I hope you don't exclusively like the "high-culture" stuff either, because that's just snobbery.
enneagram 4 you mean?
I hope you don't exclusively like the "high-culture" stuff either, because that's just snobbery.
Well said, all around. I've never understood why schools insisted on teaching us about classical music. "Its sophistocated", they once told my brother when he asked the teacher. But how? Its music. It felt like I was getting ripped off not learning about all the different types of music (which is something I now do on my own time as much as possible).
These things need a concrete definition... either all films are art, or none of them are. Either all music is, or none of it is. Either all paintings... ect. ect. ect. They can't be "more art" or "more culture" than something else. They can be of different quality, but that must be judged on an individual basis, not weather it is an indie film or some other non-mainstream form of "high culture".
I particularly liked "Now if I can only convince everyone that high culture is only the expression of insecure snobbery." I have felt like that many times when I've heard people (especially those of authority) talk about art and culture.
"These "hidden messages" in the so-called higher art films are really little more than advertising." I enjoy "hidden messages" and symbols, but I see them all the time in good "low-culture" movies, too. You can make symbols all you want with pretty much anything, and thats what I like to do to enjoy my movies!
I don't see how a movie like "Transformers" or "Superbad" is any less a work of great art than Shakespeare (who bothers me, by the way). Transformers, as you mentioned, had incredibly well done visual effects, and it was extremely enertaining because of the impeccable mix of the action and humour (giant fighting robots is a sure winning forumula, anyway). Superbad had a very good plot, and very good characters, too, and was hilarious, yet because it had a lot of cock jokes a lot of snobs will probably look down on it. And those cock jokes were smart, too.
Somewhat offtopic, but *shrugs*.
My top 3 zombie-type movies:
1. 28 days later
2. Dawn of the Dead (the remake, great Johnny C song in there incidentally)
3. Resident Evil (Milla, mmmm)
I understand that, but why only classical music? why are other forms of music ignored? I'm not saying the top 40 hits should be even mentioned in a music class, I just think a greater variation in style would be worth learning about. Music theory can be tought using any form of music (even those dreaded top 40 hits), but I think its best to use a wide veriety of styles and composers, including classical masters like Mozart, but also including jazz, blues, rock, hip hop, ect.Western classical schools of music are important insofar as showcasing the development of form--from highly theological, to highly theoretical, to totally fucking chaotic. Examine a composition of Mozart side-by-side with the current top-40s bestseller: notice, among other things, that Mozart composed his piece all at once, and that it has survived for more than a century--if nothing else.
I just don't think one thing of a type of media (i.e. music) can be art while others are not. Art is impossible to define in words, but I think people have an idea for themselves what art is...and you need to decide if you consider things art or not, and stick to it. It just doesn't make sense to me how someone can say Monet is art while Jackson Pullock isn't just because they don't like it. They are both painters, so are they therefor not both artists who made works of art? People seem to confuse those distinctions (it being good vs it being art). Why is Monet art and Pullock not? Why is Beethoven art but not the Sex Pistols? Why is Shakespeare poetry but not the Wu-Tang Clan? (for examples of the art and not art debate). Mozart isn't "more music" than Thelonius Monk, so how could it, or anything else, also be "more art". People can enjoy one more than another, but it doesn't make it more art than something else, and it doesn't make it more music than something else. Both are art, both are music, no matter how good or bad they may be to the one listning. I hope that was an adequate explaination.Wait . . . so . . . Art is necessarily subjective, therefore it needs a concrete (objective) definition. Please explain to me how I have misread your logic, as I really hope I'm the one who made a mistake here.
First, I havn't read Nietzche, so I'm not sure what you mean by that last part.Also: why must quality be judged on an individual basis? I agree that a work should not be judged based on its production budget, its genre, the social class it generally appeals to--but there are aesthetic paradigms which we can use to judge art objectively (for example, Nietzsche's Apollonian/Dionysian distinction).
I'm not really sure what you're asking with this, could you please elaborate?I can understand someone feeling this way . . . but have you ever rationally justified those feelings?
I know stage and film are different. The fact they are different is beside the point. Both are art, neither is more art than the other (both in reference to stage and film and in reference to Transformers and Shakespeare). Perhaps one is better/more enjoyable than the other, but it isn't more art, its just a higher quality work of art.I agree with this point--a culturally-perceived "low-brow" film can have just as much, if not more, meaningful content than a culturally-perceived "high-brow" film.
Transformers vs. The Winter's Tale . . . oh boy. Primarily: film and theatre are intrinsically different. A theatre production changes every night; a film remains exactly the same excepting minor technological aspects such as scalability and sound experience.
