If a film falls and no one sees...

Brian_Rice

Brian_Rice

Carbonite Member
Man, I feel like Pookie up in this piece with all my threading.

So here's an observation in the form of a question:

If you make a great film (or any piece of art), a friggin masterpiece, but no one ever sees it - you make the film and then just f'ing burn it - did you make a great piece of art?

Personally, I think Yes, you did. I don't think a single living person has to experience your art in order for it to have existed, nor do I think it has to be judged by another living person for it to have been great.

If you are the only person to have ever experienced it, that's enough.
 
That might be enough for you, but most filmmakers are driven to create something they explicitly want to share with others... filmmakers are story tellers and very few story tellers are content with telling a great story to just themselves... thus, I believe you are the vast minority.

I think most filmmakers would find this scenario to be a nightmare.
 
it is physics 101 (the schroedinger cat).
if nobody has seen it, then it does not exist, then it can't be good or bad
or other theories would say: it is good and bad at the same time, you have to see it to decide.
or : the movie exist, if you have not seen it, it silly to ask if it is good or bad , or even ask if it exists.
or: it does not matter if the film exists , if good or bad, because looking at it will only reflects how
you feel at that particular place and particular moment.
 
Last edited:
I'm with the just making it. I make art for myself and no one sees it and a lot of the conceptual stuff I do is written into books just for me. I get rid of my art all the time. I'm moving to an island with my family so I just chucked all my paintings. I love the act of making thing, and it feels great. I'd hate to have to try to sell the stuff and spend time on that. All my artist friend spend as much time hustling as they do creating.

So I've made a lot of small films for myself and no one will ever see them.......
 
No, you did not, because art is not a "thing."

"Great art" does not exist outside of our conception of it. We made the whole idea up. Do you think aliens from Gliese 581C would view art the same way we do? They might not even have a concept of "art". There's no law of physics that says, "that is great art, sure, but this is stupid."

The entire concept of "great art" is something that exists only in our minds. We can't even agree on what constitutes great art! How are you qualified to decide that your own work - that nobody has seen - is great art in the global sense? Even if you're the most respected critic in the world your view is meaningless because not only can the entire world disagree with you but time will pass and perhaps the great critic of the future will disagree with you.

The concept of "great art" is meaningless in every sense but the subjective sense. You, and you alone, can decide for yourself what you think is great art - but outside of your own set of opinions your view is meaningless.

Isn't making a living as an artist great? :Drogar-Shock(DBG):
 
Obviously a movie only as good as people think it is. If you want to make movies you should make them for other people. If you want to make "art" that you don't care if other people see or not, just buy a cheap used guitar and sit at home and play to yourself.
 
What is to be considered "great art" in movies varies a lot. Jean Luc Godard made great movies. Some people see them as pieces of great art other see them as crappy pseudo intellectual french junk. Is Avatar "great art"? Same as Woody Allen movies and many others.

It's always good to have an audience (it's great!) but one has to understand that it's not easy to get an audience that really loves your work. I think what most indie filmmakers have a hard time understanding is that takes time and effort to actually make a movie that other people like to see! Maybe I'll never make a movie that people actually want to see, but If I'm enjoying the process than it's all good! And if I see my movies as great art, even better!

Me personally I always think that my movies are great art when I'm writing them and big craps after they're done. I'm still waiting for the day where one of my movies turn out to be great art, But I'm prepared to accept that maybe that day will never come and perhaps I'm not as talented as I think I am. There's a bit of Ed Wood in all of us ;)
 
I hate to say it but some filmmakers are also ego driven attention wh*res. So no it isn't a great film because these filmmakers never get the love and adoration they were seeking or, to be more on point, thought they deserved from making it.
 
I'm one of the few weirdos... I've created a few personal films and did NOT make a huge push to get them seen by others. Though I make $ working as a freelance filmmaker / producer.

My most proud work (its in my signature), I created for college. In hindsight, I realize why I created it. It wasn't for it to be seen, but to understand myself.

Sometimes words are not enough to convey complicated feelings and abstract perceptions about our mysterious lives and comprehension of them. Sometimes we have to find another form of expressing our thoughts and feelings when words fail us.

For me, film serves that purpose. It has helped me to comprehend some deep psychological "truths" about how I understand myself, and in the process of creating film, I experience a cathartic transformation.

I currently work in an art school, and this fell out of my mouth during one of my many discussions "Creating art is an attempt to understand something we already know but don't have the words to describe". I've received confirmation from many dedicated artists that this is exactly what they experience when creating their art.

