Bitter satire from an old sound mixer. You should probably just skip it.

[Steve House]

No, it isn't. Whether or not a film is genuine or a bunch of hogwash, it's the audience's problem to figure it out, to get involved. You really expect every film to be SO ACCESSABLE that EVERYONE is going to connect with it?

I want to challenge an audience, not jerk them off. They don't like it? Fine, don't watch. ....

Film, like drama, writing, music, painting and photography, and most of the other arts, is communication between the artist who transmits and the audience who receives. And in all communication, clarity is the responsibility of the transmitter, not the receiver. Challenging the audience means that you have introduced them to new ideas and emotions, experiences that are new and different and perhaps transform them. But if your lack of craftsmanship gets in the way of clear communications, "challenging" the audience by making it difficult for them to receive your message by making it so obscured as to be unintelligible, then you have failed in your primary responsibility. The art of film is that when well crafted, the process itself fades below perception so the audience isn't experiencing watching a film but rather for a short while they are experiencing life in an alternate reality - a reality crafted by the filmaker in order to shape and guide the audience's experience. If technical flaws cause awareness of the process by which it was made to intrude back into the audience's consciousness, you have failed in the purpose of the work to begin with. If I hear a recording of dialog that is clear and clean, the tonality and perspective carefully thought out and placed, I can experience the conversation as if I was present in the reality depicted. But if it's hissy, echo'y, and an AC buzz underscores the track, the fact that it is a recording can never leave my perception. I'm not transported into that alternate reality, I'm trapped in this one merely experiencing listening to a recording - the fact it is a (rather poor) simulation never leaves my consciousness and as a result the ability of the film to create an emotional response has been weakened at best if not lost completely.


Art isn't about the artist or the medium, it is about the audience and their experience of the art.

 

[SMuir]

Filmmaking isn't supposed to be a business, some people just made it that way.

I'm afraid I have to question your interpretation of the history of your craft, there. "Supposed" by whom? The Lumiere brothers? The Edison Company?

It's not bad to make money off films, but when you start cutting your film to appease people or to "sell" better you've become a whore.

Actually, I think you'll find that to become a "whore", you will need to exchange sexual favours for money. When you set your own squealing ego aside and collaborate with a producer, you're simply acting in a professional manner.

Good producers are deeply committed to their projects, often climbing on board long before the director. In fetishizing the Director as sole artistic contributer, you've left out the army of folks who labour together in the filmmaking process. I've often had creative disagreements with producers, but more often than not my creative excesses were serving my own ego rather than making the film better.

 

[SMuir]

But if you think a film like E.T. or The Dark Knight is a work of art, dear god, please spare the world and never make a film.

Now, you see, it's statements like that that really get my knickers in a twist. You've attempted to build an argument on an ill-defined distinction (Art vs. non-art). What exactly is it about either film that precludes it from being filed under art? Is there really no room in your definition of film as art for such things as pop-art? Does the film's non-art status mean that the soundtrack albums occupy a similar non-art limbo? Does the blanket category of "not art" invalidate the sensitivity and craftsmanship of the various crewmembers contributing to the films?

You're making the same ill-formed and belligerent arguments that I've heard countless times before, usually from overwrought film students.


And Mr. Edgar, I quite enjoyed your "modest proposal."

 

[SMuir]

I think that may be my next sig line...

The implication is that the director is the sole pimp to cast and crew of whores. That'll make for one heck of a "behind the scenes" DVD feature.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

You're right, Hollywood doesn't tell us how movies should look, Film Schools do based off of Hollywood models. Since when should young filmmakers pay attention to Hollywood? That John Cassavetes, that Yasujiro Ozu. They must have been studying how Hollywood did it.

I have yet to meet a person, who is not trying to be facitious, who willingly suspends their inclination to boredom, to watch Andy Warhola's "Sleep"(1963)... then there's "Empire"(1964)...

Most of the art films that are still watched by people, that have the Warhola name, where actually directed and 'made' by Paul Morrissy, who does not stray too far from the Hollywood Apple Tree in many respects. Sure, certain subjects, certain camera styles, etc. were different from the then 'standard' from Hollywood, but then, so was Sergio Leone with his series of movies in the 60's that have formed the 'hollywood standard' basis, that we still have today.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Personally I think Warhol's infamous quote "everyone will be famous for 15 minutes" came from his covert understanding that his own fame was completely baseless. He had assembly-line style workers cranking out his "paintings" and so on. This is a man whose "contribution" to "art" needs to be seriously debunked, and for my nickel it can't happen a moment too soon...

His fame was his life's work, not his art. Nothing else mattered.

 

[Ted Spencer]

No, it isn't. Whether or not a film is genuine or a bunch of hogwash, it's the audience's problem to figure it out, to get involved. You really expect every film to be SO ACCESSABLE that EVERYONE is going to connect with it?

