Avatar - James Cameron Returns! (Spoilers in thread, obviously!)

Jason Ramsey said:
b/c you do not act in a closet by yourself. you do not make a movie that only you will watch. You must consider your audience, and if you want to be able to do it as a full-time job, you must consider the fact that it is still a business. Doesn't mean you can't love to do what you do, etc. There will be many other forces pulling at you throughout the process. But, if you don't have an audience, then it kinda defeats the entire purpose of "performing arts".

Unless, of course, you happen to have 300 million laying around and you want to make a movie just for yourself and don't care if it ever sees the light of day or recoups its investment.
Click to expand...

LOL

People used to literally DIE because of the art they felt compelled to create.

They created something and then were killed or tortured for it.

Many of humanity's best artists died penniless and unknown.

But your thought process, unfortunately, is what most people who call themselves artists hang their hat on.

I can only emphatically express the wrongness of this kind of thinking so many times and in so many ways.

Love, like art, does not deal in comprimise.
 
Chamber005 said:
No, you (whoever you are) should not be concerned with profit. How can you possibly create something that insights change or reflects a lack of conformity if you're concerned with how it will be received? That's the job of the producer or production companies (or, the aspect of the filmmaker himself that he allocates specifically for the business of his film).
Click to expand...

And again, the big bad ol' real world intrudes.

You will never sustain yourself on your art with that attitude. Ever. I say again -- ever. Accept the idea that you're going to be in sales for life and your art will always be a hobby.

Which is just fine, if you make peace with it. But you'll never make a living if you take this unbendable attitude. Not going to happen.
 
LOL

People used to literally DIE because of the art they felt compelled to create.

They created something and then were killed or tortured for it.

Many of humanity's best artists died penniless and unknown.

But your thought process, unfortunately, is what most people who call themselves artists hang their hat on.

I can only emphatically express the wrongness of this king of thinking so many times and in so many ways.

Love, like art, does not deal in comprimise.
Click to expand...

you've completely lost me at this point.

Sounds like, for whatever reason, you just want to hate this movie, and you will pull any ole random noble sounding argument out of your hat to do so. That's fine. But, the one thing you haven't done... the most important thing in order to actually decide if you like or dislike the movie... the movie... from the time the lights go down to the time they go back up... is watch it. You can go off on these side tangents about how the only true art is one worth killing over, being killed over, etc... if you want... I just don't see how it adds any real relevance to your stance, which as of this moment is not coming from a place of having seen the film. You hate the hype, the marketing, the director, etc, etc... fine. then say it and move on :) Or, put that aside (as you hopefully would) when you go to see the film and then you will actually have SEEN that which you are trying so fervently to bash.

Oh... And, I'd have to say from experience that Love (like art) deals very much in compromise. And, it's hard work. Love is the result of much hard work. Not something that just happens. I think you are thinking of infatuation. Not love, which, like art, is nurtured and worked for and something that is grown into over time. But, hey. that's just my experience and my opinion based on it :)

In the meantime... until you actually see the film, I'd have to respectfully say that you are
beatdeadhorse5.gif
 
David Jimerson said:
And again, the big bad ol' real world intrudes.

You will never sustain yourself on your art with that attitude. Ever. I say again -- ever. Accept the idea that you're going to be in sales for life and your art will always be a hobby.

Which is just fine, if you make peace with it. But you'll never make a living if you take this unbendable attitude. Not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Don't want to paraphrase. You're saying that if a person doesn't create their art for audience appeal they will ever be able to sell their art?

And of course as an artist I am full ready to live and die without the benefit of mass appeal. Honestly, if what you create does generate mass appeal, there's a good chance you've created something that does little to progress your species.

Art doesn't exist for financial gain or fan fair, it exists to help us comprehend our place in existence and to better contemplate, examine and sometimes even develop notions of our humanity.
 
I think your definition of "art" is too narrow. You are speaking of an ideal, not a full and complete definition of this subjective "art"
 
Chamber005 said:
Don't want to paraphrase. You're saying that if a person doesn't create their art for audience appeal they will ever be able to sell their art?

And of course as an artist I am full ready to live and die without the benefit of mass appeal. Honestly, if what you create does generate mass appeal, there's a good chance you've created something that does little to progress your species.

Art doesn't exist for financial gain or fan fair, it exists to help us comprehend our place in existence and to better contemplate, examine and sometimes even develop notions of our humanity.
Click to expand...

I'm saying you will never, ever get paid enough to live on from your art with your attitude. If that's OK with you, then so be it. But it's also hard, cold fact.

I think what most people object to here is the sanctimony you're heaping on everyone else who doesn't share your ironclad, extremely narrow view of artistic integrity. But I agree with Jason; your fifteen minutes are up with me, too.
 
Chamber005 said:
LOL

People used to literally DIE because of the art they felt compelled to create.

They created something and then were killed or tortured for it.

Many of humanity's best artists died penniless and unknown.

But your thought process, unfortunately, is what most people who call themselves artists hang their hat on.

I can only emphatically express the wrongness of this kind of thinking so many times and in so many ways.

Love, like art, does not deal in comprimise.
Click to expand...

