J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Here's something that bugs me
Hmm, why wouldn't any person who shoots film be called a filmmaker? Is it the subjective creative credential you're attaching to the word that determines a candid shot of a dog is crap and a well lit shot of a dog is art?
If video and film can be arbitrarily ascribed the same artistic label of “filmmaking” then what’s to stop any bloke with a camera from assuming the moniker of a filmmaker? What I mean is that if all our terms are arbitrary, then video is film and every dad at a softball game is a filmmaker.
I think the underlying truth of this topic is that filmmakers want to be recognized for their efforts in the pursuit of art without qualification, and because film carries a higher status then video, all the little DV denizens pick up the title of filmmaker in hopes to afford their efforts a little more worth.
While there’s an obvious persistent grammatical perversion in its use, I think the truth is that narcissism is as much a cause for the adoption of the title “filmmaker” as anything. It’s the narcissism that forces us to avoid qualifications like “video” in the presentation and pursuit of our projects. There’s the perception that video is a dilution of the art of film, and thus we eschew the word entirely from our creative vocabulary because of some underlying inferiority complex.
Instead of bravely standing for the medium that encapsulates our efforts, we attach the word FILM to our art because we hope to be included in the same category as those who do actually shoot film.
It’s narcissism and inferiority that causes us to strive for the credence attached to film, much like its narcissism and superiority that causes us to separate ourselves from the “casual family men” who have access to our tools.
Obviously this subject is being very overanalyzed, but I think there’s a reason why something that’s basically a grammatical issue receives so much attention.
Hmm, why wouldn't any person who shoots film be called a filmmaker? Is it the subjective creative credential you're attaching to the word that determines a candid shot of a dog is crap and a well lit shot of a dog is art?
If video and film can be arbitrarily ascribed the same artistic label of “filmmaking” then what’s to stop any bloke with a camera from assuming the moniker of a filmmaker? What I mean is that if all our terms are arbitrary, then video is film and every dad at a softball game is a filmmaker.
I think the underlying truth of this topic is that filmmakers want to be recognized for their efforts in the pursuit of art without qualification, and because film carries a higher status then video, all the little DV denizens pick up the title of filmmaker in hopes to afford their efforts a little more worth.
While there’s an obvious persistent grammatical perversion in its use, I think the truth is that narcissism is as much a cause for the adoption of the title “filmmaker” as anything. It’s the narcissism that forces us to avoid qualifications like “video” in the presentation and pursuit of our projects. There’s the perception that video is a dilution of the art of film, and thus we eschew the word entirely from our creative vocabulary because of some underlying inferiority complex.
Instead of bravely standing for the medium that encapsulates our efforts, we attach the word FILM to our art because we hope to be included in the same category as those who do actually shoot film.
It’s narcissism and inferiority that causes us to strive for the credence attached to film, much like its narcissism and superiority that causes us to separate ourselves from the “casual family men” who have access to our tools.
Obviously this subject is being very overanalyzed, but I think there’s a reason why something that’s basically a grammatical issue receives so much attention.
) 
