Why do people make this an either/or proposition? Why can't films be artistically entertaining?

Dichotomies rule!

Kierkegaard taught me that....

quote:

Fom Nathan Rabin at the AV Club:

If we subject children to an endless diet of condescending, insulting horseshit how can we ever expect them to demand more? I can’t see the logic behind grading mercenary, soulless Hollywood drivel on an insanely lenient curve just because it doesn’t aspire to greatness. I don’t expect a hundred-and-fifty-million-dollar movie about giant robots fighting to be art. But I don’t think it’s asking too much for it to be at least a little bit fun, and I’m not just saying that because I overheard a conversation at lunch today where some dude was saying, in an utterly unironic way, that Transformers was one of the best films he’d seen in years, that it made him proud to be an American and that it was particularly awesome cause Megan Fox is hot “in a totally attainable way, like her face isn’t perfect or nothin’”.

Oh my, did he put this well. He was referring to some crap kids movie. I think this may be the crux of the argument I've been making all along. Maybe film making can be art. Certainly I have had transcendant experiences in the cinema. It's that so often, it's just shite

C'mon ken!

Of course film is an art form. Bergman and Antonioni both died the other day.
Are you saying that they never created art?

I repeat, just cause Bruce Willis and Will Smith make dreadful music, it doesn't mean music ain't art...

C'mon ken...c'mon!!

You know we on this side of the debate floor are right...c'mon...

Ish, two pages ago I made a reasoned, cogent and convincing argument, which I may or may not actually believe, about film, and the nature of art. Since the question can't ever actually be answered, I thought we agreed to proceed as though we all agree that cinema can be art. But, I was trying to make a different point here, and answer mark's original question. I think he suggested that even in the humblest film, one could find a kernel or nugget of artistic merit. I quoted Rabin, because he articulated the opinion that there are some films that are so awful and reprehensible, that not only are they not art, they actually suck the oxygen out of a room.
Here's the link to the full article:
Movies that suck

OK, but some "art" "sucks". However, I was just trying to get a discussion going, so all responses are welcome.

ken mate, I was just responding to this quote:

quote:

Maybe film making can be art

Sorry if our wires got crossed.
Been a while since I read that post of yours.
But you may be right that some films are soooo devoid of artistic content that they resemble poo.

I hope you don't think there was any anger in me post!

I was trying to channel Lleyton Hewitt...y'know??

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:
I hope you don't think there was any anger in me post!

Never, old bean. We remain mates!

Cool.
You may be my favourite poster...doesn't that just thrill you!

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I'll admit that what I'm going to say has no basis in any formal theory of art, but it seems to me that film (movies) utilize more forms of art than just about anything else which could be considered an art form. I realize that this puts any form of film (or video) into a seemingly-equal category (TV shows, commercials, music videos, etc.)

Actually, I think what you're getting at here is pretty much the same thing Susan Langer is about in her book Feeling and Form when she talks about how film 'swallows' all other media. Like when I am introduced to a song watching a film, that song is inextricably linked to the images I saw when I first heard it.

To the conversation in general, I would say Yes - film can be both an art and a form of entertainment. Art snobs, or those who want to say what's what and kick any number of works out of art's domain either don't know what the word originally meant or simply don't want to use it that way. It wasn't until the Enlightenment that people really distinguished between mere craft and High Art.

For example: teh Sun Tzu book The Art of War. Granted he's not an English speaker, but the translator was. Art used to mean something more along the lines of simple doing. The art of weaving is what a really good weaver knows. In this sense it wouldn't be a stretch to talk about the art of entertainment. Which sounds nice to me.

I think that this whole "Hollywood drivel can't be art" thought is a bit of a misstep that happens (I've done it many a time) because we have the different senses of the word confused by the goddamn Frankfurt school, who tried to elevate the whole of Art to be somehow above everything else.

The Frankfurt School and others who forever try to keep the art club an exclusive one, are really trapped into the same kind of controversy that we see on these boards all of the time. To be more specific, I mean those ones where people can't agree on what's good. You don't like what I call good? I try to argue it out - support myself and what I call good. I try to make it indubitable that what I like is the best and highest! But trying to get the other guy DQ'ed by the "proper application" of the word "art"; that's cheating in my book.

At the heart of it I think it's really a symptom of a class war. I'm not sure if I can say with any degree of accuracy as to whether it's still going on. Thoughts?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: V,

quote:

Art used to mean something more along the lines of simple doing.

And it's good that it doesn't anymore.

quote:

I think that this whole "Hollywood drivel can't be art" thought is a bit of a misstep that happens[...]

The drivel of Hollywood should not be considered artistic. The good that comes from Hollywood (because it does happen) might earn the title, though.

I'm sure I've said this before, but the best films are artistic and entertaining. Simple as.

As much as I dislike plastic generic rubbish, I also loathe self-indulgent, psuedo-intellectual claptrap - it's tedious.

The best films get the balance right - but there aren't many of them.

A classic example is George Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Is it a clever critique of consumerism gone mad, or merely a bloody good horror film? Whatever the case it's very watchable. And yes, I know Romero stated that social commentary was never his intention, but that makes it all the more charming.

Team America - A statement on America's heavily criticised foreign policy, or just a very funny film with a lot of well placed toilet humour?

There are loads more examples, but my point is this - good films appeal on many levels. They have the ability to appeal on a mainstream level without losing their dignity, or patronising the audience's intelligence.

Bad films try to convince us they're good by suspect means. They're patronising, predictable and most heinous of all - boring!

Ok, wait a minute. I think your argument is reasonable enough, but do you really think that Dawn of the Dead and Team America are the very best examples of the synthesis of art and entertainment!

Buñuel, Allen, Bergman and the guys from South Park!

Bunel, Allen, Bergman and the guys from South Park...

Absolutely. I see no reason why South Park is any less relevant than so-called 'high art'.

Very often it's more relevant.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
Absolutely. I see no reason why South Park is any less relevant than so-called 'high art'.

Very often it's more relevant.

"Relevance" is not the issue. A repair manual for the Ford F-150 may be the most relevant work in the world in a particular time and place. That doesn't make it "art." Or even entertainment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kendocubano,

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:

"Relevance" is not the issue. A repair manual for the Ford F-150 may be the most relevant work in the world in a particular time and place. That doesn't make it "art." Or even entertainment.

But that's a Ford F-150 repair manual - it was not designed to entertain or express an aesthetic.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone create art and they entertain. It could be argued that their work is more socially relevant than Bunel, Allen and Bergman because it crosses over into the mainstream and communicates on a larger scale. Their work appeals to everyday people and intellectuals in equal measure. it's both 'high art' and 'low art'.

Parker and Stone have also altered our perceptions of the English language. The word 'gay' has a new meaning in the present era. Like it or not, that's quite an achievement from two toilet humourists lampooning Hollywood.

South Park and Team America are important critiques of ugly parts of American culture. I have no snobbery towards their work and I admire their courage in saying what other film-makers are too afraid to say. Their statements are bold.

That their work is both purist and commercially viable is a rare thing in art.