OT: Munich

[Evan Kubota]

"They are always the same kinda shit filled with sentiment and little real substance."

I generally agree. There's nothing wrong with that from a 'film as entertainment' standpoint, except that to the average American moviegoer, he's the most 'artistic' director they are likely to ever see. Scary.

[jean]

As such, you collect their money in exchange for providing a product they like, whether their tastes are to your own perticular liking. Getting "artsy",not providing the product they expected, but still taking their money, now that's disrespect.

Brr, no artsy films please. I once was forced to sit through a way to long short, worst b/w i've ever seen, golfballsized grain, worst photography i've ever seen. The icing on the cake however was the soundtrack: some Beckett poems read backwards. Now that qualifies as typical for the pile of shite that left german filmshools in the mid 90s.

What I meant is that the "artist", producer, or whoever, should try do give more than the audience or "client" expects. Simply because the "clients" expectation is limited. Example: have lunch at a restaurant. The clients expectations in general are limited to what he knows about food, e.g. french fries and steak, ketchup, and a bottle of coke.

So if you'd get just that in a restaurant, that would be disrespect. The chef knows that there is more to food than that, and delivers accordingly. Truth is that most clients will bite on a delicious meal with excellent wine as if they were having a hamburger, but nevertheless the "extra" is there, and some wil notice.

..hmm, perhaps I'll come up with a better example soon

[MovieStuff]

Because I don't believe that film is art if there is intent on profit.

Are you saying that art and profit are mutually exclusive? Surely they are not. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Herman Melville, Edgar Allen Poe, Mark Twain, et al, were all motived by profit, a desire to fill their stomachs and possibly get rich.

But they weren't considered "artists" during their time. History often morphs reality based on sentiment and communal acceptance of something. Christmas songs from the 40s that were just common fare are now considered "holiday classics". No one really ever heard of Jim Croce until he died and then, suddenly, he was this undiscovered artist even though his music was incredibly lame, by even modest standards.

There may be a lot of starving artists out there but starvation is not a prerequisite to being an artist.

Never said it was. But I think we are getting down to the subtle but important difference between "craft" and "art". If a ceramic artist struggles to create, say, a hand thrown vase using new techniques and new ideas that are purely his own, then I would consider that vase to be art, regardless of what it looked like. But if he were to then produce 100 more just like it, only one would be art and the other would be craft because producing the duplicates doesn't represent the same struggle and venture into the unknown that the original did. But if the first vase was made to order based on what the customer wanted in the way of shape, color, etc, then he must use his skills as a craftsman, not as an artist, to fill that work order. So, to me, a true artist works outside the constraints of expectations, which is impossible if a paycheck is waiting at the end of the project.

Now, make no mistake, I hold "craftsmanship" in high regard and sometimes even higher than "artistry", depending on the situation. If I had something that needed to be done on time and with great precision, I would most likely hire a known craftsman before I would entrust someone that met my definition of an artist.

In relationship to this discussion, I think that Spielberg is a master craftsman, even if I don't like every movie he ever made. I don't think that one can work in the commercial movie business and afford the luxury of operating as an "artist" without putting the backers at great risk.

Roger

[ccortez]

No one really ever heard of Jim Croce until he died and then, suddenly, he was this undiscovered artist even though his music was incredibly lame, by even modest standards.

aaahahahahahahah.

still laughing.

thanks for that, roger.

- c.

oh, yeah... go texas.

[super8man]

Jim Croce died? Man, when did that happen. Drat. another fine musician gone from our collective soul.

[MovieStuff]

Jim Croce died? Man, when did that happen. Drat. another fine musician gone from our collective soul.

You are pulling our collective leg, aren't you? 8O

Roger

[super8man]

That one missed me (probably heard about it back in the day though)...probably because his music was so...well...boring that I never really considered it vital he actually be anywhere...I guess I shall have to google it.

[MovieStuff]

I guess I shall have to google it.

"If I could put time in a google...." :lol:

Roger

[Actor]

Because I don't believe that film is art if there is intent on profit.

Are you saying that art and profit are mutually exclusive? Surely they are not. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Herman Melville, Edgar Allen Poe, Mark Twain, et al, were all motived by profit, a desire to fill their stomachs and possibly get rich.

But they weren't considered "artists" during their time.

