The purpose of art film?

art films are what they are... art... some like em.. some don't... some people get different messages from them... others see boring crap...

thats what makes it art.

anyone can claim to make an art film. The only one they are fooling is themselves if it isn't truly a product of passion.

peas.
 
Experimental film addresses structure, process, critique, form and generally is non-narrative in format (although not always). Experimental films are not commercial ventures. It is about experimentation- it is a testing ground for ideas and personal expression. The art world has not been dealing exclusively with representational imagery and/or narrative since like the rennaisance (reference all the different movements from modernism through present day post-modernism).

Experimental film is a major influence to film makers like Martin Scorcese, David Lynch, Takashi Miike, Roman Polanski, Bernardo Bertolucci, etc.- cinematographers like Vittorio Storaro, Lance Accord, Peter Demming, Nestor Alemandros, etc. It's purpose is to continuously question and reinvent the medium, not to sell tickets and popcorn. Would experimental film makers like to enjoy commercial success and mass acceptance? Of course, but it is inherently unlikely and any experimental film maker understands this (or at least they should). There is however worldwide interest in the genre since the beginning of film history and there always will be.

You don't have to personally like it but you should respect its role in film culture and history, as film needs crazy artists and madmen for it to continue to evolve and improve.

Peace
 
Oh, I think I've got it: UNLIKE other art forms, Film can never be a one-man show. And that is one of the things that is nice about art films, it is very often a personal voice. For instance, if you hate cats and want to make a movie about that, chances are someone else on the team LOVE them and hate YOU instead, and so the film never gets made.

So a unique voice I guess is one of the stronger reasons to watch art film.

But as someone pointed out: defining ART FILM is as hopeless as defining ART itself. So we're all wasting time discussing instead of making stuff :)
 
I dig the idea that action should trump talk, but I refuse to follow the line of thought that says art discussions are pointless because of the inherent (and often slippery) subjectivity involved. Sure, art is about a personal thing, but personal experiences, while challenging to discuss and relate in exacting terms, are often the most rewarding things to grapple with.

As I said above, art demands some critical rigor and this is something that can never come without a lot of practice. Creating art is certainly the most powerful practice, but discussing it can't hurt.
 
To me there is nothing called " Art Film " or " Commercial Film "!

There are simply "Good Film" or " Bad Film "!!

Now the definations of Good and Bad are subjective???

It varies with persons cultural, social, political, Phylosophical, and obviously

"econmical" orientation.

Thats the key point i try to judge when i watch a movie!!

Whether or not a director/producers primary focus is to make money!!!

Don't get me wrong to quickly though!

A good film can be commercially successful too!!

Charles Chaplin is my all time hero in that respect!!
 
I really think all the opinions presented in this thread is really good. I actually think this thread is one of the more mind-stirring on this entire forum. Even though we're discussing highly subjective things, each new reply is filled to the brim with knowledge and wisdom.

WE are so great! :)
 
Great thread. Came across it much too late. Nothing to add right now, but I felt like it deserved a bump.

Okay, I'll add one thing ...

Why do so many people take pride in calling intellectuals "pretentious", "elitist", etc? Does it have something to do with the phenomenon of despising those who make you feel inadequate? It's as if independent thought itself is being demonized. Sad.
 
The problem is that there's a blurry line between original, independent thoughts and being different for the sake of being different.
 
I'm here real late too but I'll ad my feeling.
I've seen lots of experimental films and made a few, but shy away from really crazy stuff. What bugs me are the obviously long and expensive films that don't so much as leave me with some kind of memorable feeling; then at the end I see a long list of financial contributors pouring money into it.
Film is by it's very nature (especially celuloid litterally) is expensive and designed to screen to an audience of some sort. If NOTHING at all is being communicated and it's done by such expensive and time consuming means, than why not pick a more appropriate medium?
visual art in general can be theraputic, I often make my own weird drawings and build or destroy weird stuff, sometimes filming it on video or whatever, but if I want to spend a lot of someone elses money, resources and time producing a piece of art that conveys little or nothing, then... well I think that sucks.
Make crazy, 'deep', theraputic art, but choose an appropriate medium. If you need to make an expensive film to convey an idea, do it, but say something with it.
I can't say how many 10 minute films I've seen with weird scratches and colors and loud piercing tones. then the end will list 10 foundations that paid for it and I'll be pissed off and forget about it 10 minutes later. If you can't change me or say something to me, than at least think about what other good changes you could have made to the world with all that money, and stay home and tear apart an old stereo or something to get those feelings out. Just my thoughts.
 
jade8472 said:
I always get nervous when I see a film described as "experimental."
Usually what this means is that it's a bunch of random images slapped together, making no sense at all and ends up leaving me feeling completely cheated. Sure, I'll admit that a lot of art films have great cimatography but ultimately shouldn't it be the story that counts? I feel like doing an art film is just an excuse for a director to film a bunch of discordant scenes that wouldn't fit in any other genres.

My purpose for posting is not to insult any art film makers out there, but what I would like to understand is WHY? What is the purpose of making a film that has almost no story, no resolution and ultimately leaving the audience stratching their heads and asking "ok, that was...interesting. But what the hell did I just saw?"
Click to expand...

ok, that was...interesting. But what the hell did I just saw?


That's the purpose. Obviously the author is trying to communicate something--the purpose is to understand that communication.

a lot of art films are far beyond a movie with " no story, no resolution and ultimately leaving the audience stratching their heads".

i personally love art films... AS FILM IS AN ART


so you should say "i don't like experimental films because i dont understand them" instead of confusing the categories of art film and experimental film which is a subcategory of an art film--and basically you just need to get educated. go to the library.
 
bklyndv said:
I think a better question to start with is what is the purpose of art? Then from there, how might a film function as art?

I'd like to think the answer to either is more nuanced than merely "telling stories," which seems to me the prevelant assumption here. I can enjoy films for which the story is either subsumed or altogether nonexistent, provided the film works in other ways, and nothing about them is slipshod or less satisfying than a well made story driven film. In fact, I'd argue the contrary -- what is typically accepted as "story" is a convention and has its limitations. Film can be a more expressive art if you allow it.
Click to expand...


HA! I knew it was you! I read the response, and i said, wow this guy really sounds like he knows what hes talking about... reminds me of Jim.... Look left... BKLYNDV.... BAM!


This is the BEST thread EVER on DVXuser. This should be a Sticky.


I am an artist first, then a DP, then a Director.

I feel, andi say feel because its based on personal experince, that alot of filmmakers, i nthe Traditional sense are very protective of their craft and its associated materials, techniques, rules and creative liberty that can be had within thoes rules. There is an art to making the most out of somethign with limitations.

I am going to speak for myself here. As far as artwork goes, I never enjoyed photography/painting/drawing as much as i enjoyed sculpture. Creating a beautiful, though provoking imgage in 2 dimensions is one thing, making that image activate three dimensional space is a whole new and stimulating challenge. I initially dismissed video/film as an art medium, because i felt it wasnt pure enough, just 2 dimensions again on a screen... However, oneday i had the idea to create a Video Art work. i bought a small 1chipper, and started shooting. Somethign strange struck me, the formal qualities of the image, composition, light, contrast, color, texture, were actually accompanied by a third dimension. Time. This opened up a flurry of ideas. To me personally, i think the idea behind a contemporary work of art is far more beautiful than its form. For example, a Video artist whose work i saw in the Venice bienalle ( i apologize for not remembering his name):

The image was a small patch of concrete the size of a legal letter, with a cup of water on one corner and the artist with a paint brush in hand was painting a face with water on the concrete. however by the time he finished the face the place where he started had begun to evaporate. so he started over, and over and over and over.... it was not "beautiful" but it was, Beautiful.

Time was his medium. not the water, not the concrete, not his hand not the paintbrush. You CANNOT capture that conept anyother way, unless he was performing it live. The Film, of it was the only thing to record this happening. But the amount of effort put into a work is not always the judge of its quality. drawing a small face on concrete with water is not labor intensive. but the act of it was brilliant. and its execution was spot on.

I think Artists appropriate the tools and language of cinema and use it for their own purposes in the ways they see fit to accomplish their work of art. I notice this angers filmmakers because its "their" medium "we" are destroying. Or to put it in other words, its theri rules of narritive and form, that we break, intentionally.

Somone said something about college professors being out of jobs if "Art films" ceased to exist. Well after the modern period, Art is very cerebral and based on theory and ideas, because the rules of the image were broken. A person seeking ot understand art has to intensivly study it to understand the references and "formal" qualities being applied in contemporary art. Perhaps the professors in question just read some literature that gave them and idea or two that helps them extract meaning from what seems like to the naked eye disjointed images.

i can go on for days... i will go to bed now.
 
Last edited:
thef0x said:
ok, that was...interesting. But what the hell did I just saw?


That's the purpose. Obviously the author is trying to communicate something--the purpose is to understand that communication.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, as have already been stated by other people, you can start imagining that there are deeper ideas where none exists. If the director truly have a vision that he would like to share, it's his responsibility to communicate it to his audience in a clear manner. Cloaking his thoughts in abstractions and hope that the audience will "figure it out" is just intellectual laziness.


thef0x said:
so you should say "i don't like experimental films because i dont understand them" instead of confusing the categories of art film and experimental film which is a subcategory of an art film--and basically you just need to get educated. go to the library.
Click to expand...
From dictionary.com:

art film 
a motion picture made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit, often of an experimental nature or having an unconventional or highly symbolic content, aimed typically at a limited audience.

Art film is actually defined as a seperate genre in film. I agree that all films are art work, but the term "art film" has actually been taken to define a specific category. When we speak of "experimental film" and "art film" I believe that most of us are speaking of the same thing; the two terms are interchangeable.

I feel that it's unfortunate that so many filmmakers feel that they can classify their work as an art film by making it as abstract and random as possible. I've seen so many films where the directors were unable to explain why they did what they did. Their universal reply was "Oh, it's art," not even explaining their reason behind such work. If you said that they were trying to communicate their ideas, then why are they unable to explain it? I find it ludicrous that they would reply with such simplicity for such a complex idea that they supposedly had.
 
Last edited:
TimurCivan, very well said. Like you, I gravitated toward sculpture because I liked the extra dimension. Then I found filmmaking, which I now see as a sort of "mother ship" that utilizes many (if not all) of the other art forms and mediums. It will be interesting to see what happens when 3D (as in volumetric / holographic) recording and projection becomes prevalent.

Anyway, nice post.
 
jade8472 said:
I've seen so many films where the directors were unable to explain why they did what they did. Their universal reply was "Oh, it's art," not even explaining their reason behind such work. If you said that they were trying to communicate their ideas, then why are they unable to explain it? I find it ludicrous that they would reply with such simplicity for such a complex idea that they supposedly had.
Click to expand...

Maybe they want the audience member to take their own meaning and experience from it?
 
jade8472 said:
Unfortunately, as have already been stated by other people, you can start imagining that there are deeper ideas where none exists. If the director truly have a vision that he would like to share, it's his responsibility to communicate it to his audience in a clear manner. Cloaking his thoughts in abstractions and hope that the audience will "figure it out" is just intellectual laziness. From dictionary.com: art film  a motion picture made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit, often of an experimental nature or having an unconventional or highly symbolic content, aimed typically at a limited audience. Art film is actually defined as a seperate genre in film. I agree that all films are art work, but the term "art film" has actually been taken to define a specific category. When we speak of "experimental film" and "art film" I believe that most of us are speaking of the same thing; the two terms are interchangeable. I feel that it's unfortunate that so many filmmakers feel that they can classify their work as an art film by making it as abstract and random as possible. I've seen so many films where the directors were unable to explain why they did what they did. Their universal reply was "Oh, it's art," not even explaining their reason behind such work. If you said that they were trying to communicate their ideas, then why are they unable to explain it? I find it ludicrous that they would reply with such simplicity for such a complex idea that they supposedly had.
Click to expand...

It seems that you missed the word "often" in the definition you quoted. If people are using the terms "art" and "experimental" interchangeably they are mistaken. Experimental would be a classification within a genre by the definition you provided.

Most art is made by compulsion, not intellectually with a "reason" in mind. That is the function critics give themselves - to explain - not artists. Explanations most always comes after the fact. I feel the most honest answer an artist could give for creating anything is "I just felt like it." Don't get me wrong here, I don't mean to imply that artist aren't concerned with specific themes etc., just that most don't layout all the intellectual crap before they decide to get to work. An individual's interests and concerns have a way of stepping forward without forethought.

It sounds as if you're suggesting that every work of art should be readily understood, comprehended, absorbed, whatever, by anyone experiencing it regardless of education, cultural experience or intelligence. I have to strongly disagree with that. If I can't "get" something, I figure it's just not for me or maybe I don't know enough about it. Simply stated, not all art is intended for everyone.

In response to the original question, I'd ask "Does any form of art need a purpose to exist?"
 
rsbush said:
\

Most art is made by compulsion, not intellectually with a "reason" in mind. That is the function critics give themselves - to explain - not artists. Explanations most always comes after the fact. I feel the most honest answer an artist could give for creating anything is "I just felt like it." Don't get me wrong here, I don't mean to imply that artist aren't concerned with specific themes etc., just that most don't layout all the intellectual crap before they decide to get to work. An individual's interests and concerns have a way of stepping forward without forethought.
Click to expand...

Worthwhile arts are created and driven by reason, or else anyone can just sit down, scribbles on a piece of paper, and call it art. To say that an artistic work comes from some undefined, spontaneous instinct is to devalue the craft; if this were true I can take my camera, do random zooming and panning according to how I feel, and then call it art. I'm not requiring every filmmaker to plan and storyboard their ideas before shooting it, I'm just asking they they know why they're doing it.


rsbush said:
In response to the original question, I'd ask "Does any form of art need a purpose to exist?"
Click to expand...

It needs a reasoning mind behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top