I want to challenge an audience, not jerk them off. They don't like it? Fine, don't watch. My films won't be for everyone, just like not everyone likes me. The problem with audience's nowadays is they refuse to put ANY sort of effort into a film. If they don't understand or connect with something on a first view, they storm out and trash it. Why on Earth would you want to appease someone like that?

That's the problem with the above post too that mentions cutting a film for an audience to understand it better. You want to have an audience for a film- you hope that people will connect with it- but when you start thinking of key demographics, target audiences, or "helping the audience" understand your "theme", you've already lied to yourself. You've given up, and all those people that worked on your film, you've just given them the finger. If pure entertainment is your thing, fine, whatever, that's not my area so it doesn't concern me. But if you think a film like E.T. or The Dark Knight is a work of art, dear god, please spare the world and never make a film.

Let me ask you something, do you change the way you are so people will like you better? Do you dress a certain way to appease people? Do you change your personality, watch what you say around certain people, put on a front? So why do this in your films? Why not make the exact film you want to make, make WHO YOU ARE? So what if some audience doesn't like it? Someone else will, if you're honest and put your heart and soul into it. I simply can't understand it. No one breaks any sort of mold or advances an art by giving people what they want. It just doesn't happen. Do they make a ton of money? Yeah, I imagine they do. Can they make it look technically proficient and slick? You betcha. Will it have any soul or give us anything new? Nope. So why bother? Batman jumping off a roof and smashing the Joker might have amazing sound and visuals...but it's the same generic stuff that's ruining cinema.

I would rather watch someone's home movies of Christmas morning on hi-8 than ever watch anything George Lucas has ever made. You'll actually find something real in the home videos. Obviously lots of people disagree, and that's their loss. Vincent Van Gogh never tried to appease anyone. He struggled with his art all his life, and died relatively unknown and poor. No, that doesn't sound fun, but making art is tough.

Your films may SOUND amazing, but you've left out the other side of the equation, arguably the more important side. I've seen films with less than amazing technical sides- maybe the audio has a few pops, or is rough, or the visuals aren't AMAZING. I can forgive them. I can forgive people looking in the camera. Because I can still see and hear these films, and they have a lot of heart and some amazing insight into life. Are these people masters of their craft? Maybe not. Are they professional? Definately not (and for the record, professionals certainly do make great artists- I'm not saying the don't). But they've given me something Michael Bay never has. And if you think that's silly or a "hobby", then I can't convince you otherwise. Have fun appeasing audiences I guess.


EDIT: Quick response to Noiz2: Once again, making money off a film or getting people to see it isn't what I'm talking about. Sitting around saying "Oh no, I don't have the RED, I can't make a film" or "Hmmm...audience's might find this scene boring, we should cut it!" when you find it vital to what you're trying to say is compromising yourself. The weather or time constraints are natural compromises- you have no choice but to be creative. But trying to say what you want to say, and then having some random person telling you "No, we need to make this more marketable so we can sell it to more theaters, so cut 10 minutes off the end of the film"....I couldn't live with that.

Yes, filmmaking is expensive, but nowadays it can be obviously much cheaper. It's not for everyone though. Painting probably doesn't fetch much either these days, but people still do it. Some people actually work jobs and save up money JUST to make films. Again, look at rhe mumblecore folks. Not my favorite movies ever, and not a worldwide success. But they made films for a couple of thousand dollars and they didn't have to recut anything. Imagine that.

Oh, and John Cassavettes was notoriously disgusted with the Hollywood system, what are you talking about? He liked Frank Capra, but that's a director, not the "machine" I mentioned. He almost knocked out Stanley Kramer. He was once quoted as saying that he could never make a commercial film after A Child is Waiting because he couldn't stand the politics. He acted in bad Hollywood films not to get rich- he put all that big money back into his films and was often still in debt. He struggled to find money for his films all the time. He was probably crazy. But he was also filled with a lot of passion and passed on numerous chances to make tons of money on his plays and films. He refused to "sell out"- not because he hated eating, but because he didn't care about hitting the big time and felt like he needed to keep the integrity of his films, especially for all those involved. Only recently has he gotten the praise deserved in this country, well after his death.

And you're right, I know nothing about cinema, in the realm of things. I'm always learning something new everyday. And what I've learned in the past is that I don't want to become some rich guy who compromised the reason he wanted to create in the first place. Sorry if that sounds naive. You don't have to watch my films online or in the unlikely case they'll ever be shown in a theater. I have a certain set of beliefs, you have yours. I'm not deciding what art is, I'm telling you what art means to me and what it used to mean to a lot of people. Pop culture is pop culture for a reason. When you start comparing Spielberg to Beethoven, I just feel like you've lost perspective.

1) I've met many people in my long career in the music business that view art in this way. Interestingly, without exception, these types also all belong to one specific category in their pursuits as artists, from which none in my experience has ever transcended: failures. Where are they now? Doing something other than music for a living...