My 3 cents.

Dillon
 
Last edited:
LOL...This is kind of a pointless thing to ponder. Art is not objectively great. The audience decides its greatness. The filmmaker alone thinking his film is a masterpiece is like a mother's love, utterly blind (well, good mother's anyway). Anyway, I can count the people who have the money, time, talent and resources to keep making masterpieces they show to no one on exactly zero fingers.
 
dillont said:
I'm one of the few weirdos... I've created a few personal films and did NOT make a huge push to get them seen by others. Though I make $ working as a freelance filmmaker / producer.

My most proud work (its in my signature), I created for college. In hindsight, I realize why I created it. It wasn't for it to be seen, but to understand myself.

Sometimes words are not enough to convey complicated feelings and abstract perceptions about our mysterious lives and comprehension of them. Sometimes we have to find another form of expressing our thoughts and feelings when words fail us.

For me, film serves that purpose. It has helped me to comprehend some deep psychological "truths" about how I understand myself, and in the process of creating film, I experience a cathartic transformation.

I currently work in an art school, and this fell out of my mouth during one of my many discussions "Creating art is an attempt to understand something we already know but don't have the words to describe". I've received confirmation from many dedicated artists that this is exactly what they experience when creating their art.

My 3 cents.

Dillon
Click to expand...


Very impressive film. I loved it.

One small note - if you are ok with revision, I would consider removing the first line. The content of this v.o. line worked against the nature of the film methinks.

Great sound.
 
A Great piece of art normally outlives the artist. Sometimes it's not even recognized as such during the artist's lifetime. It needs to be appreciated by others, however. Positive or negatively, but never passively.
 
Well I guess we've separated the "great" from the "art."

Art is some man-made object that communicates. Communication is a two-way interaction. There is the artist who presents it, and the viewer who experiences it. They can be the same person.

"Great" is simply an opinion, and we all know the adage about opinions and anuses. Anii?
 
This is an interesting question to ask about film or art in general in this day and age (the information age).

With that dang internet there seems to be a lot of hate spewed at art in general. Perhaps it was always there, and these days there is merely the outlet to let that hate flow? Jeez, I'm starting to sound like Yoda here ("Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"). I think that stuff does apply though in this case, as I get the feeling that a large... ahem A LARGE PORTION of our society seems to thrive on shouting down and humbling artists. Now, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but it seems like taking a more constructive criticism approach is the more civilized path to tread. With the anonymity of the web, amplified by the Twitter, Facebook, and knee-jerk comment obsessed culture that is growing stronger in force, no one is really held accountable anymore when they spew the worst vitriol at another individual anymore. It is like all someone has to do is yell "fire" in a theater, and someone will actually start a fire to compensate, whether there was already a fire or not.

Now, some will say "them's the breaks man." I don't know though. Is all the negativity really that necessary all of the time? If we are to demand better art and entertainment, why not take into account how we criticize impacts those that make or finance the art we seem to need. Yes, humans do in fact need art and entertainment, both to blow off steam through escapism, and as one of the tools we use to not only understand our world, but to spread new ideas throughout the greater society.

So how does this come back to the notion of an artist releasing their works into the wild to be loved or torn apart by the world? It is relevant because nowadays it is much harder to have a positive notion about releasing said art into the wild. At least for me personally. I can relate to what dillont said about just making something because maybe you enjoy it or are fulfilled by making it in some way (to understand yourself is one example that makes sense). I'm currently wrestling with all this myself in terms of where I want to go with my own writing and filmmaking dreams. These days part of me wants to say to the snarky cacaphony of hatemongers waiting to savage any and all art just for the LOL's, "poo poo 'em" right back at them and not release any of my works into the wild.

I'm not saying we all need to gather round the campfire and sing Kumbayah over every piece of art that get's put in front of us, but maybe there can be some more thought and restraint put into things going forward. Is that too much to ask of the human race, being that we are the most civilized species on this planet?

Or maybe I just need to get used to the notion that if I undertake some creative or artistic endeavor, I'm a "c0%k$ucker" or whatever is the most colorful insult that first pops into people's minds the moment after they see or experience the crap I call art?

Now, if this seems like an angry rant, it isn't really. I am merely trying to understand the current mental landscape that faces the artist (on both sides of the equation) and whether or not it is a desirable thing to seek financial gain or personal reward from art in this mental landscape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top