I happen to have a little tin of dark chocolate truffles from Fauchon right here...?!

I'm surprised we've got to page 2 without this coming up: what is art? There's never been a definition that anybody could agree on. Scott McCloud (who wrote the really terrific "Understanding Comics") defined art as anything humans do that isn't done with survival or reproduction in mind. I like that, but I tend to believe the flip-side, which is that there's no such thing as art. What's strange to me is that it's always a personal value judgment but at the same time it's always described as an absolute. I mean, if Pauly Shore films are definitively not art, and if, say, Citizen Kane is universally lauded as art, then where is that line in the middle and why is it so finite? Why is there no "kind of art" or "almost art? And why do we need the concept at all? What purpose does it serve other than promoting elitism?

quote:

Originally posted by Jonas42:
I'm surprised we've got to page 2 without this coming up: what is art?

My definition of ART would be: Anything a person creates to express him/herself. This would make paintings, drawings, pottery, books, comics, poetry, writing, movies, t.v. shows, & music, all art. Different strokes for different folks. While MOST people would agree that Pauly Shore is the lowest common denominator, there are those who love his movies. (My wife is one of 'em, so they're out there!) There is no line between a bad movie & a good one. They are art whether you enjoy 'em or not. Are you saying you would go into an art museum & if you didn't like one of the paintings, it's no longer art? Not true. It's still art, you just don't like it. What do you mean by "kind of art" or "almost art"? How is that possible? If it's been created by someone who felt they had something to say, it's art. Could a car be close to what you are talking about? They could be construed as being a "kind of art" or an "almost art" subject.

I agree with Monkey_Boy, the intent to express oneself is what does it for me, even if it sucks. People like Pauly Shore suck because they (presumably) aren't really trying to express themselves. Pretty clear to me he was trying to capitalize on Weasel-mania. But Jonas raises a good point, staunch art/non-art lines like that do no good, I just can't sympathize at all with bad intentions. Suck if you must, but mean it.

As for the general Kane/Pauly polarization, the stuff in between I wouldn't call sorta/almost art, but it's where the line starts to differ for most people. It's just easy to pick Kane and Pauly Shore movies out because...obvious reasons. There are gray areas in the middle...like that guy that eats paint and them vomits on a canvas...in which it just comes down to individual interpretation, not a definite artistic calibration.

Monkey, I like your definition of art. Most people, however, seem to have a more limited definition since they won't count things like Pauly Shore movies as art. The rest of my post was addressing that. If one piece of entertainment or expression is art and one isn't, then there has to be a fine line that separates the two, which implies that there is some kind of rigid criteria a piece or product or performance has to pass before becoming art. Which is of course absurd because no one would ever agree on any such criteria, or even bother to try. And yet so often we talk about "art" as if it's this very specific and universally understood thing.

Of course even with a broader definition such as yours there are gray areas, as you pointed out, like cars and newspaper layouts (functional arts), or, hell professional wrestling matches and Three Card Monty. You could make a case for almost anything. That's why I like the two all-inclusive or all-exclusive definitions; either Scott McCloud's right and pretty much everything is art, or nothing is.

I guess my main point is that the word doesn't have much value to me. Whatever definition you want to use, I don't know what we gain by classifying Raging Bull or a Picasso painting or a Lamborghini as art. They are what they are; they have different functions, values and meanings to different people. And ultimately, these discussions end up doing one of two things: furthering the cause of elitism ("The Seventh Seal is art and the TV show Scrubs is not, and therefore you should feel silly for not appreciating the former more and enjoying the latter so much") or providing an easy justification for people to make lazy choices with how they choose to spend their time ("Everything's art, therefore everything has merit, therefore I don't have to feel bad about having watched a Top Chef marathon for the past 12 hours").

I see flicks to be entertained. If I learn something that is a worthy bonus.

quote:

Jonas42 wrote:
I'm surprised we've got to page 2 without this coming up: what is art?

Ummm, what was I doing here?

quote:

kendocubano wrote:
I think that time will have to tell, because I think this bears on what "art" means. I think that art is a form of expression, representing the vision of one, or maybe two individuals, that has something durable to say about the human condition, and it does so using secondary or symbolic materials.

The more I think about it, though, the more I think that the definition has to be refined more. Monkey, I love ya, but I do not like your definition. I can imagine any number of things that one can create in order to express oneself that are not art. Eg., a speech to the city council about the proposed sewer plan. It could be very good, it could be poetic, but it certainly is not art.

I could create a creme brulee as a way of expressing my love for my daughter, who loves them. It could be yummy, but it would certainly not be art.

Which goes, I think, to the point of functionality. I believe art cannot be functional above and beyond it's function as art. Anything functional is something else. Usually, it is craft. A very lovely work of Ming pottery, if it was designed for use (even decorative use!) is a work of craft, not a work of art. A work of art has to stand alone. The tough one to parse here, is, imo, religious art. A painting for an altar piece. Is it art? I think it probably is, despite it's life as a commission piece. In most cases, in the works that I have seen, the piece can stand alone. There is secondary meaning, and use of symbolism.