Are you saying that to be an artist you have to be dead, unless you disavow the profit motive? In any case I'm not sure your statement is true. I think Dickens and Twain were considered artists during their lifetime. Shakespeare? Maybe. He was kind of the Spielberg of his time. I think Melville and Poe were relatively unknown during their lifetimes.

In more recent times I think Pablo Picasso, Ansel Adams and Kubrick were considered artists during their lifetimes and they were motivated by profit. Martin Scorsese, still alive, is another example.

There may be a lot of starving artists out there but starvation is not a prerequisite to being an artist.

Never said it was.

But you did say "I don't believe that film is art if there is intent on profit," which would seem to divorce art from profit, which means an artist must either wealthy, starving or restricted to small things.

But I think we are getting down to the subtle but important difference between "craft" and "art".

Which boils it all down to semantics. As the cheshire cat said to Alice, "When I use a word it means what I want it to mean, no more, no less." Nothing wrong with that. For my part I'm just trying to understand your position.

[MovieStuff]

Are you saying that to be an artist you have to be dead, unless you disavow the profit motive?

The people you listed just happen to be dead but, as you noted, were doing what they did with profit in mind. That means their creative choices are based on what they think will please the most number of people, even if those choices don't reflect their own inner artistic desires.

In more recent times I think Pablo Picasso, Ansel Adams and Kubrick were considered artists during their lifetimes and they were motivated by profit. Martin Scorsese, still alive, is another example.

No doubt all were/are capable of producing art but not everything an artist produces is automatically art. IMHO, they can be considered an "artist" when the work they did was for their own enjoyment, independent of satisfying anyone else's expectations. When working for intent or hope of profit, I consider them craftsmen and the results of that craftsmanship "product", not art.

But you did say "I don't believe that film is art if there is intent on profit," which would seem to divorce art from profit,

It divorces it from the intent of profit during the creative process.

which means an artist must either wealthy, starving or restricted to small things.

Well, let's see.... Spielberg and Scorsese have the financial means to paint on a large canvas and do what they want, outside the expectations of a paying audience, but simply don't. How can they be considered "artists" when their work so obviously panders to the expectations of their fan base? I'm not questioning the asthetics of the work they do because asthetics isn't the issue. The issue is how they make creative decisions, not the creative decisions they actually make. That is what defines art, in my book, not the asthetics of the final piece because asthetics is too subjective. Some may hate one film while others love it. Is it "art" in front of only those that like it? And is the person that made the film an "artist" only to those that like his work?

But I think we are getting down to the subtle but important difference between "craft" and "art".

Which boils it all down to semantics.

Gosh, not at all. The difference between a craftsman and an artist may be subtle to the average person but to another trained artist or craftsman, the difference is quite apparent and notable.

For my part I'm just trying to understand your position.

My position is really very simple:

It takes the skills of a craftsman to produce art but there is a difference between "art" and "craftsmanship". Craft is the predictable result of consumate precision based on years of practice seeking a predetermined outcome. Nothing to be ashamed of there, at all, but there are no unknowns in that equation because you are either following a previous pattern of action or fulfilling the desires of a paying customer. On the other hand, art is the result of struggling to navigate unknown conceptual territory in a way that also strains and expands the skills of the craftsman inside the artist without regard to the expectations of others.

This does not mean that art has to be pretty or even succeed asthetically. As I mentioned before, asthetics is secondary because it is too subjective and, more importantly, the art wasn't created to please anyone other than the artist. But if he produces his work with the expectation or hope of financial reward, then his creative process is tainted and skewed, even subconsciously, toward commonality; wanting to please the larger group. That pretty much defines every commercial film director out there from unknown neophytes hoping to strike a deal at Cannes to people like Spielberg hoping to strike an emotional cord with his paying audience. You don't have to be starving to be an artist but not everything an artist produces is automatically art, regardless of how many people pay to see it.

Roger

[super8man]

Sort of like the X-Files...started out all creative and interesting, then turned into commercialized schlock like the rest of the lineup on TV. There are countless other examples...they all follow this same route (especially U2 though perhaps they are trying to become artistic again). The route being: doing what they do when noone else knows or cares; then they get "discoverered" but eventually become a characature of their own original image. Harrison Ford went this way. Many many others did too.

[audadvnc]

What is art but entertainment for the well-to-do and smart set? It's just a more clever take on Punch & Judy.