If a film falls and no one sees...

[Batutta]

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.

I think you need to realize that the a-holes that roam the internet and post their dickish opinions (and I admit to being one of them sometimes) don't really represent the vast majority of filmgoers. They are just the loudest voices, so they drive the conversation in negative directions, much like lunatics on the fringes of politics drive political discussions today. If you don't put your work out for fear of giving them more grist for their bile-filled mills, you are robbing the silent majority who may get pleasure or meaning from your work. Most reasonable people don't waste their time spewing hateful nonsense on the internet because they have actual lives. It's those people you are making your art for.

 

[prexdealer]

In the purist sense, to me, I would think that the artist wouldn't care. He or she did for the pure sake of the art. So it wouldn't matter what someone says and it wouldn't matter if anyone ever saw it. When a person then promotes it or pushes it out there for the public to see, that piece of art is then subject to commentary. That is the life, it is called feedback and we do it every day in some shape or form. You don't like a certain restaurant, you never go back. You don't like a certain song, you change the station when it comes up. But then said artists ask for feedback and people then give it them and they don't like the feedback. Then don't ask for it.

My comment earlier about attention wh*res is that I live in LA and am around artists. Some have no talent yet demand much attention. It is sort of annoying. Much like I find it annoying that some people post a link to their work and insist only on constructive criticism. Like they will determine if the criticism is worthy to be acknowledged or not. Our society has created generations of people who can't handle anything but positive reinforcement. Yet, much growth comes from setbacks in life or comments that they may not like.

I am not making any comments about anyone in particular, just general observations.

 

[Gord.T]

edit: Let me edit this into something comprehensible.

I guess there is personal art and commercial art.

 

[Jon Starr]

"What is art?" is in line with "What is the meaning of life?" No one really knows, and everyone has a different interpretation. In the end art is what 'you' define as art. I feel discussions about what art 'is' never comes out with solid parameters that help the definition, because they don't exist. If they do exist then they are only parameters set by the individual viewing the work, whether influenced by another person (society) or their own conclusions.

I just feel it's pointless to debate, but that's just me.

As for the rest, if you want to make a 'great art' film for yourself, go ahead. However I see film as not only art, but storytelling. 'Telling' is key here.

 

[dillont]

Thank you kindly for the words, Sage! And thank you for the suggestion as well.

Dillon

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.

 

[Paul F]

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



If you make a great film, 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?

How did the filmmaker know they made a great film before they burned it?