2) Your views also remind me of another type I find interesting - the ones who only like "underdog" artists. An aspiring singer-songwriter I dated long ago once told me about a band she used to love but didn't any longer because they'd become successful. Not that the music wasn't good - apparently her problem was that their larger success meant that she couldn't have them as more or less "her own" anymore. Now that lots of other people had caught on to their music, just as she had, she no longer cared about them. As far as I'm concerned this is nothing other than selfishness - which for my money is, by the way, the greatest disease in history.

3) You mention Van Gogh. For about a century or so, his misconstrued life story has been a touchstone for people trying to justify their outlaw aesthetic and consequent lack of success. Please note, from Wikipedia, the following:

"...he not only studied anatomy, but the standard rules of modelling and perspective of which he said, '...you have to know just to be able to draw the least thing.' Vincent wished to become an artist while in God's service as he stated, '...to try to understand the real significance of what the great artists, the serious masters, tell us in their masterpieces, that leads to God; one man wrote or told it in a book; another in a picture.' "

Does that sound like somebody who ignored the artistic establishment?

Also, regarding the widespread misconception about his commercial "failure" in his time, remember that he started painting seriously only ten years before he committed suicide in 1890 at age 37. Again, from Wiki:

"Since his first exhibits in the late 1880s, Van Gogh's fame grew steadily, among his colleagues and among art critics, dealers and collectors. After his death, memorial exhibitions were mounted in Brussels, Paris, The Hague and Antwerp. In the early 20th century, the exhibitions were followed by vast retrospectives in Paris (1901 and 1905), Amsterdam (1905), Cologne (1912), New York City (1913) and Berlin (1914). These prompted a noticeable impact over a new generation of artists."

Had he not ended his own life with a gun (due to profound mental illness), he would almost certainly have been expected to enjoy the acclaim above, all of which would have occurred by the time he was 61. He would also likely have died quite wealthy had he lived to that age or longer. So much for Van Gogh's "glorious failure" myth...

Lastly, I hate to break it to you, but there is no "Hollywood" as you describe it. There is no crass, faceless "garbage machine". It's just a community of people who make a living producing motion pictures. I can say that with some authority since I've been involved in the production of quite a few of them. If they fail to earn back their investment often enough, game over. I've seen it happen a number of times - the bottom line has no sacred cows. Just like the folks running that really cool, funky store or restaurant you might like so much and that most people don't know about. Their license to coolness expires when the the money train goes backwards too. Cool still won't pay the rent, sorry...

So...sorry too, if it seems like I'm beating up on you too hard, but from my perspective on this question, after fielding it umpteen times from folks (almost all young ones...wait...no...scratch the "almost"), it's a bit wearying.

 

[ullanta]

This is a man whose "contribution" to "art" needs to be seriously debunked, and for my nickel it can't happen a moment too soon...

His fame was his life's work, not his art. Nothing else mattered.

I guess this is a bit off topic already, but in this thread - who cares?

I don't think you should dismiss Warhol so quickly. Or, rather, consider as I do, that Warhol was kind of a second-wave, second-rate John Cage. Then, look at Cage's work and writings about it, and you'll get a much better and deeper picture of the ideas that drove Warhol.

Cage's work and philosophy often directly addressed the issue of what "art" is in a very direct way, and certainly expanded the definition, and in his work are the seeds of many of our modern concepts and approaches to many of the arts.

(Then, from Cage, look at the Dada movement, and Henry Cowell, who were some of his important influences...)

So, yeah. Warhol I kind of yawn at... but he did popularize a lot of the ideas that I'd say Cage better thought out, explained, and executed....

 

[Noiz2]

No, it isn't. Whether or not a film is genuine or a bunch of hogwash, it's the audience's problem to figure it out, to get involved.

That is the oft spoken excuse for people who's works nobody can sit through. It's the "I'm so great the audience hasn't caught up with me yet" syndrome. Sometimes that is the case but 99.999% of the time it is because the artist failed miserably. We use to say "just because everyone hates it doesn't meant it's great, it might just be bad". Saying the audience has to figure it out is just lazy and incredibly narcissistic. It's saying that YOU are perfect, any turd you squeeze out needs to be appreciated by the masses as the great art YOU see it as or they are just unworthy.

BS

You really expect every film to be SO ACCESSABLE that EVERYONE is going to connect with it?

Of course not. And obviously nobody does. You have a problem with movies made by, well pretty much everyone but you, so obviously those big budget films don't connect with EVERYONE.

I want to challenge an audience, not jerk them off. They don't like it? Fine, don't watch. My films won't be for everyone, just like not everyone likes me. The problem with audience's nowadays is they refuse to put ANY sort of effort into a film. If they don't understand or connect with something on a first view, they storm out and trash it. Why on Earth would you want to appease someone like that?

Yes todays audiences have gotten lazy. I blame broadcast TV, but... But any film you can't understand by only watching it once is a failure. A really good film you will get more with multiple viewings BUT if I NEED to see it twice just to have any understanding YOU failed. I personally hate films that spoon feed the audience. I think they are badly made. An audience needs to work at a film to get invested in it. Contrary to your assertion most successful films do make the audience work and get invested, that is what makes people like them.

