A Masterpiece... you hate?

Also, speaking of ravings, thanks for responding to those of mine.

We'll have to agree to disagree though. I feel Cinema is the art form we will be judged on in the centuries and millennia to come. I also contend that some (though, granted, precious few) things are in fact elevated above subjectiveness itself.

:beer:
 
Nektonic said:
Also, I don't know if it is necessarily considered a masterpiece yet, but Terence Malick's recent The Tree of Life, while exquisitely shot from a cinematography point of view, it just sorta left me a bit cold.
Click to expand...

I fought myself through to the 25 min mark but couldn't handle it anymore. It reminded me of a student who visited the same course at university and when being asked what he wanted to do after studying he answered (with his legs crossed and his Jonny Depp hat sitting neat): 'I don't know....something with art.'
 
CallaghanFilms said:
If you were to find the ravings of an early 16th century ardent critic of Michelangelo's work, "history" would show him to be an a**hole or a jealous failure, or both.

I have just declared that to be my new family motto, btw; "Don't be History's a**hole."
Click to expand...

Michelangelo's critics were more often than not church men, and their critiques were directed towards his use of nudity. They ultimately got their revenge when the Council of Trent outlawed nudity in Catholic Church Art, and had many of the frescoes altered with fig leaves. (There was a recent (sort of...) debate about restoration of the fig leaves, or the original, as it is, the fig leaves faction won out... when the Sistine Chapel ceiling was renovated.).

As it is most of Michelangelo's 'women', look more like men with manboobs... but I digress...

There were artistic rivalries and political posturings... but that was due to the way in which patronage was dispensed, which the artist, any artist of the era depended on.

The idea of 'galleries' where artists would sell their works to passerbys or collectors, was virtually unknown. The 'collectors' began with the rise of the middle class wealthy...

The 'iconoclastic' movement of northern Protestantism, accelerated the movement of art out of the church, and into the secular world, and thence to a commodity.
 
This thread has had a very interesting effect on me - it's made me much more tolerant and mellow with regard to different tastes. I always used to think that there is such a thing as better and worse art almost objectively and self-evidently. In music, would you say Britney Spears is just as good as Beethoven or Coltrane or K-FED? I mean it seems absurd. But yet, there are people who will say that f.ex. K-FED is moving music and Coltrane is boring crap. And I don't mean "stupid" or uneducated or unsophisticated people - because I certainly don't think of anyone in this thread as such. Yet, the number of masterpieces which are absolutely dissed is simply amazing - I mean, how can you hate La Dolce Vita? The Godfather? The Shining? Chinatown? But people here do - vehemently! And I want to stress - it doesn't mean anything negative about the people... it's bizarre, because I'll agree with the same person about some stuff (hate Antonioni), and yet disagree about other stuff (La Dolce Vita);

When I think about a movie, I imagine that I'm really evaluating it objectively, like how the story develops, the acting, the cinematography, use of music and so on, and therefore how can one disagree... but of course, it's an illusion. Because I too can agree that some aspects of a movie are fantastic while others don't work for me - so I'm just as guilty of subjectivism as the next person. Like take 2001, which I find a huge bore - I can clearly see the technical achievements (immense!), but the story makes it cringeworthy to me and it's just a giant mess. Meanwhile, when somebody else has the same take on another movie - I'm shocked! When David Jimerson hated on Vertigo, I practically fell off my chair - here's an intelligent and sophisticated fellow, how can he not see how amazing Vertigo is... and then he did mention the technicolor - which made me fall in love with San Francisco even before I moved to California - so he totally gets the "good" parts, just as I get the good parts of 2001, but the movie doesn't work for him, just as 2001 doesn't work for me. And if I really take a hammer to Vertigo, I do see the flaws (not a fan of Kim Novak, for one), but I guess I forgive those ones while David cannot - just as maybe someone forgives the flaws in Star Wars which I cannot.

What this has brought home to me, is that the subjective aspect is much, much, much greater than I appreciated before. I guess I tended to think that it's much easier to agree on what constitutes good vs bad art than it is in real life. As a result, I will be much less shocked that films I love are hated and vice versa.

So if nothing else, this thread has mellowed me out a bit, and I'm much less likely to fall off a chair when somebody says they hate, f.ex. "La Dolce Vita". De gustibus non est disputandum - I hold to this much more strongly now.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Ditto on TOL: 25 effortful minutes, then buh-bye...
Click to expand...
I made it up to the dinosaurs, by which point my wife was convinced it was a comedy and I was tired of being treated like eight-year-old by one of the most overrated directors on the planet.

I'll vote for Apocalypse Now, because it's the type of movie that we all like to think is cool, but on closer inspection is just an overblown mess with no third act made by a director who's ego was out of control - which are the exact same reasons why it's also in my top ten of movies ever made...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Among the unwashed masses there are any number of people who do not really appreciate The Masters of Art Canon that most 'informed' people accept (and accept despite not particularly liking the work for any number of reasons...).

Here's an example of someone who was listed as "America's Favorite Artist', Thomas Kinkaide...

gallerydirectart_2252_5134006602


I don't know about the rest of the readers here... but this artist just does not move me to even list him among the 'ok, I'll look at the work once'... category... Other than I use his works as examples of a class of 'art' I don't have any interest in...

But he did become very popular with the 'reprint art work' circuit...

In the case of film, similarly there are any number of yoemen spitting out 'acceptable works for entertainment'... There are some that are put into the 'classic' category, and studied for edification, whether one likes the work, wants to emulate the artist, or passes the 'classic' altogether...

As a note... I could accept the above work as an illustration for say, "Hansel and Gretel"... I'd expect the next illustration to have the Evil Witch done up in a similar style...

I like Maxfield Parish and often 'see' shots in films that are reminiscent of his style.
Click to expand...

Yep. It looks like an animated photo almost. It has no dynamics as if all of the lighting was compressed. Also it has no story or emotion behind it. It looks like an HDR. It's nice and very good work but it's not moving, is it. sigh.
 
Classics:

Van Gogh no. Davinci YES.

Beethoven and Mozart no. Bartok YES.

Movies: That's a hard one.
I might put Space Odyssey 2001 on the bubble.
 
One example, and it is the first time I've heard it. I didn't like the artwork at first but with the music, yes, I do now. Very fitting. Just sharing my thoughts. There is a sense of nightmare/horror in the that I think is where Bartok is much more expressive in his music than the other classics. Very , well, you decide. ( I'm sure Kansas was inspired by Bartok but I've never heard it said. He has a wide...anyways...)

 
This is a very dangerous thread.

What I do find most interesting with this topic is how my own definition of 'masterpiece' has changed since I began watching films critically, and how many films that I now consider 'masterpieces' were produced by that awful classic hollywood studio system. I find the comparison to music more useful than comparing film to painting, and while composers or musicians individually may produce work that can ascribed the term 'masterpiece' compared to the body of their work, I think it is much more difficult or perhaps futile to compare, say Bach to Brahms or Parker to Coltrane or even Hendrix to Vaughn. There are movies that I hate, whether or not they are considered masterpieces seems irrelevant.

I admit I enjoy war movies, at the same time I hate what they usually say and the way they seduce a viewer into belief. Several of the most celebrated war movies of the last 10-15 years that employ a hyper-realistic aesthetic fall into this category. So I guess I 'hate' these 'masterpieces' for what they reveal about audience (which includes me).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top