This is the point where people decide what they liek and what they don't like. I personally wasn't totally impressed with all of Shakespeare's plot elements and characters when I read his plays. I was very impressed by some things, and dissapointed in others. You, or anyone else, may have -no, likely- saw it differently and enjoyed it or did not enjoy it for your own reasons/interpretation.Shakespeare's successful plays achieve not just the "extremely entertaining" aspects of Transformers, but also the "very good plot" and "very good characters" of Superbad--simply. I'm wary of defending Shakespeare against your argument too far because, as I already stated, it's unfair to compare film vs theatre. Shakespeare vs. David Mamet would be a better argument, or Transformers vs 8 1/2.
Ideally, greta works of art are both meaningful and masterful. A high quality peice of art is both, a bad peice of art may have little of both, and a decent/good work of art may be only moderately strong in both or may excell in one but be weak in another. I'm sure theres more to it than that, but I'd rather just sit back and enjoy it at this point rather than go into obscure/irrelevant points.Basically: taking a completely relative view of anything--especially of art--is fundamentally dangerous. Because everything is necessarily of equal value in such an approach, it becomes nearly impossible (if not actively impossible) to actually determine where one should focus, because there is just too much for one to focus on. If we can agree that some art is better than other art, then we can work on trying to determine what art deserves our attention--and here we can be somewhat relative, namely as to what we are pursuing in our focus. If we only want entertainment, then Michael Bay will do. If we want to experience emotional development, then Michael Bay is probably not a good idea.{/QUOTE]Some art is better than other art, but no art is more art than other art. Its kind of like quantity vs quality. In art and all the different forms of art, I do not believe there is any variation from work to work in the quanitity of art (as in, as I've said many times, all art is equally art and equally artistic). However, there is variation from work to work in quality (as in, one song is better than another, or one painting is better than another). Quality can be compared, quanitity can not.
{QUOTE]Society, as a singular idea that should strive towards an ideal, wants art that is meaningful and masterful. I would argue against Transformers succeeding in both categories, but could come up with several reasons why Superbad just might meet them.
enneagram 4 you mean?
I understand that, but why only classical music? why are other forms of music ignored? I'm not saying the top 40 hits should be even mentioned in a music class, I just think a greater variation in style would be worth learning about. Music theory can be tought using any form of music (even those dreaded top 40 hits), but I think its best to use a wide veriety of styles and composers, including classical masters like Mozart, but also including jazz, blues, rock, hip hop, ect.
I just don't think one thing of a type of media (i.e. music) can be art while others are not. Art is impossible to define in words, but I think people have an idea for themselves what art is...and you need to decide if you consider things art or not, and stick to it. It just doesn't make sense to me how someone can say Monet is art while Jackson Pullock isn't just because they don't like it. They are both painters, so are they therefor not both artists who made works of art? People seem to confuse those distinctions (it being good vs it being art). Why is Monet art and Pullock not? Why is Beethoven art but not the Sex Pistols? Why is Shakespeare poetry but not the Wu-Tang Clan? (for examples of the art and not art debate). Mozart isn't "more music" than Thelonius Monk, so how could it, or anything else, also be "more art". People can enjoy one more than another, but it doesn't make it more art than something else, and it doesn't make it more music than something else. Both are art, both are music, no matter how good or bad they may be to the one listning. I hope that was an adequate explaination.
First, I havn't read Nietzche, so I'm not sure what you mean by that last part.
What I've heard a lot of people say when discussing how art should be judged is that it gets compared to other similar things and rated accordingly. I've never done this, I've always naturally evaluated things I saw/heard/read based on how I felt about the works themselves, regardless of other works of art first. This doesn't mean I don't comapre things at all, I'm just saying that I've always found that I come up with thoughts and ratings and then compare later based on how much I liked them.
I'm not really sure what you're asking with this, could you please elaborate?
If you are saying these things are considered "high culture" for a reason, I still don't get it. The idea of "high culture" does sound like snobbery to me. Its people putting the things they like and their tastes above other things. Its very similar to making something "more art" then something else, it just doesn't really make sense to me.
But I'm not entirely sure what you were asking... so could you please elaborate?
I know stage and film are different. The fact they are different is beside the point. Both are art, neither is more art than the other (both in reference to stage and film and in reference to Transformers and Shakespeare). Perhaps one is better/more enjoyable than the other, but it isn't more art, its just a higher quality work of art.
This is the point where people decide what they liek and what they don't like. I personally wasn't totally impressed with all of Shakespeare's plot elements and characters when I read his plays. I was very impressed by some things, and dissapointed in others. You, or anyone else, may have -no, likely- saw it differently and enjoyed it or did not enjoy it for your own reasons/interpretation.
Ideally, greta works of art are both meaningful and masterful. A high quality peice of art is both, a bad peice of art may have little of both, and a decent/good work of art may be only moderately strong in both or may excell in one but be weak in another. I'm sure theres more to it than that, but I'd rather just sit back and enjoy it at this point rather than go into obscure/irrelevant points.