That's the problem with the above post too that mentions cutting a film for an audience to understand it better. You want to have an audience for a film- you hope that people will connect with it- but when you start thinking of key demographics, target audiences, or "helping the audience" understand your "theme", you've already lied to yourself. You've given up, and all those people that worked on your film, you've just given them the finger. If pure entertainment is your thing, fine, whatever, that's not my area so it doesn't concern me. But if you think a film like E.T. or The Dark Knight is a work of art, dear god, please spare the world and never make a film.

I love it when folks argue that the public is too narrow minded and then present their even narrower point of view. So basically your films are art and every one else should just go home... I actually want people to see films I've worked on. I have also seen way more films screwed up by director/writers than anything else. In those cases the director may end up perfectly happy with their baby, but nobody else can stand to watch it, or it's just boring. When a filmmaker doesn't pay attention to the over all production including the audience they ARE giving the finger to everyone who worked on it and the public in general. It is an excuse for sloppy workmanship and not learning your craft.

Let me ask you something, do you change the way you are so people will like you better? Do you dress a certain way to appease people? Do you change your personality, watch what you say around certain people, put on a front?

If you don't think you do any of the above you are very self unaware or your living in a cave by yourself. You do actually wear clothes that you bought in a store right? Or did your mother pick them out for you? If you picked them out then your choices were made to "appease other people". "No I pick them to show who I am", to who? You cant see them when your wearing them, it's to communicate to other people. If a cop stops you, you don't say "Fu&k off I have somewhere to go". Why not it's probably what you are thinking. Simple we all every day all the time act based on how we want to be perceived.

So why do this in your films? Why not make the exact film you want to make, make WHO YOU ARE? So what if some audience doesn't like it? Someone else will, if you're honest and put your heart and soul into it. I simply can't understand it. No one breaks any sort of mold or advances an art by giving people what they want. It just doesn't happen.

WEll yes they do. What you don't get is that very few people sit down and try to make something to market to a demographic. In certain situations there are those forces applied later in production but not that much even then. 90% of the time you have a bunch of people trying to make a film they would like to see, that they would find challenging and compelling. There is also remake crap etc that starts as a market move. But to the people making the film it's still about taking that constraint and making a movie that they would like. Tastes differ and you have a right to your opinion but so do they.

Do they make a ton of money? Yeah, I imagine they do.

In most cases no they don't. 90% or so of SAG members earn below the poverty level from films. Most directors producers etc make a living (or get out) and the top couple of percent make bags O' cash.

Can they make it look technically proficient and slick? You betcha.

Actually that would be the army of professionals that are working on the production and post not the director, mostly.

Will it have any soul or give us anything new? Nope.

Your opinion. Not I might add shared by the majority of your fellow humans. There are plenty of BAD films. Having seen thousands of films I would say that the micro budget films have a slight lead in the BAD category, but that might be because I've seen fewer and probably the some of the better no-budget films.

So why bother? Batman jumping off a roof and smashing the Joker might have amazing sound and visuals...but it's the same generic stuff that's ruining cinema.

Ruining cinema? It's the history of cinema, it's the same kind of thing cinema has done since it's inception, and it did it really well. It's a little like saying the great masters were a big waste because all they did was oil paintings of real objects, they didn't "advance the art". That kind of argument only works if everyone agrees that your view of what is the "art" is the only true one. Personally I would take it more seriously if you knew a little about what your talking about.

I would rather watch someone's home movies of Christmas morning on hi-8 than ever watch anything George Lucas has ever made. You'll actually find something real in the home videos. Obviously lots of people disagree, and that's their loss.

Your making a classic student error of confusing your opinion with a greater "law of nature". If you want real go walk down the street, that is real. NOTHING on the screen is real, ever.

Vincent Van Gogh never tried to appease anyone. He struggled with his art all his life, and died relatively unknown and poor. No, that doesn't sound fun, but making art is tough.

Oh please, do a little research.

Your films may SOUND amazing, but you've left out the other side of the equation, arguably the more important side. I've seen films with less than amazing technical sides- maybe the audio has a few pops, or is rough, or the visuals aren't AMAZING. I can forgive them. I can forgive people looking in the camera. Because I can still see and hear these films, and they have a lot of heart and some amazing insight into life. Are these people masters of their craft? Maybe not. Are they professional? Definately not (and for the record, professionals certainly do make great artists- I'm not saying the don't). But they've given me something Michael Bay never has. And if you think that's silly or a "hobby", then I can't convince you otherwise. Have fun appeasing audiences I guess.

So have you actually seen ANY Hollywood films that were not summer blockbuster types? You can name off shlock producers and directors all day long but they produce a drop in the bucket of the films out of Hollywood. You again make a student mistake of equating the flaws of a film with the quality of the film. If those same films were not distracting the audience with the bad sound and bad image they would be even better. The "defects" are not what makes the films work they are what holds it back from being the best it could be. That they still work at all is a testament to how well they did the other parts of the film.