Which goes to the point of intention. I don't believe that a work of art can exist divorced from it's artist, and the artist's creative process. Even where we don't know who the artist is, we can imagine the creative process. Cro Magnon cave paintings are beautiful. Are they art? It's hard to know, because we can't know their context. Were they shamanistic, or did they serve a strictly aesthetic purpose. This matters, if you're going to call it "art."

I also believe that execution plays a role. I could have a deep need for self expression, and I could even have something very profound to say about the human condition. But if you plant me in front of an easel, with a palette, the result would not be art. Sincerity is not enough. You have to have the technical chops to pull it off. That is why, even if you splatter paint on a canvas, you are not an artist, but Jackson Pollock was.

Finally, I think a work of art has to transcend the sum of it's parts. It has to be about something greater than it's simple surface appearance. This is why sad clowns and puppies with big eyes on black velvet are not art. (This is also why Thomas Kinkade: Painter of Light, sold at your local mall, is not art. It is decorative, and you may find it lovely, but there is no depth)

This is probably long enough for now, although (can you believe it!?) I still have a few more points I wanna make.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Finally, I think a work of art has to transcend the sum of it's parts. It has to be about something greater than it's simple surface appearance. This is why sad clowns and puppies with big eyes on black velvet are not art. (This is also why Thomas Kinkade: Painter of Light, sold at your local mall, is not art. It is decorative, and you may find it lovely, but there is no depth)

Ah! I actually wanted to say something along those lines, because I have a strong dislike for the man (kitchen table's covered with assorted Kinkade whatnots, thanks Mom.) But that comes back to trying to seperate things out which as Jonas said promotes elitism to some extent or another. Which is why I like the intention because it circumvents it all Thomas Kinkade doesn't even mean well in his hackery.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Ummm, what was I doing here?

Oops. Sorry about that. Must have missed it first time through.

quote:

Originally posted by Nhazghaal:
But that comes back to trying to seperate things out which as Jonas said promotes elitism to some extent or another.

I do believe that, even within the realm of creation that can truly be designated "art," there is a possible stratification of quality. In other words, I think that there is such as thing as "bad art" or art that is better than other art.

I also don't believe that it is "just a matter of taste." Art needs context, but it isn't a matter of "a show of hands." Some of history's greatest works were hated and reviled when they were first produced. But this is why I think art is a worthy subject of study. Art can be appreciated from the gut, but can, and should, also be appreciated with the mind.

I hate to mention it, but this thread is about movies! Now, I have lots to say but not the time to say it. I'm really hoping somebody can read my mind and either agree with me or really piss me off (other than kendo, that is. )

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I hate to mention it, but this thread is about movies! Now, I have lots to say but not the time to say it. I'm really hoping somebody can read my mind and either agree with me or really piss me off (other than kendo, that is. )

Wait?! Which one did I do?


Ok. Well, I do believe that film is a legitimate medium for the creation of art. I'm not sure that I think "movies" meet the criteria that I set above. Not because they can't be sophisticated, artistic (which is like art, but not quite) and reveal a great deal about the human condition. But for the reasons I mentioned above. I have however, seen many films at art museums that meet the criteria. Many of them are abstract, but not all. For example, I think the work of Gordon Matta-Clark is art.

They, however, usually represent a discrete and, most importantly, unified vision. That, imo, is the difference between MOMA and the cineplex.

Was that an elitist comment? Because I still don't understand who said that you definition of art is correct. I've made several home movies w/o actors, and I had no agenda, so are those more art than Stanley Kubrick's? (He was probably the most micro-managing director I know of.}

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Was that an elitist comment?

You say that like it's a bad thing?

quote:

Because I still don't understand who said that you definition of art is correct.

Absolutely no one. It is my definition, and carries with it absolutely no authority. Still, it is a definition, and we have to come to some agreement about some elements of a definition of art, if we're going to discuss whether films, or movies, can be art. I welcome your definition. Then we can parse it, in the same way that everyone is welcome to parse, pick apart, agree and disagree with mine.

quote:

I've made several home movies w/o actors, and I had no agenda, so are those more art than Stanley Kubrick's?

It's entirely possible that they are. I wouldn't be surprised.

Yeah,what is going on really?
I just had this idea in my mind after few days,when i accidentally saw "Whole Ten Yards".I can freely say that is one of the worst movies i have ever seen.I mean so crap ,the acting was crap,and the overall progress of the movie was unwatchable.
Where is Hollywood heading with these kind of movies?
Isn't the position of woman in Hollywood movies quite painful?I mean that girl in that movie was used to "surprise" those mafia guys with her booty,so Bruce can kill them?!And Bruce was telling her "Don't dress yet,there's another one we have to surprise".Isn't that super cute?
It is sad to know that in these lovely Hollywood movies ,girls are most of the time used for these purposes,or for those super-pretty scenes on the end of the movies where she has a kiss with the hero of the day(who is wearing typical blue jeans and a tight shirt!HOT).
How they hell do they expect to play these roles?
Its clear that Hollywood is making purely commercial movies.Movies that the majority of people can eat.And of course its all about the MONEY.Yeah that was so ,American/Hollywood like!