This has been a fun discussion though
I just don't think one thing of a type of media (i.e. music) can be art while others are not. Art is impossible to define in words, but I think people have an idea for themselves what art is...and you need to decide if you consider things art or not, and stick to it. It just doesn't make sense to me how someone can say Monet is art while Jackson Pullock isn't just because they don't like it. They are both painters, so are they therefor not both artists who made works of art? People seem to confuse those distinctions (it being good vs it being art). Why is Monet art and Pullock not? Why is Beethoven art but not the Sex Pistols? Why is Shakespeare poetry but not the Wu-Tang Clan? (for examples of the art and not art debate). Mozart isn't "more music" than Thelonius Monk, so how could it, or anything else, also be "more art". People can enjoy one more than another, but it doesn't make it more art than something else, and it doesn't make it more music than something else. Both are art, both are music, no matter how good or bad they may be to the one listning. I hope that was an adequate explaination.
It's a paradigm distinction: Apollonian art is primarily rooted along the lines of the qualities of the Greek god Apollo (most importantly here, he is the god of law and of dreams), whereas Dionysian art follows the Greek god Dionysus (god of the "frenzy"--of importantly vivid sensory experiences). It goes deeper than this, but as a general explanation I hope this works.
The higher quality work could be higher quality because it is more profound or meaningful. However, I don't think quality depends strictly on meaning, because there are lots of things that are enjoyable even if they are totally meaningless. But, having the meaning and having good meaning does make soemthing higher quality, I think. Importance is something I see as different altogether. Importance seems to me to be more about influence, how it shifted and changed the works that followed. Generally though, the meaningful things are also the most important as well.But isn't the part I italicized the important part? Insofar as, the higher quality work is more likely to be meaningful/profound than is the lower quality work. Neither is more or less art, but one is certainly more important.
I don't deny his importance, no, cause that would be quite silly. His influence and importance in literature is simply undeniable, even if my individual opinion of his works that I have read sometimes leave me wondering if his talents are perhaps exagerated to some extent.I don't want to deny you your opinion, but I would want an explanation if you would go so far as to claim that Shakespeare's works "fail"--I spent a semester studying 6 of his plays in a 400-level undergrad course last spring, and have several pages of notes about how those particular plays succeed on multiple levels.
If you simply are not entertained by Shakespeare, then I don't mean to challenge you--but I do mean to challenge you if you would deny the importance of Shakespeare's art in English theatre, as well as in western society in general. Your reaction--to be entertained, to be moved, to have your thoughts provoked--is individual . . . and you are very much entitled to it. I don't think you mean to deny Shakespeare's art as being pretty important on a wider scale, but I worry about those who would . . .
No, I think thats about it, thanks!I can appreciate that--I think our main disagreements are probably based in different knowledge-bases concerning aesthetic philosophy. You've clarified a lot of the problems I initially took issue with--I appreciate this. I am somewhat embarrassed that I seem unable to offer more detailed responses at the moment, but . . . well, I think I need to get some sleep I'll try to respond in more depth tomorrow if there is anything more from my perspective that you would like me to clarify.
wolfmaiden14;68515 best so-awful-it's-good zombie flicks: the [I said:Evil Dead[/I] movies. Especially when they realized the scare factor was failing and turned it into comedy in Army of Darkness.
Be warned that I hate anime just as much.
(This angers me because anime fans are often quite the lookers...even when they're male.)
>.>
<.<
*runs away*
I disagree that artists et. al. like zombie movies. I am an artist: a performer, a writer and a film student and I don't particularly like zombie movies and definitely NOT as a genre. I like horror movies and there are some titles with zombies I like -- like 28 Days Later, and the Hollywood remake of Dawn of the Dead and of course I appreciate Night of the Living Dead (original) or the action oriented Evil Dead but that's also because of Milla Jovovich.
Amongst my fellow film student classmates -- very few have shown any enthusiasm for zombie movies. I also have friends who are musicians and more fine art artists and they are more inclined to like superhero movies or foreign films than zombie movies.
A genre has nothing to do with anything.I find this very interesting because I also studied film, and 28 Days Later and the remake of Dawn Of The Dead are far and away my favorite films in the genre. I also like the Evil Dead movies, but I consider them comedies before zombie movies.
I'm totally pulling this out of my ass, but I think maybe the reason that your fellow film students don't really enjoy zombie movies is that people who make and enjoy genre horror don't come at these movies from the standpoint of a film lover who happens to enjoy violence and gore. I think they are fans of violence and gore who happen to make films. I hate to generalize, but I'll bet you don't see too many subscribers to Fangoria in line to see things like Michael Clayton or Eastern Promises no matter how good they are.
A genre has nothing to do with anything.
Skill has.
Wildcat, your terse, almost crotchety 1 liners crack me up. Especally when you cry 'Balderdash!' I feel like I'm playing the board game and you just won. I'm very bad at picking up deadpan or dry humor online. Is it your inention to be funny? Or am I mistaken to laugh?
And could you clarify please what you mean about 'genre vs. skill'?