 

[Noiz2]

EEKS way too long..... part2

EDIT: Quick response to Noiz2: Once again, making money off a film or getting people to see it isn't what I'm talking about. Sitting around saying "Oh no, I don't have the RED, I can't make a film" or "Hmmm...audience's might find this scene boring, we should cut it!" when you find it vital to what you're trying to say is compromising yourself.

Well two different things, procrastination because you don't have the greatest X is just an excuse. Removing a scene that is boring the audience IS vital to you saying what you want to say. Unless of course you only want to say it to yourself.

The weather or time constraints are natural compromises- you have no choice but to be creative.

What??? You mean constraints might lead to creativity??? Now just hold that thought.

But trying to say what you want to say, and then having some random person telling you "No, we need to make this more marketable so we can sell it to more theaters, so cut 10 minutes off the end of the film"....I couldn't live with that.

Well unless your working on a VERY commercial film you wont ever have to. And random folks don't tell you to cut your film. The people who tell you to cut out ten min are the ones putting up the $$$. However as a poss interesting connected story. I did a student short that ran about 26 min. It was very confusing jumping back and forth in time. The director didn't, of course see it that way - having written it. So we finished it up and the school wanted to put it in their festival BUT they had a 12 min restriction. He really wanted to show it so he recut a short version that made the timeline much clearer. EVERYONE who like the first version like the shorter one much better. Even HE liked the shorter version better. He eventually recut the long version to a little under 20 min with some of the time line straightening that was forced on the 12 min version. It's a MUCH better film. It says what he wanted to say but better than the original. He didn't "appease" the audience but he did listen to them.

Yes, filmmaking is expensive, but nowadays it can be obviously much cheaper. It's not for everyone though. Painting probably doesn't fetch much either these days, but people still do it. Some people actually work jobs and save up money JUST to make films. Again, look at rhe mumblecore folks. Not my favorite movies ever, and not a worldwide success. But they made films for a couple of thousand dollars and they didn't have to recut anything. Imagine that.

You don't have to go that far off the mainstream. Woody Allen makes films for a lot more than that and nobody gets to recut anything. And he's still making films in mono because that's the way he likes them. BTW those are Hollywood films. Like them or not he does whatever he wants and delivers a finished film to the studio. Nobody even gets to see a script ahead of time. You may not like what he's saying but he IS saying what he wants.

Oh, and John Cassavettes was notoriously disgusted with the Hollywood system, what are you talking about? He liked Frank Capra, but that's a director, not the "machine" I mentioned. He almost knocked out Stanley Kramer. He was once quoted as saying that he could never make a commercial film after A Child is Waiting because he couldn't stand the politics. He acted in bad Hollywood films not to get rich- he put all that big money back into his films and was often still in debt. He struggled to find money for his films all the time. He was probably crazy. But he was also filled with a lot of passion and passed on numerous chances to make tons of money on his plays and films. He refused to "sell out"- not because he hated eating, but because he didn't care about hitting the big time and felt like he needed to keep the integrity of his films, especially for all those involved. Only recently has he gotten the praise deserved in this country, well after his death.

Research is a good thing, try it sometime. Capra worked in the studio system, that IS the machine. There is much less of a machine now, all the big studios are gone except in name. Well Disney is still it's own boss but that is pretty much it. And I didn't say Cassavetes (not Cassavettes) liked Hollywood I said he new it. He came out of YEARS of working in the Hollywood system (back when it still existed) and knew how Hollywood did things. He wasn't working out of ignorance. And just because you have just discovered him doesn't mean he was an unknown at the time. My parents were dragging me (I was a little young) to see his films when the originally came out.

And you're right, I know nothing about cinema, in the realm of things. I'm always learning something new everyday. And what I've learned in the past is that I don't want to become some rich guy who compromised the reason he wanted to create in the first place. Sorry if that sounds naive.

What sounds naïve is that you think nobody working professionally thinks that way. You may hate Lucas but he has total control over his films. He is not compromising his vision at all. You just don't happen to like his vision. That's fine, I don't particularly either. Ironically I think the earlier films made when he didn't have total control are much better films. Your mistake is in thinking that everybody aspires to your vision. I don't begrudge your right to make films. I get pissed when you claim yours is the ONLY valid vision. I get irked when you (a universal you) want me to work for free to clean up the mess you made in production because you didn't learn how to make decent recordings. I get pissed off when you call me a whore because I am a professional.

You don't have to watch my films online or in the unlikely case they'll ever be shown in a theater. I have a certain set of beliefs, you have yours. I'm not deciding what art is, I'm telling you what art means to me and what it used to mean to a lot of people. Pop culture is pop culture for a reason. When you start comparing Spielberg to Beethoven, I just feel like you've lost perspective.