This is just not true...Most of the great art in Museums was created by craftsman in the employ of Kings or Churches. The comprimises Michaelangelo had to put up with just to finish a lot of his art is ridiculous, but he found a way to make it work. Again, black and white thinking. Reality is usually a lot messier. What is regarded by many to be one of the greatest films of all time "Casablanca", was considered to be "slick sh*t" by the writers, and nothing but just another job by most people involved, including the director. Art is made in all kinds of ways. Some toil in obscurity only to be discovered after their death, like Van Gogh. Others are immensely popular in their own time and still today, like Shakespeare.
 
Jason Ramsey said:
Oh... And, I'd have to say from experience that Love (like art) deals very much in compromise. And, it's hard work. Love is the result of much hard work. Not something that just happens. I think you are thinking of infatuation. Not love, which, like art, is nurtured and worked for and something that is grown into over time. But, hey. that's just my experience and my opinion based on it :)
Click to expand...

I found that most people believe that love is either something that we do or something that is. I guess the same could be said for art.

So, if you believe as I do that love and art are things that exist independently of ourselves, then there's no effort or comprimise at all in either of them. The only effort involved then is in one's protection of art and love as they naturally exist and are channelled through us.

My experience. :)

(and now I have officially left the universe in which the topic of this thread resides. LOL)
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I'm going to assume you are not married.
:)

(and I only say that half jokingly)
Click to expand...

I think you said what Jason was saying in fewer words. And what I was thinking when I stopped reading at that point.

That entire statement is innacurate and fantastical. No more for me!

Second Avatar viewing on ze way.
 
Batutta said:
This is just not true...Most of the great art in Museums was created by craftsman in the employ of Kings or Churches. The comprimises Michaelangelo had to put up with just to finish a lot of his art is ridiculous, but he found a way to make it work. Again, black and white thinking. Reality is usually a lot messier. What is regarded by many to be one of the greatest films of all time "Casablanca", was considered to be "slick sh*t" by the writers, and nothing but just another job by most people involved, including the director. Art is made in all kinds of ways. Some toil in obscurity only to be discovered after their death, like Van Gogh. Others are immensely popular in their own time and still today, like Shakespeare.
Click to expand...

Where you say Casablanca I say Citizen Kane.

Because film is a collaberation there is, of course, comprimise (just like I think people here are confusing love with "relationship").

But the intentions on which Orson built Citizen Kane are what matter, not that there was comprimise in the completion of it.

So, to my point, of course there is comprimise in human matters (relationships, collaberation in theatre, etc), but if the intention of the art is comprimised, it ceases to be art, just as if the intentions of love are corrupted, the love suffocates.
 
Chamber005 said:
I found that most people believe that love is either something that we do or something that is. I guess the same could be said for art.

So, if you believe as I do that love and art are things that exist independently of ourselves, then there's no effort or comprimise at all in either of them. The only effort involved then is in one's protection of art and love as they naturally exist and are channelled through us.

My experience. :)

(and now I have officially left the universe in which the topic of this thread resides. LOL)
Click to expand...

Coincidentally, these are the same artists who starve and die bitter despite what they may have inspire in others and, as well, the same lovers that die alone amd regretful.

It's not my place to choose your conquests, but I guess you've stated your point-of-view clearly; let us know what you think about if or when you see it...
 
Chamber005 said:
but if the intention of the art is comprimised, it ceases to be art, just as if the intentions of love are corrupted, the love suffocates.
Click to expand...

I don't accept that. It's not art that conforms to your notions of ethical purity, but it is still art. Wether or not it's good or bad art is in the eye of the beholder. You don't know what was in Orson's heart when he made Citizen Kane any more than I do. For all I know he only went to Hollywood to sleep with starlets. It doesn't matter. What matters is the end result at the end of the day. Casablanca and Citizen Kane are both great works of art that routinely make top ten lists.
 
there is still this one big problem, and it is the source of the reason why this thread is now degenerating into a idealogical and philosophical waxing and waning... you haven't seen the movie. You can't discuss the film or its content b/c you haven't seen it. You only have 1/4 of the experience, and you seem pretty hell-bent on hating it for your own reasons (and that's cool)... so, after talking about not liking the marketing, and the hype and all, what's left? Start downing on the man, and getting into this whole "what is art?" kinda thing.

Go see the movie, and then tell us why you hated it. That way, at least we can keep this thread on the actual topic of the movie :)

later,
Jason
 
Jason Ramsey said:
there is still this one big problem, and it is the source of the reason why this thread is now degenerating into a idealogical and philosophical waxing and waning... you haven't seen the movie. You can't discuss the film or its content b/c you haven't seen it. You only have 1/4 of the experience, and you seem pretty hell-bent on hating it for your own reasons (and that's cool)... so, after talking about not liking the marketing, and the hype and all, what's left? Start downing on the man, and getting into this whole "what is art?" kinda thing.

Go see the movie, and then tell us why you hated it. That way, at least we can keep this thread on the actual topic of the movie :)

later,
Jason
Click to expand...

:::sigh:::

My comments were about the production, not just the film. The film is a small aspect of the production as a whole (including James Cameron who is also in the thread's topic).

But yeah, it's silly for me to keep expressing to people here my personal ideologies as a means of defining why or how I am discerning Cameron's intentions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top