And of course there are movies that are art.Who are made with that idea in their mind,not with the MONEY idea.Some movies that i consider high art ,that come to my mind now, are "Children of Men" and "Lost in Translation".Both awesome movies,acting is top,and soundtrack(especially in Lost in..)is pure bliss.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: buraj.n,

Its quite hard to describe art,its something that can be felt but not described.

Kendo, can I just say that I'm loving what I'm reading from you? Man, some great stuff...keep it coming. I don't have enough time right now to really sink my teeth in but I will say that I do believe in Film as art.

How about this Movies = not art, Film = Art? Now we would have to define what is a "Movie" (Transformers, Knocked Up, etc.) and what is "Film" (Pan's Labyrinth, Fargo, etc.). That's a way of me saying "if you're in it for the money, you're making movies" and "if you want to share your vision with others, you're making films".

I know we talked about Ratatouille a bit and I get the impression that you wouldn't consider it art. For me, it is the highest form of art (from the gut and the mind). It explores real, serious human issues (via a rat) with brains, heart and emotion. Visually, it is like a gorgeous painting. All the human characters are real caricatures of human traits, exposing only what the filmmakers want you to see. Instead of animated movies that try and make the human characters look real, this movie gives us something with more substance, and visual originality.

Sorry, I gotta go. I want to keep typing and I want to tighten the screws on what I just said, but I don't have time. Kendo, keep it going man. By the way, you probably realise, but this is A.I. you're talking to. Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:
Now we would have to define what is a "Movie" (Transformers, Knocked Up, etc.) and what is "Film" (Pan's Labyrinth, Fargo, etc.). That's a way of me saying "if you're in it for the money, you're making movies" and "if you want to share your vision with others, you're making films".

Well, this is the biggest problem with trying to define which films are art and which aren't. You can't really be 100% certain of someone's motives for making a film. It also seems that films that are a bit pretentious are likely to get the "art" tag, while good films that are a bit lowbrow at times, like Knocked Up or Chasing Amy, wouldn't. Certainly those latter films aren't really artistic in the visual sense, but both are really original comedies, which I would argue is an art.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:
Now we would have to define what is a "Movie" (Transformers, Knocked Up, etc.) and what is "Film" (Pan's Labyrinth, Fargo, etc.). That's a way of me saying "if you're in it for the money, you're making movies" and "if you want to share your vision with others, you're making films".

Well, this is the biggest problem with trying to define which films are art and which aren't. You can't really be 100% certain of someone's motives for making a film. It also seems that films that are a bit pretentious are likely to get the "art" tag, while good films that are a bit lowbrow at times, like Knocked Up or Chasing Amy, wouldn't. Certainly those latter films aren't really artistic in the visual sense, but both are really original comedies, which I would argue is an art.

Well put. I suppose we're not going to have a "case closed" solution here, but it is a lot of fun to throw some ideas around. Your "pretentious" comment is spot on.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:

That's a way of me saying "if you're in it for the money, you're making movies" and "if you want to share your vision with others, you're making films"...

I know we talked about Ratatouille a bit and I get the impression that you wouldn't consider it art.

Thanx for the kind comments, Mags. And, for the record, all of this is just my opinion. I'm not an artist, or an art historian, or have any special training or education in art or film. So I encourage you to disregard everything I say.

I think your first point is very much what I was saying about intention. It's not always easy to determine, but I think it's critical. It's one of the problems I have with photography. I think too much is left to chance there. And I don't think art can ever be accidental. A dew covered spider web, an image of the virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, they may be beautiful, but they're not art, because they lack intention.

And I think the intention has to go beyond the simple wish to inform or entertain. The intention has got to be to make some greater statement about the human condition. By these criteria, and some of the things I've said above, I think it's entirely possible that Ratatouille may be more "art" than some other works we might evaluate. More than most films, it has unity of vision, that of Brad Bird's.

Although we are constantly having to answer the question in all genres, I think it's also hard to figure out what is art contemporaneously with its production. I think art has to have something durable to say about the human condition, and for that, film (and even maybe photography) may be too new. Will Citizen Kane mean anything 100 years from now? How about 1000?

I went back to the origin of this thread, though, and think I may have misunderstood where mark was trying to go with it. Looking back, I think he was asking whether art and entertainment can co-exist, not whether films are art at all.

I'll say that if one concedes that films are art, then not only can the co-exist, but that the one inevitably follows the other.