Well you will never catch me comparing those two. But since you bring it up they are both "working" artists. Mr. B composed for money, mostly commissioned by folks who had demands and in a system that had restrictions, and he wrote what he could get paid for. Classical music was the pop culture of it's time so there are more similarities than you probably want to admit. But Mr.B had to please a far smaller group of people and that adds a certain amount of freedom. But you have to remember that composers were tradesmen as were painters. Skilled tradesmen but the whole modern concept of "artist" didn't exist yet. I don't think Mr. S would call himself an "artist", he's a filmmaker. But Mr. B wouldn't fit your definition of an "artist" either. An important tidbit to remember when getting too wound up about the purity of "art" is to remember that Richard the Third was a handsome well liked young man not a hunched back old ogre. Shakespeare wrote him the way he did because the folks who deposed Richard III were now in power. He was writing for his audience, the cheap prostitute!

 

[Noiz2]

Truth be told I don't really care what is considered "art", that is an academic discussion that has very little to do with the work and a lot to do with the times. Was Warhol an "artist" or a hack? Is self promotion an art form?

Who cares? Well art historians care a lot but does it really matter in the big picture? I would say only in that you get folks putting these people up on a pedestal and worshiping them, or the reverse, and it's a big distraction.
And it's constantly changing. There is no litmus test that lasts more than a generation or two. So while it can be a great and heated discussion topic in the long run it's kind of pointless. So many good discussion topics are.
The big debate when I was in school was between "good art", "bad art" and "corrupt art". Does anyone outside the community really care? I hope not because it means your prejudging things based on something other than the work.
I do a fair amount of work with "new music" groups and they are constantly "discovering" "new" things, that rock bands discovered back in the 60's. If these composers could peak out the windows of their academic ivory palaces they might realize that 1/2 of their new cutting edge discoveries were part of pop culture when they were in diapers. I was listening to a "new music" concert with a quite renowned conductor and afterword mentioned how much it reminded me of the music from West Side Story. She looked at me and said West Side Story is new music, they just didn't tell anyone so they could get an audience. But most "new music" aficionados wouldn't be caught dead listening to "show tunes".

Is it art or is it pop culture??? Or is it both.

I like my mothers "butt test". She used to refer to things either passing or failing the but test. If you find yourself squirming in your seat 20 min. in, it (film, theatre, music etc.) has failed the butt test. Just bypasses the whole is it art question and gets right down to the do I want to spend my time on it question.

I guess this is a bit off topic already, but in this thread - who cares?

I don't think you should dismiss Warhol so quickly. Or, rather, consider as I do, that Warhol was kind of a second-wave, second-rate John Cage. Then, look at Cage's work and writings about it, and you'll get a much better and deeper picture of the ideas that drove Warhol.

....

 

[ullanta]

Truth be told I don't really care what is considered "art", that is an academic discussion that has very little to do with the work and a lot to do with the times. Was Warhol an "artist" or a hack? Is self promotion an art form?

Who cares? Well art historians care a lot but does it really matter in the big picture? I would say only in that you get folks putting these people up on a pedestal and worshiping them, or the reverse, and it's a big distraction.
And it's constantly changing.

I can sorta agree... "what is and isn't art" is itself an academic discussion. But "Can one aesthetically apprecitae X" (the Butt test?) and "Can i find a way to influence people to newly appreciate X" is of more practical interest. That's where Cage was; I don't think he ever addressed "art".

There is no litmus test that lasts more than a generation or two.

I'm not sure about this... in fact, I think it wraps the whole discussion back around and brings us back on topic. What we call "great artists" are quite often those people who made (or first exploited) technical contributions that expanded our representational abilities. Whether this be development of perspective, or first use of a moving camera, or a certain plot structure or composition, or new uses of sound... we remember those whose technical mastery and technical inventiveness advance representational capabilities. I can't think of any great filmmakers (or artists of any type) who skimped on ANY aspect of their craft...

 

[SMuir]

I can sorta agree... "what is and isn't art" is itself an academic discussion.

I'd tend to agree with you fellas there, except that in serious film academia, arbitrary distinctions like "Art vs. Hollywood Garbage" are generally greeted by a shake of the head and a roll of the eyes. If the latest issue of the Canadian Journal of Film Studies is any indication, academia takes far more interest in commercial genre films than in self-styled "art" filmmaking.

Dividing film into the twin piles of "art" and "everything else" is, academically speaking, about as useful as a trailer hitch on a roller skate.

 

[Noiz2]

I can sorta agree... "what is and isn't art" is itself an academic discussion. But "Can one aesthetically apprecitae X" (the Butt test?) and "Can i find a way to influence people to newly appreciate X" is of more practical interest. That's where Cage was; I don't think he ever addressed "art".

Good point

I'm not sure about this... in fact, I think it wraps the whole discussion back around and brings us back on topic. What we call "great artists" are quite often those people who made (or first exploited) technical contributions that expanded our representational abilities. Whether this be development of perspective, or first use of a moving camera, or a certain plot structure or composition, or new uses of sound... we remember those whose technical mastery and technical inventiveness advance representational capabilities. I can't think of any great filmmakers (or artists of any type) who skimped on ANY aspect of their craft...

Well not so much scrimp as sort of botch it. Leonardo DaVinci, one of my favorites, has very few surviving works because he was constantly pushing past his expertise and making technical "improvements" that backfired or just plain took too long.

But what I meant by litmus test is that many a "great" artist to day was not that well recognized at the time and visa versa. The judgments on artists that have been dead 100+ years tend to be pretty stable but the ones that are big today may not be in a few decades. Academia also makes these swings though usually they are not in sync with popular culture. Part is totally understandable. How to you know how big an influence someone is till the people they influenced start to produce and that can take generations. And part is trends. I don't think that "artist" in England that does shows of piles of ****, literally, is going to be remembered a century from now as a great innovator. He was/is all the rage now but... But I could be completely wrong. Something great might come out of what he's doing??? There is a fairly modern trend of saying that whatever the person calling themselves an "artist" says is art, is. Personally I think it's a trend that cant last if for no other reason than it negates the existence of "art". If everything is art then nothing is art. So I think that eventually folks will flush their very expensive down movements down the toilet and chalk it up as a loss and he will become a humorous footnote like the Tulip craze. But that is just my uninformed opinion.

 

[Ted Spencer]

[Re: Andy Warhol]

I guess this is a bit off topic already, but in this thread - who cares?

Well, a few of us do, evidently. Warhol was mentioned in the post I quoted as well as in one of the other responses. And based on what follows, so do you:

I don't think you should dismiss Warhol so quickly.

I majored in art in college, my mother was an artist, my grandfather was a professional artist, photographer, filmmaker and inventor, I've made a lifelong study of art in every form in considerable depth and have made my career in the art, music and film businesses for over three decades. Warhol and his ilk's artistic irrelevance was quite rightly pointed out to me long ago by one of my college professors. So my dismissal of him can hardly be termed "quick".

Or, rather, consider as I do, that Warhol was kind of a second-wave, second-rate John Cage. Then, look at Cage's work and writings about it, and you'll get a much better and deeper picture of the ideas that drove Warhol.

I have "looked" at John Cage's work. Interesting choice of words actually, because much of Cage's work, like Warhol's, doesn't actually need to be experienced at all in its native form ('heard', in Cage's case). "4:33" (minutes of silence) is a "musical piece" that only needs description - watching Cage sit in front of a piano and do nothing for the duration is completely superfluous.

It reminds me of a firsthand account I heard (from the assistant engineer) of a "recording session" that took place during John Lennon/Yoko Ono's "Double Fantasy" album project at the Hit Factory, where I worked at the time. Yoko reportedly brought a dead rat to the studio in a box and told the engineers to "record" it. So they did...

With all due respect to Yoko, who I've also worked with and found very likable, and to Mr. Cage, this is idiocy...

Cage's work and philosophy often directly addressed the issue of what "art" is in a very direct way, and certainly expanded the definition...

Maybe for some of people. I see it more as a violation of the definition...

...and in his work are the seeds of many of our modern concepts and approaches to many of the arts.

Yes, regrettably...

(Then, from Cage, look at the Dada movement, and Henry Cowell, who were some of his important influences...)

Dada, as satire, is perfectly valid in my estimation, as were the more humorous works of Frank Zappa, or The Beatles' "I Am The Walrus", or Rene Magritte's apple-face gentleman. All the latter were highly accomplished artists who chose to break away from the expected into the more amusing or bizarre, without jettisoning substance. Fair game. But "4:33"? Dead rat recordings? 30 minute movies of the Empire State Building? Their raison d'etre doesn't extend that particular dead rat's ass beyond their attention-getting headlines.

H.L Mencken's famous claim that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" has never been so well proven. Regarding Warhol's success in particular, PT Barnum's "there's a sucker born every minute" seems especially apropos...and I'd bet almost anything that no one understood that any more clearly than Andy himself...

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

[Re: Andy Warhol]



Well, a few of us do, evidently. Warhol was mentioned in the post I quoted as well as in one of the other responses.

I brought up Warhola because I consider him to be an antipodal point of 'art', and in particular 'film art'... A master of self-promotion to be sure... but as a 'craftsman' interested in developing a refined aesthetic work... not in the least.


If one theme of 20th century art is the externalization of the internal workings of the human... then Warhola's contribution is related to excretory functions of the lower intestines...

 

[unclebob6958]

I don't think that "artist" in England that does shows of piles of shi*, literally, is going to be remembered a century from now as a great innovator. He was/is all the rage now but... But I could be completely wrong. Something great might come out of what he's doing???

Maybe it's his commententary on art, that the general public will fall for any kind of sh!t???:laugh:

 

[ullanta]

[Re: Andy Warhol]

I have "looked" at John Cage's work. Interesting choice of words actually, because much of Cage's work, like Warhol's, doesn't actually need to be experienced at all in its native form ('heard', in Cage's case). "4:33" (minutes of silence) is a "musical piece" that only needs description - watching Cage sit in front of a piano and do nothing for the duration is completely superfluous.

To this I'd heartily disagree!

Have you seen a score of 4:33? A proper performance? The piece is often dismissed as a stunt, but it's not. It is indeed meant to be performed, and when in a proper concert context it is performed, it is actually a great experience. Very hard to achieve now, with the piece's notoriety. But it can be done sneakily, and it can work.... I know from years of interactions here that you are generally respectful, serious, and open-minded... so I'll remind you that it's NEVER a good idea to dismiss something without having experienced it!

But that's one piece, and not a typical one.

From my own experience, from many years in the classical music field, I'll tell you this: Cage has sneakily made better and more flexible musicians out of many a classical pianist! While fully "composed" (and thus approachable by the typical classical pianist), the preparation instructions for the prepared piano pieces are written so as to make the whole result nondeterministic. The pianists don't realize this until they've committed themselves to performing the pieces... so they're stuck having to give up on their typical goal of perfect reproduction and decide for themselves how things should be done. It may sound strange, but I've seen this crack many a pianist out of a shell that influenced the rest of their performing careers. Clearly, the overtly "chance"y pieces go after this... but even the earlier pieces have this effect. Ted, really... I think you'd find it interesting if you looked into it a bit further.

 

[Ted Spencer]

To this I'd heartily disagree!

Have you seen a score of 4:33? A proper performance? The piece is often dismissed as a stunt, but it's not. It is indeed meant to be performed, and when in a proper concert context it is performed, it is actually a great experience. Very hard to achieve now, with the piece's notoriety. But it can be done sneakily, and it can work.... I know from years of interactions here that you are generally respectful, serious, and open-minded... so I'll remind you that it's NEVER a good idea to dismiss something without having experienced it!

But that's one piece, and not a typical one.

From my own experience, from many years in the classical music field, I'll tell you this: Cage has sneakily made better and more flexible musicians out of many a classical pianist! While fully "composed" (and thus approachable by the typical classical pianist), the preparation instructions for the prepared piano pieces are written so as to make the whole result nondeterministic. The pianists don't realize this until they've committed themselves to performing the pieces... so they're stuck having to give up on their typical goal of perfect reproduction and decide for themselves how things should be done. It may sound strange, but I've seen this crack many a pianist out of a shell that influenced the rest of their performing careers. Clearly, the overtly "chance"y pieces go after this... but even the earlier pieces have this effect. Ted, really... I think you'd find it interesting if you looked into it a bit further.

Thank you for the personal comments, and certainly, ditto on you.

And yes I have now looked at a score for 4:33. A Revelation did not ensue. Sorry. So still, no, I'll refrain from witnessing/enduring a performance of it, thanks just the same.

I have, many a time, being a profoundly sound-centric person (30+ years in pro audio will do that to ya) listened to "nothing" for far, far longer that 4:33. And yes, certainly, incidental sound can be very entertaining. As I sit here typing in my rather unusually quiet (for Manhattan) home/studio, a prop airplane just passed overhead leaving a long graceful fadeaway as it did. Interestingly various traffic sounds from the West Side Highway make a soft backdrop, as well as human and pet-based ones from the neighborhood, and the keyboard makes its halting, plasticky drumbeat as I hunt and peck. Don't need no steenking John Cage to 'get' that...

But otherwise, I can see where there could be some value in Cage's work, but just for...I don't know...the 'trip' or something. Want to zone out into the 'sonically unexpected'? Great - take a "Cage Experience Course" or something. Yoga for the ear. Whatever. Just don't call it music. Please.

And hey...you know what? Kids everywhere could make their very own "John Cage Composition Kits". Throw kitchenware at a piano! Drop BBs into a guitar! Point a blow dryer at a viloin! Stand silently for six minutes with a fluegelhorn balanced on your head! Instant geniuses!

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

And hey...you know what? Kids everywhere could make their very own "John Cage Composition Kits". Throw kitchenware at a piano! Drop BBs into a guitar! Point a blow dryer at a viloin! Stand silently for six minutes with a fluegelhorn balanced on your head! Instant geniuses!

The wife, while she was at UCSD working on her undergraduate degree, got an award for her Windframe Project. The project, was essentially instrumenting a salvaged window frame, ca. 1910-20's or so, with some curtins (laserized mylar for rainbow effect), and instrumented to measure movement due to wind, the 'digitized' positions were then fed in to a midi device, and depending on time, and velocity of the wind, the instrument selected, duration, and loudness, were related to the changes, variations, etc. of the wind. This was about 22 years ago... (We won't go in to details of who actually put these various pieces of equipment and the programing required...)

After a number of years doing the 'pro' photography biz, we're now moving back into the 'site art work' arena... just in time for the growing depression... but we did submit two proposals in the last 2 months based on new implementations of this idea...

The idea of course has been around since the dawn of human consciousness in the form of wind chimes or aolian harps...