|
is it art after i've put it right up my butt but before i pull it out?
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
what about R.L. Stine because i think he had a bunch of people writing those but putting his name up on there
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
what if other people made the urinal but im the one who turns it upside down?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
and what if its a guy doing the guitar but hes BLUE instead of regular? how the heck is that art? it doesn't even look that realistic
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
and then theres these nude ladies with african masks but you see all the sides of the mask at the same time i mean my kid could do that hows that art
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
and i get what youre saying because its so confusing that in blade runner ridley scott says han solos a robot but he says hes not but then robert frost said that one poem about him dying was just about this time he stopped in the woods on a snowy evening and i dont get how that can be
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:and then theres these nude ladies with african masks but you see all the sides of the mask at the same time i mean my kid could do that hows that art this is nothing to do with my post, you:re just dumping all your frustrations about the average STEM student/graduate's reaction to modern and post-modern art
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:what about R.L. Stine because i think he had a bunch of people writing those but putting his name up on there Whoa now... let's not go too crazy here! Obviously R.L. Stine's works are art you fool
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
serious post, many studios give the director final cut, so a lot of movies really are the product of a singular vision, especially with writer/directors
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
Serious question, OP: would you consider a student film that's written, directed, edited and starring only one person art? EDIT: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
You cant escape Art no matter what you do. It cannot be bargained with. It cannot be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity. Or remorse. Or fear. And it will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 13:28
|
|
LesterGroans posted:As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be art. I like this one. One dog goes one way and the other goes the other. And this guy's saying, "Whaddya want from me?" The guy's got a nice head of white hair. Beautiful. The dog it looks the same.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
I unironically think video games are art and I don't even play them that often.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I unironically think video games are art and I don't even play them that often. I play them all the time and I think I've played like maybe a dozen games I'd consider art, most of those being kinda bad too sometimes art sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Serious question, OP: would you consider a student film that's written, directed, edited and starring only one person art? I thought not until you to 'starred', and now I say yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
cat doter posted:serious post, many studios give the director final cut, so a lot of movies really are the product of a singular vision, especially with writer/directors Not really, because the acting is so important. A good actor can transform a poorly written film, even a poorly-directed one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
opus111 posted:I don't beczuse I think art needs to come from a single vision. Why do you think this, OP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Only the Criterion Collection plus those films that have won Academy Awards for Best Picture are truly art. The rest of it is prolefeed and thus unworthy of viewing by my delicate eyes. Is the criterion collection in the public domain?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Only Stan Brakhage films are art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Shane Carruth is the only artist in the film world
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
opus111 posted:Not really, because the acting is so important. A good actor can transform a poorly written film, even a poorly-directed one. Isn't that like saying that a good editor can transform a poorly-written manuscript, though? Look at Lish's editing of Raymond Carver, for instance. What about the fact that authors almost never get any input on the covers of their books? Likewise, you say music is art when the vast majority of music is collaborative. Even outside of the other actual members of the band, you have mixers, producers, etc. You can keep following that rabbit hole but I don't see the point in such a reductive definition of art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Illinois Smith posted:I like this one. One dog goes one way and the other goes the other. And this guy's saying, "Whaddya want from me?" The guy's got a nice head of white hair. Beautiful. The dog it looks the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Why do you think this, OP? dunno thats just how i feel from being involved in collaborate projects + doing my own things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Isn't that like saying that a good editor can transform a poorly-written manuscript, though? Look at Lish's editing of Raymond Carver, for instance. What about the fact that authors almost never get any input on the covers of their books? Likewise, you say music is art when the vast majority of music is collaborative. Even outside of the other actual members of the band, you have mixers, producers, etc. You can keep following that rabbit hole but I don't see the point in such a reductive definition of art. i think that regardless of the editing, the vision of the author will still be potent. whereas in film, maybe i notice the acting more or get hype from the sick set design or drool over some babe's tits rather than get drawn into the direction of it. in fact, this is far more likely to happen. music ... i already covered. performing it is usually collaborative but composing it even as a band will always regquire a strong, wilful character who will steamroll over everybody else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
What are your feelings about typeface and paper stock? That motherfucker John Crichton lost me long before I knew what a piece he was because he set The Lost World in Electra and used that awful loving ragged edge paper for the hardcover. If it was his publisher, I owe him an apology now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Is the criterion collection in the public domain? Sadly not because Hollywood wants to bury real art while pumping out schlock to make a buck. I know you asserted earlier that only animes in the public domain can be art, but the reality is that you only think this because you have been brainwashed by the system. If the Criterion Collection were in the public domain, the sheeple would finally be able to rise up and throw off the chains of intellectual bondage and Hollywood would be bankrupt within weeks. This is the Power of Real Film Art: to overthrow capitalism and put an end to world domination by the Zionist cabals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What are your feelings about typeface and paper stock? That motherfucker John Crichton lost me long before I knew what a piece he was because he set The Lost World in Electra and used that awful loving ragged edge paper for the hardcover. none of that has any bearing on the writing. Black Tide is a work of art whtether you read it on a kindle, on paper or carved into the bark of a redwood tree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Sadly not because Hollywood wants to bury real art while pumping out schlock to make a buck. I know you asserted earlier that only animes in the public domain can be art, but the reality is that you only think this because you have been brainwashed by the system. If the Criterion Collection were in the public domain, the sheeple would finally be able to rise up and throw off the chains of intellectual bondage and Hollywood would be bankrupt within weeks. This is the Power of Real Film Art: to overthrow capitalism and put an end to world domination by the Zionist cabals. didnt lame-o dur-brain film get into the criteron collection, despite her being extremely bad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
opus111 posted:i think that regardless of the editing, the vision of the author will still be potent. whereas in film, maybe i notice the acting more or get hype from the sick set design or drool over some babe's tits rather than get drawn into the direction of it. in fact, this is far more likely to happen. I specifically mentioned Carver because it is almost universally agreed amongst critics that Carver's writing was so much improved by Lish's editing that he likely wouldn't have ever been successful without it. You are kind of just hand-waving way the argument w/r/t music, also. Are you in the music industry? Because that generalization really isn't true at all. Where do you draw the line? What about solo performers who sing words that someone else wrote? Or sing their own words over a beat / melody that someone else created? What about auto-tune and sound mixing radically changing how a song sounds, or producers who get hands-on with the music? How is a strong-willed bandleader any different that a strong-willed director? The number of bands where a single person exercises the overwhelming majority of creative control over every aspect of the music being produced is extremely slim. 99% of music is just as collaborative as film, it's just on a smaller scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
~ if it provokes this question yes it must be ~ therefore all that stuff that everyone 'knows' that is art isn't art at all, it's just decorative wall hangings and soothing sounds its like a <poem> it /rhymes/
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
It only becomes art once you hit PAUSE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:It only becomes art once you hit PAUSE. most correct answer so far
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
You're about ninety years behind on this debate, OP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
If the debate is that old it's obviously time for a new one!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
only paintings is art
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
But what effect will the mass reproduction of priceless works of art have? What of the day when every working man can have a Mona Lisa for his hovel? What is to be done?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
I think that films are art, but movies are not art. Flicks I could go either way on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I think that films are art, but movies are not art. Flicks I could go either way on. what about 'the pictures' or 'flickery wickety movie wovies'?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
opus111 posted:dunno thats just how i feel from being involved in collaborate projects + doing my own things. that seems really counter intuitive to me. i think i'm largely with you except for that part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:15
|
|