated the sensibilities of their audiences at the time are things we take for granted today. So artists are only as free to communicate as their audiences are willing to and capable of "listening" (with their whole being -- eyes, ears, memories...)
In this way I think the audience is obligated to really go into something with as open eyes as they possibly can, and critics have failed in the assistance of this miserably. If you've ever read any of Bazin's work, Truffaut's criticisms, or Godard's writings, you get two understandings consistently: they deeply loved film, not just enjoyed the job of writing about it; and they were constantly trying to take a film out of their expectations and put it against different contexts, re-examine it, and appreciate small, otherwise overlooked elements. Also, these men had a greater sense of film's place as a form of expression, and judged it against other forms, not just movie to movie. Today's "critics" rehearse people to expect easy answers -- two thumbs up or down, but no real depth to the discussion -- and how does this prepare the audience for expanding film's grammar? As the audience's capacity to dig and work to appreciate new things shrinks, so too does the filmmaker's opportunity to find new ways of expression.
So for me, it's agonizing to read what I feel is essentially a cop-out, when people write "Welp, you can't put art in a bottle so there's no point in the discussion." Or "Well, one man's art is another's trash" because I think it goes deeper than that -- I think art has a very honorable and necessary function if you allow it the chance. I think there are critical judgements to be made, and it does nobody any good to be less informed about them. This idea that abstraction is "lesser" and narrative is "real film" is just short-sighted, and I think ultimately only cheats people out of the chance for more life.
Last edited:
snodart
Veteran
chromeboy007 said:
Keep in mind that I said, "..that the success of many abstract works is BS." I didn't say the the work itself was BS. We could argue good/bad abstract works all day, but it is a mute point. The point of my comment was regarding the often unnecessary hype and success.
Chris Burden, Shoot. 1971
Franz Kline, any (though I am a big fan).
Marina Abramovic, Breathing in/Breathing out.1977
Andy Warhol, Campbell's Soup Can.1968
Donald Judd, Stack. (you pick the year)
Agnes Martin, Night Sea. 1963
Frank Stella, Quathlamba. 1964
Judy Chicago, The Dinner Party. 1974-79
Joseph Beuys, How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare, 1965
Robert Rauschenberg, Bed. 1955
Rober Smithson, Spiral Jetty. 1969-70.
So there are just a few. Keep in mind, that most of these don't necessarily fall into the category of "abstract" in terms of the definition that is given by the realm of art. They do fit however in terms of this discussion and in terms of the definition being an abstraction of reality. And again, it is not the work that I am critical of but the hype and success of the work.
EDIT: great points bklyndv. love it.
chromeboy007
Well-known member
bklyndv: 2 thumbs up! ;-)
snodart: thanks for the movie list...
snodart: thanks for the movie list...
Joshua Provost
Veteran
The Centre Georges Pompedeau in Paris has an exhibit right now on Moving Images. They have a hallway full of short experimental films anywhere from 1 to 25 minutes long. Most of them were interesting, some captivating, a number dreadfully dull, to my taste.
Each was annotated with the artist's intenions, which helped a lot to put the films into context. It should be noted that none of the films were made with the intent to tell a story. Most of them were exploring some type of motion or subject using novel ways of shooting and editing.
That may be a key to understanding or appreciating expirmental or "art" films, that the intent of the artist is probably far different than mainstream films, which almost always intend to entertain, tell a story, develop characters, maybe to deliver a social message. Throw all that out the window. An art film may be appreciated specifically because you may have to personally involved to explore and discover the message, or you may find out the intent in advance (as was the case in the exhibit) and attempt to appreciate that aspect of it.
Just to mention some high points of the exhibit, my favorite was entitled Home Stories by Matthias Miiller. This film is a collage of classic film films from the 50's and 60's showing glamourous woman in home interiors seemingly in melodramatic peril. The interesting and amusing aspect of it was to see very similar images taken from completely different films, and to see them together in collage. It was daramatic, yet absurd.
There were others that took close-up shots of mechanical shadows, rotating discs, seemingly microscopic shots panning across people faces. Those were not as interesting, but could be somewhat interesting understanding the context.
Another interesting film is Russian Ark, a film nearly 90 minutes long, taken in a single shot meandering in and around the Hermitage is St. Petersburg. There is no standard narrative, though a single character accompanies you on the journey from time to time, and there is likely something to be learned from him. History unfolds in little vignettes in certain rooms. Time shifts through the centuries as you turn corners. Magnificant coreographed dances unfold elsewhere, while other characters appear for only a few seconds. Likely, this film can be appreciated for the beautiful locations, the historical references, the dances, the strange narrator, the technical achievement of the single shot for such an extended period of time, or in appreciating the work of the steadicam operator or lighting crew that were so physically involved in the production.
I think it's more about throwing aside your own expectations in terms of story and characters. Think of films as the beauty of moving images joined together, not just in terms of standard narrative storytelling.
Each was annotated with the artist's intenions, which helped a lot to put the films into context. It should be noted that none of the films were made with the intent to tell a story. Most of them were exploring some type of motion or subject using novel ways of shooting and editing.
That may be a key to understanding or appreciating expirmental or "art" films, that the intent of the artist is probably far different than mainstream films, which almost always intend to entertain, tell a story, develop characters, maybe to deliver a social message. Throw all that out the window. An art film may be appreciated specifically because you may have to personally involved to explore and discover the message, or you may find out the intent in advance (as was the case in the exhibit) and attempt to appreciate that aspect of it.
Just to mention some high points of the exhibit, my favorite was entitled Home Stories by Matthias Miiller. This film is a collage of classic film films from the 50's and 60's showing glamourous woman in home interiors seemingly in melodramatic peril. The interesting and amusing aspect of it was to see very similar images taken from completely different films, and to see them together in collage. It was daramatic, yet absurd.
There were others that took close-up shots of mechanical shadows, rotating discs, seemingly microscopic shots panning across people faces. Those were not as interesting, but could be somewhat interesting understanding the context.
Another interesting film is Russian Ark, a film nearly 90 minutes long, taken in a single shot meandering in and around the Hermitage is St. Petersburg. There is no standard narrative, though a single character accompanies you on the journey from time to time, and there is likely something to be learned from him. History unfolds in little vignettes in certain rooms. Time shifts through the centuries as you turn corners. Magnificant coreographed dances unfold elsewhere, while other characters appear for only a few seconds. Likely, this film can be appreciated for the beautiful locations, the historical references, the dances, the strange narrator, the technical achievement of the single shot for such an extended period of time, or in appreciating the work of the steadicam operator or lighting crew that were so physically involved in the production.
I think it's more about throwing aside your own expectations in terms of story and characters. Think of films as the beauty of moving images joined together, not just in terms of standard narrative storytelling.
bklyndv said:
Well, your point is interesting if one takes the notion that Art " has a very honorable and necessary function" . This is something negated by some of the most so-called major artists of the xx century. Art has to have a point, a motive, an objective- very well, I can say I identify with that. However, some artists negate the political, social or interventive nature of art, since, to them, art transcends these basic notions.
Now certainly i would like to know How " deeper" you can go into the perception of art beyond the subjectiveness of the matter. in order to do so, one should think that there should be a deeper, universal notion of Art. Is it the technique, the concept, or even, the beauty? Would you like to discuss the concept of beauty?
Like you said, the artists today can actually talk more about the conceptual part of their work than deliver. And the many modern and post-modern movements obey to this "conceptual" abstractionism.
The funny thing is, abstract art needs a very big conceptual line of tought and theory in order to communicate to a selected audience. This creates an elitism in the "audience", which requires for it to be able to "read" the tradition behind the work, leaving it completely dependant of the conceptual tought and description behind it.
Now I have to admit that I perceive art as communication. This is a perception that goes against many current art movements. However, it doesn't negate the validity of abstract art. However, the the capacity of mass communication of pre-abstract art is surelly gone in the abstract world. While the introduction of the photographic camera and the appearance of the age of mass reprodution questioned the validity of pictoresque art, it is also true that the so called " classics" remain true masterpieces untill today, may they be Da Vinci paintings, Goyas paintings, or Van Gogh paintings.
Its interesting to see all major artists of today come from the USA, or came from the US school- is this the result of the freedom and exhile of major artists to the US, the existence of Fine Academies, or because of the huge art industry and lobby from there? France, Germany and the US are in the forefront of this Industry. Its actually quite funny Oriental art is so often disconsidered, since movements such as impressionism were nothing more than inspired by traditional Chinese and Japanese " Impressionist" portraits of their landscapes....
EDIT- Joshua, I loved Russian Ark- technically, it is the best use of steadicam I've ever seen. However, I don't consider it an Art film, since it is pretty much narrative driven. Also, I don't think one should be segmenting Art Film and Film. A film, with a regular narrative, can and is, in my opinion, art. So even the notion of Art film can be dubious. Maybe Abstract Film should be a better definition of what we are calling- "Art Film"?
EDIT AGAIN- Searching for a bigger universal notion of "What is Art" is one of the biggest philosophical questions we, as rational beings, face. Like searching for an Universal truth. Philosophers like Ludwig Wittgenstein and Rhorty searched the basics of Tradition and "language games" in order to define the legitimacy of Art and the Artists. However, it is inpossible to negate the existence of space for subjectivity on such analysis.
BKlyndv, I agree with most of your post, tough. I do see art as something deeper and meaningfull
. I just can't avoid the inherent legitimacy of people having a subjective approach to it.
Last edited: