An opinion piece by the famous director....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Some key quotes.....

When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.

Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way.

Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.

and some more....

In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.

The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.

Thoughts, reactions, and diatribes welcome!

He's got to build hype for his latest movie somehow.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
He's got to build hype for his latest movie somehow.

Totally this, whilst him and Sophia's dad are free to yell at clouds, keep kids off their lawns and hold any view they like on popcorn movies it saddens me even they are playing the squeeky wheel game rather than just letting the product speak for itself

A better response than what started it all. It was and remains, a business and industry opinion and in many aspects he's not wrong. It's just the dismissive attitude of what constitutes "cinema" that comes across as an old man behind the times. Movies trying to legitimize trashy or childish things their directors have cherished from childhood is hardly a new thing, including Scorsese's own work.

The better way to express his concern is that he fears the death of the auteur. He fears that the business requires so many people and so much investment and oversight and, well, business, that it greatly limits the ability for someone to make a truly personal film. There's an argument to be had there and certainly we've seen that problem rapid consume the video game industry outside of the indie sphere as of late. It's an argument worth having, but not one you're going to have with any meaning if your opening salvo is to dismiss something adored by the people you're trying to reach.

Dementia really is sad isn't it.

I mean, I assume it's dementia and he's just completely forgetting that the exact same thing complete with backlash has happened before in waves with biblical epics, westerns, muscle-actioners, thrillers etc, and that he's also forgetting the numerous industry people who responded to his initial comment by reminding him of the aforementioned, because the alternative would be he's just being a hugely disingenuous old fart desperately casting about for some justification for his obvious snobbery...

 LunarSol wrote:
A better response than what started it all. It was and remains, a business and industry opinion and in many aspects he's not wrong. It's just the dismissive attitude of what constitutes "cinema" that comes across as an old man behind the times. Movies trying to legitimize trashy or childish things their directors have cherished from childhood is hardly a new thing, including Scorsese's own work.

The better way to express his concern is that he fears the death of the auteur. He fears that the business requires so many people and so much investment and oversight and, well, business, that it greatly limits the ability for someone to make a truly personal film. There's an argument to be had there and certainly we've seen that problem rapid consume the video game industry outside of the indie sphere as of late. It's an argument worth having, but not one you're going to have with any meaning if your opening salvo is to dismiss something adored by the people you're trying to reach.

Blumhouse and A24 are putting out tons of auteur work. With all the stReaming networks snapping up new talent to develop, we're practically living in a second golden age for auteurs. The Balkanization of content channels means that their works are seen by fewer people, but that's true of every bit of entertainment and culture in the world.

I have to say I can't really disagree with anything he said. He's allowed to have his opinion of what he considers real cinema, and what's not....just as we all are.

He's 100% spot on with the way the bigger budget movies are made today, and he's correct that they're just safely calculated money-making machinery. Doesn't mean they're not good enough for a couple hours and a bag of popcorn.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
A better response than what started it all. It was and remains, a business and industry opinion and in many aspects he's not wrong. It's just the dismissive attitude of what constitutes "cinema" that comes across as an old man behind the times. Movies trying to legitimize trashy or childish things their directors have cherished from childhood is hardly a new thing, including Scorsese's own work.

The better way to express his concern is that he fears the death of the auteur. He fears that the business requires so many people and so much investment and oversight and, well, business, that it greatly limits the ability for someone to make a truly personal film. There's an argument to be had there and certainly we've seen that problem rapid consume the video game industry outside of the indie sphere as of late. It's an argument worth having, but not one you're going to have with any meaning if your opening salvo is to dismiss something adored by the people you're trying to reach.

Blumhouse and A24 are putting out tons of auteur work. With all the stReaming networks snapping up new talent to develop, we're practically living in a second golden age for auteurs. The Balkanization of content channels means that their works are seen by fewer people, but that's true of every bit of entertainment and culture in the world.

True, but he is specifically commenting on Cinema and that he narrows to be "on the big screen" therefore eliminating streaming channels, cable, and network TV from the discussion.

I don't see anything "controversial" in his statements at all.

There is definitely something to be said about a difference between "art" and "commoditized entertainment." Evidently he fancies himself in the former camp. Good for him. We can all agree or disagree if that would be the case, but I find it much harder to disagree that there is a difference between those two things, in-themselves.

I also think he is correct on the entertainment industry, in general, being "risk averse." That goes hand and hand with the "commoditization" aspect though. Again, he seems to fancy himself in the "risk" category, which might or might not be the case. Still, I see no reason why he is incorrect in his outline of the paradigm.

For all that Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse likely get "wrong" I don't think they incorrect in pointing out the commoditization of "art" in the so-called "culture industry." For example: "Adorno described the culture industry as a key integrative mechanism for binding individuals, as both consumers and producers, to modern, capitalist societies. Where many sociologists have argued that complex, capitalist societies are fragmented and heterogeneous in character, Adorno insists that the culture industry, despite the manifest diversity of cultural commodities, functions to maintain a uniform system, to which all must conform."

Note too, Baudrillard's later take on the "post-Modern" role of art:
"And yet as a proliferation of images, of form, of line, of color, of design, art is more fundamental then ever to the contemporary social order: “our society has given rise to a general aestheticization: all forms of culture — not excluding anti-cultural ones — are promoted and all models of representation and anti-representation are taken on board” (p. 16). Thus Baudrillard concludes that: “It is often said that the West's great undertaking is the commercialization of the whole world, the hitching of the fate of everything to the fate of the commodity. That great undertaking will turn out rather to have been the aestheticization of the whole world — its cosmopolitan spectacularization, its transformation into images, its semiological organization” (p. 16)."

Not to mention the further "mediating" factor of seemingly ever growing appeals to "hyper-reality" and the like. So, I hardly see Scorsese as "off base" for the most part, even if his view is likely both biased and lacking of a certain amount of self-aware/criticalness.

There's like, a dozen small films released in theaters every month. Modern distribution and theater chain economics mean they tend to play in only a few theaters, but that's how things work in this new economy. He might as well get upset that young people aren't supporting the destination wedding industry like they used to.

 Elbows wrote:
Doesn't mean they're not good enough for a couple hours and a bag of popcorn.

And, more to the point, there is nothing wrong with being a fun, dumb movie with no pretensions of being high art. Sometimes you want steak, sometimes you wand doritos.

 Ouze wrote:
And, more to the point, there is nothing wrong with being a fun, dumb movie with no pretensions of being high art. Sometimes you want steak, sometimes you wand doritos.

Well, in a way, using that analogy "proves" Scorese's point for him, though. If you want to liken Marvel movies to snack foods and Scorsese's to steak, well, then you already concede that the Marvel movies are "not good for you." There really is no time where Doritos are "good for you." Sure, in small quantities, eaten rarely, they aren't overly detrimental, but the fact remains they are never really what could be called healthy. So the fact that this is what one might crave, what, if available, one might prefer, speaks well to Scorsese's point.

Sure, we can say that all entertainment need not be "deep" or overly "artistic" what you liken as the nutritional paralel of steak. But so then we could ask, if snack foods are simply not good for us, if, in your words "fun, dumb movies," are what we crave (as we crave snack foods), to what degree should we indulge that? Should we at all? What we are then asking is a teleological question about what the purpose of art or entertainment is. In the same way we could ask a teleological question about the purpose of snack food is if it is the case that it is detrimental to our health (which it likely is, in any quantity).

We then need to ask, are "fun, dumb movies" a detriment to our manner of thinking akin to how snack foods are a detriment to our health?

 Ouze wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Doesn't mean they're not good enough for a couple hours and a bag of popcorn.

And, more to the point, there is nothing wrong with being a fun, dumb movie with no pretensions of being high art. Sometimes you want steak, sometimes you wand doritos.

Which Scorsese agrees with in the essay. He does not condemn these entertainment films, but is more concern trolling that the commercialization of film is pushing out actual art and Autuers from the film making process on the big screen.

 Easy E wrote:
Which Scorsese agrees with in the essay. He does not condemn these entertainment films, but is more concern trolling that the commercialization of film is pushing out actual art and Autuers from the film making process on the big screen.

I don't follow why you figure he is "concern trolling" though. Sound more to me like he is fairly accurately describing the current paradigm. What he isn't doing is being self-critical or self-aware enough to realize that he, himself, is actually a perpetuator of that paradigm, rather than a "force" against it. Or, at least, he is not a force against it. Although, maybe in his minor defense, I don't think he could do much about it, if he even were so inclined to, but the point still stands.

So, H, would you consider him then to be some flavor of hypocrite?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, H, would you consider him then to be some flavor of hypocrite?

I don't know, that word has a "strong" negative connotation. I think he is a person who likely has "good intentions" but we all know where the road to, is paved with.

So, I think he's just a person, inclined to biases, which everyone is to greater or lesser extents. I don't know him, or of him, enough to really know if it might be the former or the latter. From reading that little bit, I don't think he is "trolling" at all, or at least, it seems not. I think he is actually concerned (although maybe/probably not for the "right" reasons). But, like many people, with respect to many things, I don't think he has thought it through enough. And, like many talented people, he probably lacks some measure of self-awareness. That's likely an existential need though, in his case, if he were to make anything though, so I won't really hold it against him too much.

But I would critique his position, here, but not so much his thesis. He seems to be taking a passive role, in a way, and I'd critique that. Also, in a broader scope, he has benefited in all likelihood from the "way things are" but then wants to critique others for doing the same, just in a larger scale. I think then he really needs to get down to a deeper layer and realize the systemic nature of what he is critiquing. But does he really want to bite, any less than gentilly, the hand the feeds? Unlikely.

So, I'll give him +5 for the good intent, -4 for failing to draw the conclusion out past where (I think) he self-servingly wanted it to be. Or at least, so it seems to me. But note, of course, that I am demonstrably an idiot, so, what do I know?

Your posts seem to be much better informed than any others in this field, so I will politely disagree.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
He's got to build hype for his latest movie somehow.

More than that, his career.

For whatever reasons, he feels the need to justify himself as above current trends, and cover himself in the illusion that his work is 'high art' or more artistic because... stuff. And things.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:Your posts seem to be much better informed than any others in this field, so I will politely disagree.

Well, I don't know that we can know. All we could really do is surmise. I guess I have something like a "spirit" of "charity?" Who knows, probably still an idiot, just one prone to over-thinking.

Voss wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
He's got to build hype for his latest movie somehow.

More than that, his career.

For whatever reasons, he feels the need to justify himself as above current trends, and cover himself in the illusion that his work is 'high art' or more artistic because... stuff. And things.

Well, perhaps he is really self-conscious and so he feels the need "justify" what he does? Perhaps that actually comes from him knowing full well that he hasn't been the "artist" he could/should/would have been?

I'm totally unfairly psychoanalyzing here though. In one sense though, I can't blame him if that's the case. How does the Real compete with the Hyper-Real? It's a losing battle. Or, so it seems.

In a way, it's like you have a carrot stand and someone else is slinging heroin on the corner. Sure, people come get some carrots from time to time, but way more people are jamming that addictive stuff, stuff made precisely to be addictive, made to evoke cravings and addiction. But I am drawing on too dramatic a parallel. But the thing is, I do think they analogy is very roughly akin. It's a matter of degrees and those degrees do really matter, but in the end, can we really say that profusion of "thoughtless" media is actually a good thing?

In the words of Gil Scott Heron* (we could probably put a lot of them here): "You will not be able to stay home, brother. You will not be able to plug in, turn on and drop out. You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip. Skip out for beer during commercials. Because the revolution will not be televised."

*(Final note there, yes, Gil Scott Heron was a pretty terrible person, as a person, but his vision, and artistic vision, was keen.)

 H wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
And, more to the point, there is nothing wrong with being a fun, dumb movie with no pretensions of being high art. Sometimes you want steak, sometimes you wand doritos.

Well, in a way, using that analogy "proves" Scorese's point for him, though. If you want to liken Marvel movies to snack foods and Scorsese's to steak, well, then you already concede that the Marvel movies are "not good for you." There really is no time where Doritos are "good for you."

That wasn't exactly what I meant... maybe it was just a bad analogy.

I think Scorsese is generally right in that most comic book movies are not "cinema". They're essentially popcorn flicks. There isn't anything wrong with saying that. People love popcorn flicks, and just as there is room in the supermarket for both fish and steak, there is room for high concept indies and Pacific Rim. They're not competing for viewers.

 H wrote:
What he isn't doing is being self-critical or self-aware enough to realize that he, himself, is actually a perpetuator of that paradigm, rather than a "force" against it. Or, at least, he is not a force against it. Although, maybe in his minor defense, I don't think he could do much about it, if he even were so inclined to, but the point still stands.

This is also a good point. The complaints about being cookie-cutter are pretty rich coming from the guy who thought Goodfellas was so good that he's about to release the 4th ieteration of the same formula.

H, I meant I disagree that you are an idiot.

 Ouze wrote:
I think Scorsese is generally right in that most comic book movies are not "cinema". They're essentially popcorn flicks. There isn't anything wrong with saying that. People love popcorn flicks, and just as there is room in the supermarket for both fish and steak, there is room for high concept indies and Pacific Rim. They're not competing for viewers.

I'd quibble here slightly. In one sense, you are 100% right, there is "room" there for both. In another though, the "market" does not "solve" everything, I don't think.

If we deign to another nutritional analogy, if most things on the shelf at the grocery store are engineered to appeal to human cravings, to indulge human tendency to "desire" things that are "unhealthy" sure, there is "room on the shelf" for the healthy food, but who is buying? The race to the most addictive, super-low-price stuff is well and on. This is Hyper-Reality on 11, where food engineered in laboratories tastes "better" than what grew "on the vine."

Now, sure, if you get a bag of Doritos once every month, whatever, who cares. But there are people whose lives are predicated on this stuff. They eat fast food for 3 meals a day.

Back to movies. Do "unthinking" or "dumb, fun" movies really hurt someone for sitting down and watching them? No, not likely. Just like how one bag of chips probably doesn't kill you. But, what happens when that is all you consume? What becomes of a mind conditioned to simply not think? What becomes of a body fed food unfit for prolonged consumption? That's the danger I can imagine. Most people won't shot gun endless snacks. Most people won't predicate their lives on whatever the latest Fast & Furious movie is "saying."

The thing is, with dataism, big data and what we learn via neuroscience, things like Cambridge Analytica and so on, really beg the question: how long can one hold one, in light of engineering things to be addictive, to be mindlessly entertaining, to "switch-off" thinking? I'm not really trying to be doom-and-gloom, but the phenomena seems all too real, we just have to ask, what does it end up looking like?

 Ouze wrote:
This is also a good point. The complaints about being cookie-cutter are pretty rich coming from the guy who thought Goodfellas was so good that he's about to release the 4th ieteration of the same formula.

Well, I think we can likely say that "money talks, nobody walks."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
H, I meant I disagree that you are an idiot.

Don't worry, I got it,

I'm just disinclined to agree with that summary, since, well, I'm trapped in here with me 24/7,

 H wrote:

Well, perhaps he is really self-conscious and so he feels the need "justify" what he does? Perhaps that actually comes from him knowing full well that he hasn't been the "artist" he could/should/would have been?

Questions he should ask himself in the privacy of home, then, not in print.

I'm totally unfairly psychoanalyzing here though. In one sense though, I can't blame him if that's the case. How does the Real compete with the Hyper-Real? It's a losing battle. Or, so it seems.

Its never been 'real.' It's always been film (or theatre), and dressing things up into something people will actually want to watch..
Bob and Jill's Boring Life wasn't ever a draw. They've always had on costumes, whether its samurai, gangsters, cops and robbers or superheroes. It goes all the way back to Greeks and tendency towards demigods and royalty.

In a way, it's like you have a carrot stand and someone else is slinging heroin on the corner. Sure, people come get some carrots from time to time, but way more people are jamming that addictive stuff, stuff made precisely to be addictive, made to evoke cravings and addiction. But I am drawing on too dramatic a parallel. But the thing is, I do think they analogy is very roughly akin. It's a matter of degrees and those degrees do really matter, but in the end, can we really say that profusion of "thoughtless" media is actually a good thing?

Is it thoughtless, or do we just see a lot of thoughtless reactions? When everyone has a 'voice,' its pretty understandable that most of what people hear is babble.

Gangster films aren't exactly thought-provoking, so if that's his take, it isn't a good one. And when he was making them, I know perfectly well there were 'artistis' decrying his work- too raw, too sexualized, too violent, too much cursing, etc, etc.

But I see a lot more attempts at analyzing film now then I did in his heyday. They cost more and require more collaboration, but that doesn't require the loss of 'vision.'
A trend towards epics and heroes are in style because people are self-consciously aware of their lack of power.

In the words of Gil Scott Heron* (we could probably put a lot of them here): "You will not be able to stay home, brother. You will not be able to plug in, turn on and drop out. You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip. Skip out for beer during commercials. Because the revolution will not be televised."

Eh... gotta completely disagree with that quote. Its easy to stay home, ignore and lose yourself- there are always lots of distractions, as well as better things that matter.
As for revolutions, those are definitely televised- every ridiculous moment, chopped up, spliced and replayed day-in-day-out.

Back to movies. Do "unthinking" or "dumb, fun" movies really hurt someone for sitting down and watching them? No, not likely. Just like how one bag of chips probably doesn't kill you. But, what happens when that is all you consume? What becomes of a mind conditioned to simply not think? What becomes of a body fed food unfit for prolonged consumption? That's the danger I can imagine.

I think you're over-analyzing a figurative expression. I don't think much of the intellectual capacity of the general public, but the 'turn off the brain' thing is just a turn of phrase. Really, films are one of the few places the average joe is introduced to new ideas and different points of view. Even if they want to be stupid, something new is going to wander in.

 Easy E wrote:
Thoughts, reactions, and diatribes welcome!

I mean logically if one keeps digging they'll eventually reach the other side. So hey, silver linings!

Anyway, he sounds like the kind of person who still thinks that there's a difference between a "movie" and a "film". I once thought that way, but I realised just how stupidly arrogant that was quite a while ago. Scorsesee's older than me, and had a lot more time to figure that out.

Voss wrote:
Questions he should ask himself in the privacy of home, then, not in print.

I don't see any reason why that should be the case. How can there be a public discussion in the privacy of his home?

Voss wrote:
Its never been 'real.' It's always been film (or theatre), and dressing things up into something people will actually want to watch..
Bob and Jill's Boring Life wasn't ever a draw. They've always had on costumes, whether its samurai, gangsters, cops and robbers or superheroes. It goes all the way back to Greeks and tendency towards demigods and royalty.

That's a fair point, it's always been about spectacle. THere you likely have the very appeal of the hyper-real. Realism in-itself just doesn't cut it.

Voss wrote:
Is it thoughtless, or do we just see a lot of thoughtless reactions? When everyone has a 'voice,' its pretty understandable that most of what people hear is babble.

Gangster films aren't exactly thought-provoking, so if that's his take, it isn't a good one. And when he was making them, I know perfectly well there were 'artistis' decrying his work- too raw, too sexualized, too violent, too much cursing, etc, etc.

But I see a lot more attempts at analyzing film now then I did in his heyday. They cost more and require more collaboration, but that doesn't require the loss of 'vision.'
A trend towards epics and heroes are in style because people are self-consciously aware of their lack of power.

It can be both, neither is mutually exclusive. And I already went into why, even his is initial critique is apt, that he fails to take it to it's fully self-aware realization. It is definitely not my position that gangster movies are "art." In fact, I was pointing out the opposite.

Voss wrote:
Eh... gotta completely disagree with that quote. Its easy to stay home, ignore and lose yourself- there are always lots of distractions, as well as better things that matter.
As for revolutions, those are definitely televised- every ridiculous moment, chopped up, spliced and replayed day-in-day-out.

That is exactly the point of the quote. The actual "revolution" would not be what you see on television. Because to be a part of it, you'd actually have to be out doing something. Of course you can do all those things, you can stay home and consume all the media coverage or whatever, but none of that is the "revolution" in-itself. So, what Scott-Heron is saying there is that the "revolution" will not be the media coverage, the commoditization, the "narrative" spin of it, it would be the actual thing you go out and do, for real. Baudrillard had the same notion with The Gulf War Did Not Take Place, not that nothing happened, but that the thing portrayed on TV and in the media didn't actually happen, what actually did, there, on the ground, was vastly different than the media that came out of it.

Voss wrote:
I think you're over-analyzing a figurative expression. I don't think much of the intellectual capacity of the general public, but the 'turn off the brain' thing is just a turn of phrase. Really, films are one of the few places the average joe is introduced to new ideas and different points of view. Even if they want to be stupid, something new is going to wander in.

Well, I already admitted that I am prone to over-analysis. But that, in-itself, doesn't mean what I said is factually incorrect. Sure, no one literally "turns off their brain," they'd be dead. But the notion that people are conditioned to not think critically, well, to me, holds water. Now, of course there is a matter of degrees at hand here. But do Transformer movies, or Fast & Furious movies, really introduce any new ideas or perspectives?

As you say yourself, it's "easy to stay at home, ignore and lose yourself." To what degree is that a good thing? That's my question. What happens when that notion gets applied not just to movies, but to things that actually matter, like real-life choices and politics? If you are already conditioned to simple "tune in and drop out" to the news? Where does one start thinking critically then?

You vaguely insult "the general public" for what reason, I don't know, so should we just hole-up in our Ivory Tower then? We are all the general public. People often don't "learn" because they don't have the time, the energy, the access. When you are working two jobs, when do you have time to consider Plato's Republic? When you are a single parent, struggling with work and raising kids, when do you have time to read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics? As we already pointed out, it is easier to "tune in and drop out." When you get informed of what your opinion is, ready-made, why bother thinking? But to think that people just aren't intelligent? Nah, I don't buy it.

Lampoon it, sure, my analysis over-done. But I consider the edge-case, because that seems more informative than any other. Since I don't fancy myself as smart, or "right," it doesn't bother me much to be wrong. However, nothing you've presented shows me an actually error, just a disagreement about the question of degrees as far as I can tell.

Honestly, if massive visual spectacles aren’t cinema, I genuinely do not know what is.

I like Scorcese’s films. But I can’t say any of them are cinema must watch. Rather, they’re exactly the sort of film I want to watch at home.

Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Fine art can be commercially appealing, and products with mass appeal can have artistic meaning, but on the whole, I can't begin to argue that the Marvel moves are anything other than highly competent craft.

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Yes..... that's what makes it interesting, especially in this snapshot in time.

Is there value in Art or are we all swamped by the Vulgar. Where is the line.... today..... between the two?

Scorsese thinks he has one......I am not sure I agree with it.

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Fine art can be commercially appealing, and products with mass appeal can have artistic meaning, but on the whole, I can't begin to argue that the Marvel moves are anything other than highly competent craft.

In a sense, yes, it is. Given that we could spend 100 years talking about it would seem to give credence to the notion that it isn't simple, belies the idea that it doesn't matter, or that we shouldn't care about a possible distinction though.

Again, I have some intense doubt about Sorcese's labeling of his own work, but I do find some credence to his point about "commoditized" and monetized "art." It raises, to me, deep questions about what the function of art is, or should be. If the end-goal, the whole teleology of the enterprise is just "enjoyment" and "profit" then I think we'd be right to have some concerns about just what is going on and what will go on. Just like my above posts highlight in a nutritional parallel, if the only point of a food-product is the make money and so to do that, get you to eat it, then why not lace snacks with some super addictive drug to that end?

There has to be some "other aim" in there. Maybe there is, even in the lowest of "low-brow" movies. But if the direction we are headed, again, is toward big data, dataism, and the like, then the future could be fraught with products aimed ever the more solely at leveraging tendances that lead to addictive, non-thinking behaviors. I think video games, for example, are already headed down that road, unfortunately. Along with news and social media, as further examples.

Perhaps that is a bit doom-and-gloom and hopefully I am wrong and somehow, someway, we pull up out of a spiral of heading toward making things for the sake of just making money.

Voss actually makes a better point than any other. Of past cultures and/or cultural greats, which works are best (or at all) remembered?
Is it the thoughtful, philosophical, artsy ones, or the ones with gods, demons, larger-than-life heroes, kings murdering each other, etc?

In that context, it seems to me Scorcese is more afraid that his work will be by-and-large forgotten, while the over-the-top, larger-than-life superhero movies will be what future generations remember as our cultural heritage to them. And TBH, it could be worse. Superheroes, for the most part, encourage people to try to do the right thing, and be the best person they can be by example.
It's a simple message, to be sure, but one that cannot be repeated enough.

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Fine art can be commercially appealing, and products with mass appeal can have artistic meaning, but on the whole, I can't begin to argue that the Marvel moves are anything other than highly competent craft.

I dunno.

Viewed collectively, they’re a significant artistic achievement, and have changed the face of the industry. All the more so that other studios have tried, and so far failed, to replicate the success.

I don’t think we’ve seen such since A New Hope, which revolutionised an entire genre, and brought us genuinely ground breaking special effects. I mean, possibly LotR?

Easy E wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Yes..... that's what makes it interesting, especially in this snapshot in time.

Is there value in Art or are we all swamped by the Vulgar. Where is the line.... today..... between the two?

Scorsese thinks he has one......I am not sure I agree with it.

I don't think it's impossible to at least scratch out a few guidelines. I think all but the crankiest of artists would agree that making art you hope to sell does not doom you to commercial hell. I think that there are some aspects that are based in intent, and also in the feedback loop. off the top of my head:

Art: has a creative vision first, followed by a commercial vision. There's a story that wants to be told, or a message to be given. Trusts the audience to accept strange or new media, technique, themes, or other choices.
Commerce: fueled by a commercial vision. If Movie 2 did well, greenlight Movie 3! Makes choices in media, themes, and technique to reach the broadest possible audience.

Perfect example: look at the LOTR movies vs. the Hobbit movies. LOTR took risks, it was driven by the need to tell a story. the Hobbit was split into three simply to increase money, and kept it's choices as safe as possible, to the point of pandering. "Hey, you guys liked legolas, right? Well, he's here! and is that his girlfriend???"

H wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Fine art can be commercially appealing, and products with mass appeal can have artistic meaning, but on the whole, I can't begin to argue that the Marvel moves are anything other than highly competent craft.

There has to be some "other aim" in there. Maybe there is, even in the lowest of "low-brow" movies. But if the direction we are headed, again, is toward big data, dataism, and the like, then the future could be fraught with products aimed ever the more solely at leveraging tendances that lead to addictive, non-thinking behaviors. I think video games, for example, are already headed down that road, unfortunately. Along with news and social media, as further examples.

Perhaps that is a bit doom-and-gloom and hopefully I am wrong and somehow, someway, we pull up out of a spiral of heading toward making things for the sake of just making money.

I don't even think there's a problem with just trying to make money. the gross out comedies of the 90s weren't exactly high art, but still were aimed at a specific audience. The movies Scorses is really taking aim at are movies aimed at the broadest possible audience. You can't afford to make a $50 million dollar move trying to find an audience. Instead you have to make $150 movies designed for maximum appeal. 25 Years ago, movies did that by being either really good, or include amazing spectacle. With CGI, spectacle is cheap, while moves are too expensive to make five hoping three break even and one hits big.

Bran Dawri wrote:Voss actually makes a better point than any other. Of past cultures and/or cultural greats, which works are best (or at all) remembered?
Is it the thoughtful, philosophical, artsy ones, or the ones with gods, demons, larger-than-life heroes, kings murdering each other, etc?

In that context, it seems to me Scorcese is more afraid that his work will be by-and-large forgotten, while the over-the-top, larger-than-life superhero movies will be what future generations remember as our cultural heritage to them. And TBH, it could be worse. Superheroes, for the most part, encourage people to try to do the right thing, and be the best person they can be by example.
It's a simple message, to be sure, but one that cannot be repeated enough.

Eh...if you look at the very earliest literature from any given culture, it will be heavy on mythology, monsters, etc. but virtually all cultures move to more complex themes very quickly. the odyssey and the Illiad are among the only works of literature from the bronze dark ages, and to this day they have incredible power and meaning.

Easy E wrote:Is there value in Art or are we all swamped by the Vulgar. Where is the line.... today..... between the two?

Scorsese thinks he has one......I am not sure I agree with it.

Again, I too disagree with Scorse's characterization of his own work, but I think you do bring up a good point. Is, or should, art be aside the vulgar? That is hard to say. In fact, I can imagine the vulgar in art. However, vulgarity for, say, titillation's sake is not art. Not to me. But then again, with an actual purpose, aside the monetary one, of something with which to raise the consciousness from and to a different level, then maybe vulgarity could be art.

That's kind of a key thing, art isn't just one thing. It's not a schematic or formal thing. It's a highly relational thing. And that will depend on how, why, when, where, with what and with who it is related though. And again, we have yet to even consider teleological points here, on just what art's "final cause" is or should be.

Bran Dawri wrote:Superheroes, for the most part, encourage people to try to do the right thing, and be the best person they can be by example.
It's a simple message, to be sure, but one that cannot be repeated enough.

Well, I really don't have much issue with most super hero movies, but some, maybe even most, do promote an notion of manichaeism and/or of fantastic moral clarity. Although I think Endgame, for example, at least tried to explore something of an alternative, even if it ends up in the same place anyway.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Fine art can be commercially appealing, and products with mass appeal can have artistic meaning, but on the whole, I can't begin to argue that the Marvel moves are anything other than highly competent craft.

I dunno.

Viewed collectively, they’re a significant artistic achievement, and have changed the face of the industry. All the more so that other studios have tried, and so far failed, to replicate the success.

I don’t think we’ve seen such since A New Hope, which revolutionised an entire genre, and brought us genuinely ground breaking special effects. I mean, possibly LotR?

You can make this argument. A single silkscreen of a soup can is just an image, dozens of them become art. I suppose it's interesting to think about it that way.

And by my own guidelines above, the MCU does take a very big risk: assuming audiences want to follow characters through literally dozens of movies.

I'm still not sure what the message or theme of the MCU as a whole is, other than "aren't superheroes awesome?"

And the reason other studios can't replicate the MCU is that their attempts have largely sucked. I don't think anybody is saying the MCU is hacky or poorly made. But they blend character growth with action and humor, all done well, with top notch acting and visual effects. Most attempts to compete have struggled with some or even all of those factors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:Superheroes, for the most part, encourage people to try to do the right thing, and be the best person they can be by example.
It's a simple message, to be sure, but one that cannot be repeated enough.

Well, I really don't have much issue with most super hero movies, but some, maybe even most, do promote an notion of manichaeism and/or of fantastic moral clarity. Although I think Endgame, for example, at least tried to explore something of an alternative, even if it ends up in the same place anyway.

By that definition, the inspirational posters in your office are art. I'm not sure we want to go down that road.

I dunno, people with power we cannot relate to solving problems that are nothing like real life problems doesn't lend itself to a really interesting message. Compare that to say, Dark Knight, which at least played with the more interesting questions of the nature of evil, the motivations for justice, etc.

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Fine art can be commercially appealing, and products with mass appeal can have artistic meaning, but on the whole, I can't begin to argue that the Marvel moves are anything other than highly competent craft.

"Fine" Art is always highly subjective - especially since modern Art Crtics tend to sneer at well crafted art in favour of abstract or similar.

Cinema is subject to the same - to some (typcially Critics) popular means "inferior" regardless of any other aspect or element.

Partly responsible for my continuing dislike for and contempt for Professional Critics of any kind.

And the reason other studios can't replicate the MCU is that their attempts have largely sucked. I don't think anybody is saying the MCU is hacky or poorly made. But they blend character growth with action and humor, all done well, with top notch acting and visual effects. Most attempts to compete have struggled with some or even all of those factors.

Agreed. Casting RDJ as Tony Stark was a stroke of genius on somebody's part, and the original Iron Man caught lightning in a bottle. Then, somebody somewhere, either Feige or other executives, had the good sense to build on that formula blended with the willingness to experiment and deviate from that formula just enough to keep audiences interested. This wasn't, at inception, any sort of grand vision, after all the only reason Iron Man was made, if the gossip is to be believed, is because Marvel had signed away all the "good" heroes to other studios.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Fine art can be commercially appealing, and products with mass appeal can have artistic meaning, but on the whole, I can't begin to argue that the Marvel moves are anything other than highly competent craft.

"Fine" Art is always highly subjective - especially since modern Art Crtics tend to sneer at well crafted art in favour of abstract or similar.

Cinema is subject to the same - to some (typcially Critics) popular means "inferior" regardless of any other aspect or element.

Partly responsible for my continuing dislike for and contempt for Professional Critics of any kind.

It's sort of subjective. I think it appears subjective, but in practice there are some real patterns that emerge. For starters, the preference for the abstract over the "well crafted" already tips the scales in the "art vs. craft" discussion. If I were to paint an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, is that art? Even if the technique is perfect? No, right? Because art requires something new, something creative, something unexpected. Most importantly art should make you feel something.

A lot of people don't feel anything from abstract art, but if you give it time, it will effect you. Colors and shapes can stir emotions just as much as recognizable images.

And popular does not mean inferior inherently. virtually all film critics, even the snooty ones, love movies like the Godfather, Pulp Fiction, Silence of the Lambs, etc.

You also cannot wallpaper over the difference between commercial craft and "bad art." The MCU are good movies, they're just not art. A movie like the Boondock Saints might not be a good movie (although I enjoyed it) but I'd argue that it's art. It has a message and a theme and it's occasionally even surprising. It might be crude and poorly executed at times, but I think it raises the question of if vigilantism in the face of evil is justified. It makes you feel something, even if it is some weird combination of bloodthirsty vengeance and repulsion.

I think the main appeal of the MCU is that their characters, while fairly standardised, each have their own driving force, which whilst none are diametrically opposed does cause internal conflict,

So as well as seeing some most excellent action, there is interpersonal drama and actual teamwork.

I mean, breaking it down in Endgame to just Iron Man, Captain America and Thor against Thanos was a really, really good touch. We see them fight together, properly for the first time since Age of Ultron. That’s a good pay off themeatically.

That it takes everyone, big and small, major and minor characters, to actually defeat Thanos? Golden.

And people can watch just Infinity War and Endgame without needing to see the others. Yes the experience is probably improved by watching them all in order (which is what I did) only more impressive.

I’ll use a familiar comparison. Terry Pratchett’s Discworld. It spans 41 novels, and you can start with any of them. Each is a self contained story which doesn’t require the others. But read in release order, the world becomes all the richer.

And like the MCU, many literary bigwigs remain incredibly snooty about it, despite them being objectively good books.

That doesn’t mean one is guaranteed to like them. But I can’t imagine all but the disingenuous saying they’re poor efforts.

Polonius wrote:I don't even think there's a problem with just trying to make money. the gross out comedies of the 90s weren't exactly high art, but still were aimed at a specific audience. The movies Scorses is really taking aim at are movies aimed at the broadest possible audience. You can't afford to make a $50 million dollar move trying to find an audience. Instead you have to make $150 movies designed for maximum appeal. 25 Years ago, movies did that by being either really good, or include amazing spectacle. With CGI, spectacle is cheap, while moves are too expensive to make five hoping three break even and one hits big.

The issue is not "making money" at all. No one, realistically, is upset, for example, that Perdue Pharma makes money. What they would be concerned with is that they leveraged "bad science" with pushed marketing and ended up harming people, where our notion of pharmaceuticals is to help people, not harm them. That is a clear teleological aim we have for that industry. The thing is, what is the teleological aim of the entertainment industry? If it is only entertainment at any cost, then why not just screen XXX rated movies in every theater? Dramatic example, but I frame the edge-case to show the issue inherent to the paradigm. Again, if making money is the only end of, say, the food industry, why not place addictive chemicals or drugs into your brand of food so that you can sell more?

I think, also, here we have what Scorsese critiques in his notion of not taking "risk." Spectacle is not risky today. Isn't that what the notion of the "summer blockbuster" is predicated on. I'd consider something like Arrival as more risky. It does have some elements of "spectacle" in there, but more subdued in scope. It has non-linear time and is more nuanced in the sense of it's narrative structure. Does it mean that Arrival is a "better movie" than Transformers? I don't know. But I know which I like more, which I'd rather watch and which I think has more "value" in what it is "saying" or trying to "say."

Polonius wrote:And by my own guidelines above, the MCU does take a very big risk: assuming audiences want to follow characters through literally dozens of movies.

I'm still not sure what the message or theme of the MCU as a whole is, other than "aren't superheroes awesome?"

And the reason other studios can't replicate the MCU is that their attempts have largely sucked. I don't think anybody is saying the MCU is hacky or poorly made. But they blend character growth with action and humor, all done well, with top notch acting and visual effects. Most attempts to compete have struggled with some or even all of those factors.

Well, again, I don't think this is really "risky" at all now. The data is in and the water is safe. Again, if you go up and read some of the quotes I had, you can imagine why it is not risky at all to follow characters, because people build identities with and through these sorts of narratives.

I am not here to say "Scorsese good, Marvel bad." Rather, I think his point, even in being misguided in part, does have some merit, even if he misapplies it to his own self-serving end.

A huge factor of the MCUs success is simply that its movies aren't really dependent on one another. There's no huge overriding story that drives them and they're mostly free to be about whatever they want. In many ways Infinity War and in particularly Endgame are more about the movies that came before it than those movies are about telling the story of Endgame.

Asking what the MCU as a whole is about kind of misses the point. While I think most of the movies are about ideas they don't really explore in depth and too many of them are about putting aside hubris to use your gifts for others, the best of them have more to say. Of them, I think Black Panther does the best job sneaking its message into the template with its hero and villain acting as literal avatars for their respective cultures. It's the movie most about something, even if I lot of people seemed to have lost the point by focusing on the physical, color coded action at the end.

 Azreal13 wrote:

And the reason other studios can't replicate the MCU is that their attempts have largely sucked. I don't think anybody is saying the MCU is hacky or poorly made. But they blend character growth with action and humor, all done well, with top notch acting and visual effects. Most attempts to compete have struggled with some or even all of those factors.

Agreed. Casting RDJ as Tony Stark was a stroke of genius on somebody's part, and the original Iron Man caught lightning in a bottle. Then, somebody somewhere, either Feige or other executives, had the good sense to build on that formula blended with the willingness to experiment and deviate from that formula just enough to keep audiences interested. This wasn't, at inception, any sort of grand vision, after all the only reason Iron Man was made, if the gossip is to be believed, is because Marvel had signed away all the "good" heroes to other studios.

they also struck gold with the relative unknowns. Evans, Hemsworth, and Pratt all went from promising young actors to major stars. The MCU got incredibly lucky with it's stars rising to the occasion, and then brining in some ringers like RDJ, Sam Jackson, etc. Compare the MCU batting average with the new Star Wars movies: their new stars have ranges from "fine" to "okay." Solo would have gone from pretty good to really good if somebody with Chris Pratt's talent had the role.

I like reading the epidermic reaction that some people will have to denigration of the Marvel movies they love .
I find Marvel movies quite annoying. It's like all already told stories about already overused heroes. I mean basically all characters have been repeated over for 30 years at least.
Also hate corporate ownership of the characters/universe. And fans do, even if they won't admit it, every time the corporate gives the characters to an artist they don't like lol.

 H wrote:
Well, again, I don't think this is really "risky" at all now. The data is in and the water is safe. Again, if you go up and read some of the quotes I had, you can imagine why it is not risky at all to follow characters, because people build identities with and through these sorts of narratives.

I am not here to say "Scorsese good, Marvel bad." Rather, I think his point, even in being misguided in part, does have some merit, even if he misapplies it to his own self-serving end.

I think by Infinity Wars/Endagme, the only risk was if the movie was well built enough to satisfy the demand. I think the first Avengers was a bit of a risk, in that it didn't really introduce all of it's characters. And while they're not hard to figure out, they're also not as completely archtypical as batman/superman.

 H wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Fine art can be commercially appealing, and products with mass appeal can have artistic meaning, but on the whole, I can't begin to argue that the Marvel moves are anything other than highly competent craft.

In a sense, yes, it is. Given that we could spend 100 years talking about it would seem to give credence to the notion that it isn't simple, belies the idea that it doesn't matter, or that we shouldn't care about a possible distinction though.

I don't agree. Numbers don't indicate quality - isn't that one of the core arguments deployed(more accurately misappropriated) by the "art is art" crowd? - nor change the nature of the thing, and the thing is the same as it always has been; snobbery. It's about taking works that fit your(general, nonspecific) personal taste and elevating them(and thus, yourself) above those things enjoyed by the common masses of the out-group created by your subjective and arbitrary distinction. The fact there are a lot of snobs and the idea of arbitrarily defining some things as "art" and thus rarefied & valuable, and other things as "mere craft" and thus perhaps worthy of grudging technical respect at most refuses to just die off as it so plainly should, doesn't lend any kind of authority to the idea, because the reason it continues has nothing to do with its quality or validity and everything to do with primitive primate social dynamics.

Indeed the fact that the core assertion has remained while all of the things the assertion is made about have changed over the years is itself fine evidence of how nonsense it is; once, technical skill was required for something to be considered "art", then it wasn't, and now technical skill is practically derided - someone painting in the style of an old master will receive at best a patronising head-pat from the "art community", while someone creating an "installation" of, I don't know, red ping-pong balls floating in different sized jars of piss arranged haphazardly around a room painted in stark white will be lauded as a genius. The same is true of every other quality of what is now considered to be "true art" - it's fashion, and nothing more.

Which is fine. But when people are snooty and snobbish, banging on about say, Citizen Kane instead, or worse, French Art House nonsense, it becomes less about whether or not the MCU are good films, and more about their own ego.

People can dislike the MCU, and not be in the slightest bit snobby or up themselves.

People can like the MCU and still prefer French Art House.

It’s just when some corners make it a binary thing that it irks.

 Polonius wrote:
By that definition, the inspirational posters in your office are art. I'm not sure we want to go down that road.

I dunno, people with power we cannot relate to solving problems that are nothing like real life problems doesn't lend itself to a really interesting message. Compare that to say, Dark Knight, which at least played with the more interesting questions of the nature of evil, the motivations for justice, etc.

Well, just being art doesn't make it good art. In fact, art no one is interested in or cares about really fails the entire point of the art itself. So, while the "inspirational posters" are trying to fill the role of art, they are necessary failures, being too explicit and commoditized, likely trivializing and commercializing to some degrees the thing they want to promote. Likely a whole-cloth failure at every level. But that doesn't preclude them actually being art, or rather, maybe we should say being objects attempting to fill the role of art.

I mean, I like both Endgame and Dark Knight as entertainment. But each one definitely has "issues," no doubt. I think the questions there are really a whole other can of worms though and my posts are already long, nonsensical and meandering enough as it is.

There’s also what makes the MCU crowd heroes.

It’s not their super powers or skills. It’s that they’re all somewhat flawed beings trying to make our world a better place. That helps make them relatable.

Compare to Justice League (I know it has its fans, I’m not seeking to be personal here). They’re all pretty two dimensional. And worst, it all just falls to Superman to do everything everyone else was trying to do, on his own, when he finally shows up.

That is not an indictment of them as D.C. characters - just the execution of that particular movie. I genuinely couldn’t tell you more about that film, because there are two things I actually remember. Supes turning up at the end and saving the day, and Gal Gadot’s ‘Kal El’, a line I felt was delivered incredibly poorly. (Other opinions are of course available and no more or less valid)

Yodhrin wrote:Indeed the fact that the core assertion has remained while all of the things the assertion is made about have changed over the years is itself fine evidence of how nonsense it is; once, technical skill was required for something to be considered "art", then it wasn't, and now technical skill is practically derided - someone painting in the style of an old master will receive at best a patronising head-pat from the "art community", while someone creating an "installation" of, I don't know, red ping-pong balls floating in different sized jars of piss arranged haphazardly around a room painted in stark white will be lauded as a genius. The same is true of every other quality of what is now considered to be "true art" - it's fashion, and nothing more.

Well, here you have one aspect of "modern" art, is it's self-serving nature. Art about art. Also, notions of technical skill fall away as technical skill become more of commodities. In 1400, almost no one had the technological, economic ability to paint technical works. So to do so was "art." Now, I can likely go to school and come out a reasonable representational, technical painter, and I am an no-talent idiot.

So, art must take on new forms, because society, technology, process, all have new forms. I mean, you might not like abstraction and that's fine, but it doesn't make it "not art" in the same way the modern artists don't like representational art, to your very point, does not make it "not art."

Polonius wrote:I think by Infinity Wars/Endagme, the only risk was if the movie was well built enough to satisfy the demand. I think the first Avengers was a bit of a risk, in that it didn't really introduce all of it's characters. And while they're not hard to figure out, they're also not as completely archtypical as batman/superman.

Sure, I'll buy that. But there was, I think we can admit, an ever closing air of risk at all as it goes on.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:It’s just when some corners make it a binary thing that it irks.

Right, well, if your definition of art includes a valuation in the label, yeah, that is a nonsense position as far as I am concerned. Art is only "better" than a craft, if we consider what art's teleological aim is, as opposed to craft. Consider a dramatic example: art made to have you think about sexuality vs. the craft of simply showing sex acts. But, consider the opposite, art made to think about the nature of a table, vs the craft of actually making a table. Vastly different end points to all of those. And no one is inherently "better" it depends on what you want/need out of it. It makes little sense to denigrate art to craft, or craft to art.

I’m.....im talking about movies?

Scorses against the MCU.

Snobbish Critics against Hollywood fare.

And how one is free to enjoy both without compromise, and the only problem being enforced binary views?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For example, me and Horror movies.

I massively enjoy my gorefests, slasher flicks and monster movies, with a particularly fondness for low budget Italian Zombie movies.

Yet I also very much appreciate well made psychological horror films.

Psychological horror films are probably better made. You can shock and scare with copious amounts of blood and gut churning eviscerations. But to build atmosphere, and to play the audiences nerves and paranoia like a fiddle is a far harder achievement.

Now, I can tell when something is genuinely superior (original Ring compared to the remake The Ring etc), but can still enjoy both.

Indeed, the only horror I’m not keen on would be found footage. Probably because I saw Blair Witch and thought it was pants.

Doesn’t mean I’m right about any of it, just that I’m able to enjoy different sub genres equally.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m.....im talking about movies?

Scorses against the MCU.

Snobbish Critics against Hollywood fare.

And how one is free to enjoy both without compromise, and the only problem being enforced binary views?

Nobody is saying you can't. Nobody is even saying that the MCU are bad, and shouldn't be made. the concern is only that as movies have better and better technical crafting, there is less and less space in the theaters for more niche, artistic fare that challenges the audience or makes it think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
let's look at a notorious example: The Room. This is generally considered to be one of the worst movies ever made, but it's undeniably an attempt at art. It's bad art, but it's art. Nobody told the makers how to make it more commercial. It was, good or bad, clearly the vision of the creator.

Gun to my head, i'd rather watch it than, say, the Lone Ranger reboot.

For clarity, wasn’t referring to any person in this thread.

Just the snobbish critics out there, who’ll rubbish certain movies just because they’re made by big Hollywood studios.

 Polonius wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Isn't this just the same debate over high vs. low culture, fine art vs. kitsch, and craft vs. art that has been at the heart of mass pop culture for 100 years?

Fine art can be commercially appealing, and products with mass appeal can have artistic meaning, but on the whole, I can't begin to argue that the Marvel moves are anything other than highly competent craft.

"Fine" Art is always highly subjective - especially since modern Art Crtics tend to sneer at well crafted art in favour of abstract or similar.

Cinema is subject to the same - to some (typcially Critics) popular means "inferior" regardless of any other aspect or element.

Partly responsible for my continuing dislike for and contempt for Professional Critics of any kind.

It's sort of subjective. I think it appears subjective, but in practice there are some real patterns that emerge. For starters, the preference for the abstract over the "well crafted" already tips the scales in the "art vs. craft" discussion. If I were to paint an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, is that art? Even if the technique is perfect? No, right? Because art requires something new, something creative, something unexpected. Most importantly art should make you feel something.

A lot of people don't feel anything from abstract art, but if you give it time, it will effect you. Colors and shapes can stir emotions just as much as recognizable images.

And popular does not mean inferior inherently. virtually all film critics, even the snooty ones, love movies like the Godfather, Pulp Fiction, Silence of the Lambs, etc.

You also cannot wallpaper over the difference between commercial craft and "bad art." The MCU are good movies, they're just not art. A movie like the Boondock Saints might not be a good movie (although I enjoyed it) but I'd argue that it's art. It has a message and a theme and it's occasionally even surprising. It might be crude and poorly executed at times, but I think it raises the question of if vigilantism in the face of evil is justified. It makes you feel something, even if it is some weird combination of bloodthirsty vengeance and repulsion.

by that reasoning if you create a perfect copy and it "effects me" then it is art? No matter if its a copy or not? Sorry I work with original artworks (of many and varied forms from tapestries to paintings, porcelain to weapons from the 15th- 18 century - some I like, some I don't - some effect some don't but i can usually see the effort, craft and ideas behind it regardless of whether i like or they effect me. I cna appreciate its well done etc..

Often in abstract work there is - at least to me, nothing more than the ability to talk it up - no skill, no meaning and no effort - other than self promotion - thats just my opinion and woorth nothing more than anyone else but if it does not effect me - there is nothing else , no skill or technique other than ability to communciate and self promote effectively.

I can't agree that MCU filsm are not art - all movie making is art - some are percieved by us as individuals as "good" or bad" - its all subjective. Some people can claim (often dubiously or with zero grounding with regards to Film Critics) that they know better and they should be bale to tell you and me waht is and is not art - thats arrogant and IMO false.

MCU movies to me can be surprising, make me feel and have messages - maybe you don't feel or see them in that way - so they are somehow not art to you but I am unclear how that makes them not art to everyone else unless you feel that what you determine is or is not art is somehow better than others - if so - why do you feel that?

 H wrote:

Yodhrin wrote:Indeed the fact that the core assertion has remained while all of the things the assertion is made about have changed over the years is itself fine evidence of how nonsense it is; once, technical skill was required for something to be considered "art", then it wasn't, and now technical skill is practically derided - someone painting in the style of an old master will receive at best a patronising head-pat from the "art community", while someone creating an "installation" of, I don't know, red ping-pong balls floating in different sized jars of piss arranged haphazardly around a room painted in stark white will be lauded as a genius. The same is true of every other quality of what is now considered to be "true art" - it's fashion, and nothing more.

Well, here you have one aspect of "modern" art, is it's self-serving nature. Art about art. Also, notions of technical skill fall away as technical skill become more of commodities. In 1400, almost no one had the technological, economic ability to paint technical works. So to do so was "art." Now, I can likely go to school and come out a reasonable representational, technical painter, and I am an no-talent idiot.

So, art must take on new forms, because society, technology, process, all have new forms. I mean, you might not like abstraction and that's fine, but it doesn't make it "not art" in the same way the modern artists don't like representational art, to your very point, does not make it "not art."

You've entirely missed my point.

Either a definition of art exists which can encompass both the rampantly abstract installation I think is garbage and the great works of renowned historical painters, in which case that definition must necessarily also be broad enough to encompass all of film, even the trashy stuff, even the nakedly commercial stuff.

Or art is defined in a very narrow way and that definition is necessarily either wholly subjective in an individual sense, or else does exist beyond individual subjectivity but also changes over time based on nothing more substantial than mere trends and fashions.

So the term is either so broad as to be meaningless as any kind of judgement of quality or value, or very specific but so loaded down in subjective individual and cultural and class biases as to be worthless except as an indication that any given person who invokes it as a judgement of quality or value is a pretentious twonk.

So to summarise, my point is that Scorsese is a pretentious twonk.

 Yodhrin wrote:
You've entirely missed my point.

Either a definition of art exists which can encompass both the rampantly abstract installation I think is garbage and the great works of renowned historical painters, in which case that definition must necessarily also be broad enough to encompass all of film, even the trashy stuff, even the nakedly commercial stuff.

Or art is defined in a very narrow way and that definition is necessarily either wholly subjective in an individual sense, or else does exist beyond individual subjectivity but also changes over time based on nothing more substantial than mere trends and fashions.

So the term is either so broad as to be meaningless as any kind of judgement of quality or value, or very specific but so loaded down in subjective individual and cultural and class biases as to be worthless except as an indication that any given person who invokes it as a judgement of quality or value is a pretentious twonk.

So to summarise, my point is that Scorsese is a pretentious twonk.

Well, I do pretty much agree with your final point.

However, I don't agree that art needs a very narrow, or overly broad "definition" to be. Consider, art as a manner of relation between an artist, something created, and a viewer. In other words, art is not the thing created, art is the process of conveyance of concept through something like aesthetics. But note, that the negation is always on the table. Subversion is always an option as well.

To say that art is wholly subjective, I think, fails to grasp the relational nature of it. Art does not exist solely as Subject, it is also expressly Object. Another way to consider it would be that art is the mediation of Subject [Artist] relating to Subject [Observer] via something like Object [Art itself]. Considering this, yes, anything could be art. In fact, that is part of the nature of Abstraction, the sort of revelation that art is not fixed, content and form are aesthetics, but art is meta-aesthetic. Frankly, art could even be considered as the meta-thinking of thinking abut thinking.

So, if something is overtly made in the issuance of commercial gain, it might well be art, if in that case the point is to convey, from artist to viewer via that commercialism, something outside that commercialism. Here again, we need to consider the teleology. If the final cause is the make money, we don't really, in my opinion, have art, we have what is expressly a commodity. If I give you a story, or a painting, or a movie, what's my aim? If my aim is to explicitly make money, am I am artist, or am I a worker in manufacturing? What is the difference, if not teleological?

Many things are creative and sort of quasi-artistic now-a-days, I think, but that doesn't make art, as such. But hey, what do I know, I'm not an art theorist. Or even a reasonably intelligent person. That's just my off-the-cuff notion.

Breaking News: Old man says the good old days were better. Kids today don’t know what’s good. Insists that people *clearly* on the sidewalk get off his lawn. More on this developing story at 11.

The money was always put on good bets. Scorsesee’s first films didn’t have the bankroll his later projects did. That hasn’t changed.

It’s like trying to define the difference between a tool and an implement. Or the difference between a vendor and a purveyor, or a peeping Tom and a Voyeur.

When it comes to telling people why you got arrested, being a “Voyeur” sounds more classy. Same deal with movies and cinema. They’re the same thing, but one sounds mundane and the other sounds classy.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Breaking News: Old man says the good old days were better. Kids today don’t know what’s good. Insists that people *clearly* on the sidewalk get off his lawn. More on this developing story at 11.

The money was always put on good bets. Scorsesee’s first films didn’t have the bankroll his later projects did. That hasn’t changed.

It’s like trying to define the difference between a tool and an implement. Or the difference between a vendor and a purveyor, or a peeping Tom and a Voyeur.

When it comes to telling people why you got arrested, being a “Voyeur” sounds more classy. Same deal with movies and cinema. They’re the same thing, but one sounds mundane and the other sounds classy.

I'm stealing that one; the difference between art and craft is much akin to the difference between voyeur and peeping tom - one of them makes you sound better when you do something terrible

Yup, that works.

I have always preferred this definition of art.

Anything made in any medium with the intent of evoking an emotional response.

Kid does a finger painting for it's mom?

Art. Complete crap technique and a gak medium but it's still art.

Resident Evil?

Art. It was intended to scare people. Was it successful? Could it have been better?

The Marvel movies might not always be art but some of them certainly are. Winter Soldier and Civil War ask questions the audience is supposed to think about. People who didn't know about the snap from the comics lost their gak at the end of infinity war. The build up, the music (or complete lack there of) as hero after hero is turned to dust. That evoked the emotional response the creators wanted. How is that not well crafted art?

High art doesn't exist. It's just the pretentious and the elitist staking claim to the right to deem things worthy of being art.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Breaking News: Old man says the good old days were better. Kids today don’t know what’s good. Insists that people *clearly* on the sidewalk get off his lawn. More on this developing story at 11.

The money was always put on good bets. Scorsesee’s first films didn’t have the bankroll his later projects did. That hasn’t changed.

It’s like trying to define the difference between a tool and an implement. Or the difference between a vendor and a purveyor, or a peeping Tom and a Voyeur.

When it comes to telling people why you got arrested, being a “Voyeur” sounds more classy. Same deal with movies and cinema. They’re the same thing, but one sounds mundane and the other sounds classy.

I'm stealing that one; the difference between art and craft is much akin to the difference between voyeur and peeping tom - one of them makes you sound better when you do something terrible

Like the difference between a fresh baked loaf and a fresh baked artisan loaf is about £1?

I feel that the important part is the bit about the elimination of risk. Almost everything seems to be either remakes, sequels or adaptations of best selling books. Scorsese himself is quite guilty of it too.

I mean, I get the strategy. Whan a book have seduced thousands of people, you got to be sure that you got a good story. But god, can't we have new stories ?

Well indeed.

But there’s an odd snobbery about films being remakes.

Now, it’s not entirely without justification. Various remakes are near shot for shot, so one has to ask why they bothered (Psycho remake is literally that).

But reimagining? Theatre has being doing that for yonks, with little criticism for remounting/updating.

Now, when it comes to say, Shakespeare I get it. Classic stories replanted in modern climes. And theatre isn’t exactly recorded in most instances.

But even so, I still find the snobbery (from critics) a bit odd.

 IronSlug wrote:

I mean, I get the strategy. Whan a book have seduced thousands of people, you got to be sure that you got a good story. But god, can't we have new stories ?

That depends on how reductive you want to be about what constitutes a new story. I mean, Infinity War/Endgame are technically adaptations, but outside of the names and likenesses of characters and one specific plot point, they are more or less completely unique stories from one another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
People who didn't know about the snap from the comics lost their gak at the end of infinity war. The build up, the music (or complete lack there of) as hero after hero is turned to dust. That evoked the emotional response the creators wanted. How is that not well crafted art?

Or... you know, people that knew about the snap, but were still floored with how devastating it was portrayed.

The one thing I've come to appreciate about the subjectivity of art is that it mostly comes down to novelty. Art seems to come down to that experience of experiencing something new that connects with you, but that means your definition of what is new depends a lot on what you've already seen. You'll come across aficionados who act like a junkie out for their next hit. No matter the medium, there's always that person who's seen it all, desperate for something new. Compare films to miniature painting. You'll see snobs that focus exclusively on competition painting that will dismiss "table top" but more often than not people put their heart into paint jobs of all levels. There's value in competition pieces painstakingly crafted on a diorama base with layers of techniques and skills with every angle and lighting done to perfection. There's also value in armies with no where near the "artistry" but that successfully come to life on the table and make the game far more imaginative than the stats and dice results would otherwise make it.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Breaking News: Old man says the good old days were better. Kids today don’t know what’s good. Insists that people *clearly* on the sidewalk get off his lawn. More on this developing story at 11.

The money was always put on good bets. Scorsesee’s first films didn’t have the bankroll his later projects did. That hasn’t changed.

It’s like trying to define the difference between a tool and an implement. Or the difference between a vendor and a purveyor, or a peeping Tom and a Voyeur.

When it comes to telling people why you got arrested, being a “Voyeur” sounds more classy. Same deal with movies and cinema. They’re the same thing, but one sounds mundane and the other sounds classy.

I'm stealing that one; the difference between art and craft is much akin to the difference between voyeur and peeping tom - one of them makes you sound better when you do something terrible

Sadly, I would have to disagree.

There is a difference between craft and art, it is not just terminology. Evan Lances idea that it is designed to create an emotional response is lacking. It is closer than no distinction.

Where the line is is unclear. However, I imagine art is supposed to evoke and emotional reaction that then leads to a great understanding or reflection on the nature of reality or what is "true". Now all those concepts are pretty out there and hard to define, which is why the distinction between art and craft is so hard to nail down.

For example, I have yet to see the miniature sculpt or paint job that makes me re-examine my relationship with reality, but I have seen films do it. Some of them were even big commercial blockbusters. Therefore, the defining line is somewhat subjective to the viewer but there are clear elements that differentiate art and craft.

 Easy E wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Breaking News: Old man says the good old days were better. Kids today don’t know what’s good. Insists that people *clearly* on the sidewalk get off his lawn. More on this developing story at 11.

The money was always put on good bets. Scorsesee’s first films didn’t have the bankroll his later projects did. That hasn’t changed.

It’s like trying to define the difference between a tool and an implement. Or the difference between a vendor and a purveyor, or a peeping Tom and a Voyeur.

When it comes to telling people why you got arrested, being a “Voyeur” sounds more classy. Same deal with movies and cinema. They’re the same thing, but one sounds mundane and the other sounds classy.

I'm stealing that one; the difference between art and craft is much akin to the difference between voyeur and peeping tom - one of them makes you sound better when you do something terrible

Sadly, I would have to disagree.

There is a difference between craft and art, it is not just terminology. Evan Lances idea that it is designed to create an emotional response is lacking. It is closer than no distinction.

Where the line is is unclear. However, I imagine art is supposed to evoke and emotional reaction that then leads to a great understanding or reflection on the nature of reality or what is "true". Now all those concepts are pretty out there and hard to define, which is why the distinction between art and craft is so hard to nail down.

For example, I have yet to see the miniature sculpt or paint job that makes me re-examine my relationship with reality, but I have seen films do it. Some of them were even big commercial blockbusters. Therefore, the defining line is somewhat subjective to the viewer but there are clear elements that differentiate art and craft.

You see to me, that just sounds stupendously pretentious. "Re-examine your relationship with reality"? What does that even mean? For me, literally the only things that have ever approached such overblown language have been scientific in nature - so are papers on cosmology art? Written word, evoke emotional reaction, increase understanding of reality. Check check check. Somehow I doubt many of the people who insist "art" exists as a concept beyond the purely subjective would agree that it applies to journal articles discussing star formation in the early universe.

Which just proves the point - if you can't "nail down" a definition without having to arbitrarily exclude things that qualify under it then the term is meaningless, and so of no real value.

Even just restricting things to the "emotional response" thing merely shifts the total subjectivity back one step from the actual word "art", since whether someone will respond emotionally to any given thing and how strongly is a purely subjective response based on them and their circumstances at the time. I've seen big strong manly-man soldiers break down into tears of joy over a creative work, but somehow I doubt that a wee kiddy's gakky coloured macaroni collage is the sort of rarefied work that the idea of art as emotional prompter is intended to invoke.

This is why I maintain that the root of the idea there is even a distinction is simple snobbery - it's based entirely on the desire that the Thing You Like not be put into the same category as Things You Dislike or Things You Hold In Disdain. It's the same impulse that leads snotty teens to lambast each other about how this band or that one "isn't proper [genre]", or those with an interest in clothing trends to elevate themselves above those who don't care or have a personal style they feel no need to change. It's about creating an In Group to belong to and an Out Group to feel superior to.

Any definition of "art" I've seen that goes beyond the broadest and most generic "a work of creative expression" falls apart, because it is inevitably nothing more than an attempt to add false authority to an individual or group subjective preference.

I would of course draw a line between Scientific research papers and artwork because one has to be backed by observable facts and the scientific method while Art does not. What is Art, what is Beauty, what is "Real", What is "Truth", are questions for philosophy not Science. Do you also feel Philosophy is pretentious and not useful?

No one is telling you you can not like what you like. Art doesn't do that. However, it does try to add some objective measures "craft" and layer on a level of subjectivity "Art" that you can use to raise craft to art.

Scorsese's critique is that modern film making is no longer art as their is no single artist or artistic vision being provided in the film with the help of other crafters. Instead, the vision is created by a committee or group of crafters which waters it down to not a single artistic vision but a coprorate vision of what is art.

This is a relatively important point with modern "wisdom of the crowds" thinking. Is the "wisdom of the Crowd" something that can create Art and create an artistic vision or is it a watered down, commoditized version of art? I don't know, like H; I am not that smart.

I like Marvel films plenty, and I like their efforts to mix genres tropes and beats together and add superheroes. I think there is more to them than Scorsese sees, but I think he is asking a good question about the nature of film and cinema and how it is changing.

 Easy E wrote:
Do you also feel Philosophy is pretentious and not useful?

Well, it is mostly white guys jerking off but that's okay, I like white guys jerki.... wait...

 Easy E wrote:
There is a difference between craft and art, it is not just terminology. Evan Lances idea that it is designed to create an emotional response is lacking. It is closer than no distinction.

Where the line is is unclear. However, I imagine art is supposed to evoke and emotional reaction that then leads to a great understanding or reflection on the nature of reality or what is "true". Now all those concepts are pretty out there and hard to define, which is why the distinction between art and craft is so hard to nail down.

For example, I have yet to see the miniature sculpt or paint job that makes me re-examine my relationship with reality, but I have seen films do it. Some of them were even big commercial blockbusters. Therefore, the defining line is somewhat subjective to the viewer but there are clear elements that differentiate art and craft.

Well, I think that, in the abstract, we imagine there to be a "hard line" between concepts but in the actuality of the thing in-itself, that hard line simply doesn't exist. In other words, the concept is a sort of heuristic, that seems definite, but isn't really definite in actuality.

Consider, [concept: cat]. I've brought this up elsewhere here before in reference to "art" and it isn't a great analogy, but I think it does highlight some of the problem. So, again, pretend you see a thing and say to yourself, "that is a cat." Now, pretend there is an alien, never saw a cat, never even considered anything even vaguely cat-like, maybe you are a silicone-based lifeform, or whatever. The alien asks, what is a cat? And more importantly, how do you know, upon seeing it, that it is a cat?

You could start listing qualities, say, it has 4 legs and has fur all over. But wait, so do dogs, but you know that is a cat and not a dog. Also, if you saw a hairless cat, you'd know it a cat, even though it lacks fur. If it lost a leg somehow, you'd still know it for a cat despite it having 4 legs. So, somehow, [concept: cat] is not just something like a mental checklist of it's (current) properties. Yet, despite this, you cannot separate the properties from the conceptual cat. The conceptual cat both is and is not it's properties. No matter how "tightly" or "loosely" we define [concept: cat] there will always be a way to find something that does not fit this formal definition, yet is something we would say does belong in the conceptual category. Think of a cat born with only three legs. Surely, conceptual cats have 4 legs, but 4 legs does not define the conceptual cat.

It gets even worse the more you think about it. Nevermind if this is plausible, but if you somehow altered a dog's DNA, say to the point where it looked and acted like a cat, is that a cat? If so, then what if we made a robot to do the same. a cat too? But if not, if that altered dog is not a cat, what is it? It doesn't look or act like a dog. Even genetic similarity fails, because there are genetic variation that does not change appearance or behavior. Many genetic disorder, for example can change the number of chromosomes, yet we would still, pretty clearly, put them in the same conceptual category of organism.

In other words, to bring it back, there isn't a formal line between art and craft. Because there is no formal "art" or "craft." When we use either term, we are engaging a heuristic to a sort of gestalt or abstraction, to a universal of particulars but not of any particular particulars. In this way, there is not, and cannot be, any "hard line" or formal definition that can encompass what, exactly "art" is, or is not. We only have a heustic sense of what it should be, to which we match a given particular and then judge. But that judgement is, in its way, subjective, but this subjectivity is not art in-itself, the art is the whole process, from the artist, through the art, to the viewer. It might be subjective, but not to any particular Subject.

Consider de Beauvior, in The Ethics of Ambiguity:
"As for art, we have already said that it should not attempt to set up idols; it should reveal existence as a reason for existing; that is really why Plato, who wanted to wrest man away from the earth and assign him to the heaven of Ideas, condemned the poets; that is why every humanism on the other hand, crowns them with laurels. Art reveals the transitory as an absolute; and as the transitory existence is perpetuated through the centuries, art too, through the centuries, must perpetuate this never-to-be-finished revelation. Thus, the constructive activities of man take on a valid meaning only when they are assumed as a movement toward freedom; and reciprocally, one sees that such a movement is concrete: discoveries, inventions, industries, culture, paintings, and books people the world concretely and open concrete possibilities to men."

Now, this is not to say she offers something definitive or that I agree in total. No, just the opposite, what she proposes there, agree or disagree, is not a formal category of properties, but something far more like a teleology, that is, a purpose in being, purpose in existing, that is, something of a final cause. The conveyance, the revealing (in her words), is the art, not the object at-hand. That is, art is the movement (in her words).

So, can we say a particular movie is "art" or is a "craft?" Sure, if we identify its purpose, then evaluate the whole thing, the whole process, from artist, through the art, to the subjective viewer and then consider that heuristically against our intrinsic notion of [concept: art]. The thing is, that isn't formal and it can't be made so. It can't ever be, in the same way that [formalism: cat] will never actually match our heuristic [concept: cat] and I think that is a big part of the point of art.

But then again, maybe this is just me,

It's not a sandwich, okay?

 LunarSol wrote:
It's not a sandwich, okay?

Oh, but it's more sandwich than an actual sandwich!

I’m going to say something that may not be believed, but here goes.

I have a strong emotional response to well made, precisely functioning tools.

I appreciate well made / designed tools to degrees that I could probably be called an aficionado.

We have a conveyor belt cutter at work. You mark the belt, clamp it in place, and turn a crank that pulls a chain that in turn pulls a knife blade through about 1/2” thick belts (with 2 or 3 polyester plys, for strength) in one smooth, continuous cut.

Compared to hacking away with a utility knife for however long that takes, leaving a chewed up edge that is less strong for installing a hinge fastener, it is a thing of beauty. Crude in design and function, it does the job it’s designed for *perfectly*. I am smiling right now, thinking about that.

The *craft* is perfect. The *art* is lacking, but using that tool is transcendental. Every time I cut a belt with it I experience actual joy, and a sense of gratitude. This tool... sorry... *implement* makes the task so much better and professional that I can’t help but enjoy its use.

It’s an ugly lump of chipped, yellow-painted steel, with grease (from the chains) leaking out the sides. It’s marvelous.

So no, I don’t see a difference between art and craft. To me, they are one and the same.

 greatbigtree wrote:
So no, I don’t see a difference between art and craft. To me, they are one and the same.

Well, to me, what you describe is what I would tend to call an "aesthetic" not "art." Art, to me, can of course engage, be "about" or deal with "aesthetics" but it is not, in-itself, aesthetics, or purpose. Another way to put it is "elegance." That is, an aesthetic judgement about exactly how it is done/presented. Again, to me, elegance is not, in-itself, art, although of course art might be elegant.

Again, to me, art does not have a formal purpose, in the way that a tool does. In fact, to me, the formal purpose pretty much directly contradicts an artistic one, generally speaking. So, for example, your conveyor belt cutter has formal purpose, cutting belts. Now, were that machine to not have that purpose, what would it be? It could only be something more akin to art, since it specifically has no use. Good art? That evaluation comes much later. It might or might not be, depending on how well it conveys whatever informal purpose it does.

Consider, something like Duchamp's Fountain. One could rightly say, "that is just a urinal." And it is. But it's non-functional. And that is likely most of the point. It's an object devoid of it's formal purpose and so, now it can only be something like art. Now, you can say, and likely quite rightly so, that it has no aesthetic value. No elegance. The thing is, art need not appeal to our aesthetic sense to just be art.

So to me, art transcends notions of "emotive aim" or "aesthetics." It could include them, or not. Appeal to them, or not. Art is beyond those things though, in-itself, because it's a sort of object mediated "dialogue" between artist and viewer.

Well said H. Have an Exalt.

 Easy E wrote:
I would of course draw a line between Scientific research papers and artwork because one has to be backed by observable facts and the scientific method while Art does not. What is Art, what is Beauty, what is "Real", What is "Truth", are questions for philosophy not Science. Do you also feel Philosophy is pretentious and not useful?

That's like asking if I think clothes are pretentious and not useful because I tend to disdain fashion. Philosophy is useful when it considers practical things in comprehensible terms - ethics, for example - but it can also be sheer masturbatory self-indulgence that makes me wish I wasn't generally opposed to violence against other sentient creatures. At some point a philosophical pondering must relate back to reality in a concrete and comprehensible way or else it doesn't have anything meaningful to tell us. As to your line; why though? Art does not have to be backed by observable facts and the scientific method, but unless you're going to contend art cannot come from a process that involves those things, you can't use that distinction to disqualify those papers.

No one is telling you you can not like what you like.

I don't recall saying they have.

Art doesn't do that. However, it does try to add some objective measures "craft" and layer on a level of subjectivity "Art" that you can use to raise craft to art.

See though, that's the sticking point for me; "raise craft to art". Raise. Which necessarily implies that one is above the other, superior to, better than. The conception of art that you're presenting doesn't say "you can't like what you like", but it does say "what you like isn't as worthy as what I like". And my contention is that's really the only reason the term is up for debate at all - some people want a definition of art that raises their subjective preference over other subjective preferences. The trouble is as far as I can tell that's not logically possible.

Scorsese's critique is that modern film making is no longer art as their is no single artist or artistic vision being provided in the film with the help of other crafters. Instead, the vision is created by a committee or group of crafters which waters it down to not a single artistic vision but a coprorate vision of what is art.

This is a relatively important point with modern "wisdom of the crowds" thinking. Is the "wisdom of the Crowd" something that can create Art and create an artistic vision or is it a watered down, commoditized version of art? I don't know, like H; I am not that smart.

I'm sure you're very smart, so let's consider a few things. A band is a group of artists, many novels are written as collaborations, so clearly a single artist is not necessary to qualify as art. What about urban art; the wall does feature the work of individual graffiti artists, but often the wall itself in its totality is considered to exist as art beyond the individual works upon it, and what that collective art means and addresses changes over time as different artists contribute to the whole in different ways and different societal contexts, without any central overriding approach. I'd contend that shows that you don't need a singular vision to qualify as art either. Whether or not "commoditised" art can still be considered art hasn't been at issue for a fair while now so far as I can see, between popart and the postmodernist approach.

I like Marvel films plenty, and I like their efforts to mix genres tropes and beats together and add superheroes. I think there is more to them than Scorsese sees, but I think he is asking a good question about the nature of film and cinema and how it is changing.

Whereas I just see him peddling a combination of reheated "there's a trend in modern cinema I don't care for and people are less interested in [type of film I like], so modern cinema isn't art" nonsense that we've seen with every major wave of popular cinema going all the way back to westerns(and arguably well before that), and your basic everyday hipsterism.

 H wrote:

So to me, art transcends notions of "emotive aim" or "aesthetics." It could include them, or not. Appeal to them, or not. Art is beyond those things though, in-itself, because it's a sort of object mediated "dialogue" between artist and viewer.

Out of interest, how do you square this conception of art with Death of the Author? If we must divorce the work from the intent and context of its creator and draw our own meaning from it, how then can it constitute a "dialogue" between artist and viewer?

That defines art, for yourself, as an extroverted activity. An item created for the “other”.

I take an introverted view. Regardless of the creator’s intention, does the object / depiction move *me*. If the intention was to create a reaction from the viewer, and I am not moved, the piece is not art to me. No more art than a rock on the side of the road. An insignificant detail immediately forgotten, or not even registered in the first place.

But hand me a tool. Something designed to fulfill a purpose. How was that accomplished? The human capacity for design, to overcome adversity. I am transported to the designer’s mind. I observe the design and purpose, the *why* of the designer’s thoughts. The passion and attention to detail of (ultra) fine mechanical devices like micrometers capable of exactly measuring 1 / 10 000 th of an inch. To make manifest the desire. That is art.

And I appreciate that as I observe the details, the nuance, the *decisions* that go into the creation of a tool. That’s where I find beauty. That’s the act of creation I admire.

And embellishments? They can take a work of art and make it a masterpiece. I’ve had the pleasure of visiting a couple of local museums, and had the opportunity to handle some of the tools on display. I remember a sickle, that had some minor carving into the handle. Not necessary for the function of the tool, but made it a masterwork because the carving gave a bit of a better grip. I imagine the carver working with a smooth handle. Their hand gets wet, working with damp vegetation, and the handle gets slippery. So they carve the handle to create a better grip, but not just for pure simple function, to to create a piece they know was special. Something they could appreciate as more than just a means to an end. Again, it put me inside that person’s mind. To feel and think and experience as that person experienced.

 H wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
So no, I don’t see a difference between art and craft. To me, they are one and the same.

Well, to me, what you describe is what I would tend to call an "aesthetic" not "art." Art, to me, can of course engage, be "about" or deal with "aesthetics" but it is not, in-itself, aesthetics, or purpose. Another way to put it is "elegance." That is, an aesthetic judgement about exactly how it is done/presented. Again, to me, elegance is not, in-itself, art, although of course art might be elegant.

Again, to me, art does not have a formal purpose, in the way that a tool does. In fact, to me, the formal purpose pretty much directly contradicts an artistic one, generally speaking. So, for example, your conveyor belt cutter has formal purpose, cutting belts. Now, were that machine to not have that purpose, what would it be? It could only be something more akin to art, since it specifically has no use. Good art? That evaluation comes much later. It might or might not be, depending on how well it conveys whatever informal purpose it does.

Consider, something like Duchamp's Fountain. One could rightly say, "that is just a urinal." And it is. But it's non-functional. And that is likely most of the point. It's an object devoid of it's formal purpose and so, now it can only be something like art. Now, you can say, and likely quite rightly so, that it has no aesthetic value. No elegance. The thing is, art need not appeal to our aesthetic sense to just be art.

So to me, art transcends notions of "emotive aim" or "aesthetics." It could include them, or not. Appeal to them, or not. Art is beyond those things though, in-itself, because it's a sort of object mediated "dialogue" between artist and viewer.

Sorry you lost me with the example becuase you are saying that because someone declares it is art - it is art? However if someone else declares that a creation is a work of art then its not becuase you can use it? Many people would look at certain makes of car, plane, ship and declare it a Functional work of art?

Again going back to your copy example - illustrations in books used to be copied by hand - are they not art?

I also think its telling that most abstract or similar modern art people have to be told its art not that they look at and see "good "or "bad" art....

BobtheInquisitor wrote:There's like, a dozen small films released in theaters every month. Modern distribution and theater chain economics mean they tend to play in only a few theaters, but that's how things work in this new economy. He might as well get upset that young people aren't supporting the destination wedding industry like they used to.

It's not just the economics, or about your, and our, consumer choices. Disney is shaping these "economics" no matter what you want to watch.They are making this choice for you.

https://qz.com/1479408/small-theater-chains-worry-a-mid-century-rule-is-all-that-stands-between-them-and-extinction/

https://thesundae.net/2019/10/09/what-disney-will-destroy-next/

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/quentin-tarantino-claims-disney-forced-the-hateful-eight-out-of-cinemas-with-star-wars-the-force-a6776406.html

H wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Which Scorsese agrees with in the essay. He does not condemn these entertainment films, but is more concern trolling that the commercialization of film is pushing out actual art and Autuers from the film making process on the big screen.

I don't follow why you figure he is "concern trolling" though. Sound more to me like he is fairly accurately describing the current paradigm. What he isn't doing is being self-critical or self-aware enough to realize that he, himself, is actually a perpetuator of that paradigm, rather than a "force" against it. Or, at least, he is not a force against it. Although, maybe in his minor defense, I don't think he could do much about it, if he even were so inclined to, but the point still stands.

He is actually "a force against it". Maybe not as a director but for sure as a producer (and he invested in saving old movies while major studios literally let them rot in their archives):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Film_Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cinema_Project

http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/martin-scorsese-on-how-diversity-guarantees-our-cultural-survival-in-film-and-everything-else.html

https://www.imdb.com/news/ni61084886
https://www.screendaily.com/news/first-film-from-martin-scorsese-fund-for-emerging-directors-to-launch-at-cannes/5117497.article

“We support films under $3 million without the unrealistic requirements of significant foreign sales. For anything between $3-5 million we work with our advisors at WME to help mitigate the risk with the least amount of qualifiers possible.”
[…]
“After years of meeting different people, who had the intention of supporting our vision, we found a company that not only writes checks, but also bring experience - RT Features. We think there is a new guard of visionary auteurs who need to be heard. I think it’s our responsibility to support through mentorship in any way possible.”

Also through his production company (Sikelia Productions):
https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?companies=co0141038&sort=year,desc
Go through some of the movies and directors on that list and it's quite a diverse stuff, and not just a bunch of "gangster movies" made by him (although every Boardwalk Empire episode seems to have its own entry on this list).

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:For clarity, wasn’t referring to any person in this thread.

Just the snobbish critics out there, who’ll rubbish certain movies just because they’re made by big Hollywood studios.

Why this big issue with some critics? If their work fits your taste then consume it and use it to inform your media consumption choices. And if their opinions don't fit your taste then just don't consume them. It's not like some random critic's work has a chance to derail the annual Disney/MCU 250 million blockbuster. Why do you care so much about some person's opinion when their tastes are so different from yours?

Why this big issue with some critics? If their work fits your taste then consume it and use it to inform your media consumption choices. And if their opinions don't fit your taste then just don't consume them. It's not like some random critic's work has a chance to derail the annual Disney/MCU 250 million blockbuster. Why do you care so much about some person's opinion when their tastes are so different from yours?

Why the need to defend critics at all?

Why do people care what they say anyway.

People also tend to use Critics to define if a film is good or bad not matter that many have no actual qualifcation or reason to be listened to more than any other person.

Yodhrin wrote:Out of interest, how do you square this conception of art with Death of the Author? If we must divorce the work from the intent and context of its creator and draw our own meaning from it, how then can it constitute a "dialogue" between artist and viewer?

Well, I don't think I'd generally agree with the notion of "Death of the Author" because, while the technique might have some value, in some cases, I don't think attempting to solve the sort of "riddle of meaning" is going to best be served by omitting data. In some cases, it seems imminently plausible that such a thing might deliver clarity. In others, it seems exceedingly unlikely to do so. Granted, I am not a literary critic, so perhaps my stance is not nuanced enough, or is too nuanced. Still, it doesn't seem like a particularly good schema to attempt to use on anything and everything.

greatbigtree wrote:That defines art, for yourself, as an extroverted activity. An item created for the “other”.

I take an introverted view. Regardless of the creator’s intention, does the object / depiction move *me*. If the intention was to create a reaction from the viewer, and I am not moved, the piece is not art to me. No more art than a rock on the side of the road. An insignificant detail immediately forgotten, or not even registered in the first place.

But hand me a tool. Something designed to fulfill a purpose. How was that accomplished? The human capacity for design, to overcome adversity. I am transported to the designer’s mind. I observe the design and purpose, the *why* of the designer’s thoughts. The passion and attention to detail of (ultra) fine mechanical devices like micrometers capable of exactly measuring 1 / 10 000 th of an inch. To make manifest the desire. That is art.

And I appreciate that as I observe the details, the nuance, the *decisions* that go into the creation of a tool. That’s where I find beauty. That’s the act of creation I admire.

Well, here again, I think you put together art and aesthetics into one thing. I think they are separate things.

What it seems to me that you are evoking in your example is a notion of "precision" and how that relates to your notion of "beauty." Now, I agree, there is much to admire there. The thing, to me, is that the tool, is not about precision. In other words, a precision made tool is about performing a function with precision. Again, with respect to design, if it is about design, that seems like art to me, if it's a tool made for a formal function, design is a means, not an end in-itself. To me, that is a crucial, defining feature. Were something made specifically to be "about" precision or design and not functional "use" then I can see calling it art.

Mr Morden wrote:Sorry you lost me with the example becuase you are saying that because someone declares it is art - it is art? However if someone else declares that a creation is a work of art then its not becuase you can use it? Many people would look at certain makes of car, plane, ship and declare it a Functional work of art?

Again going back to your copy example - illustrations in books used to be copied by hand - are they not art?

I also think its telling that most abstract or similar modern art people have to be told its art not that they look at and see "good "or "bad" art....

Actually, yes, that often is the case that (modern) art is most simply defined as "that which an artist creates." And circularly, one is an artist, when once has created art!

The thing is, that doesn't get the "outsider" anywhere and is so self-referential as to be nearly meaningless.

Again though, I think we have a fair bit of confusion, understandably, between things aesthetically pleasing and art. Just because something is appeals to our aesthetics, doesn't, in my opinion, make it art. Just appreciating it, does not make it art. I'd actually sort of might my own point above, that art isn't just what an artist creates, no, there is something beyond that as well. And it isn't just a label to be slapped on, no, there is something to it, something conceptual, even if it is hard to say it formally and exactly.

I would say that if one copies a picture, no, the copy is not art. Unless the art is itself about the notion of it being a copy. In the sense that the copy is about the concept of copying. That is something like art about art. Still, in that sense, no, the illustration isn't the art, the notion of copy-ability, or something like that, is the art, the illustration is just the object-medium. See, this is why I tend to focus on the intent between artist and viewer. Because that intent, in my mind, is kind of the whole thing of art far more than any notion of aesthetic or subjective valuation or appraisal.

As for the "issue" of abstract or modern art, well, I think part of that comes from, one, the fact that the artistic medium is just vast, it's no longer "set" on representation or anything, so people's default notion about what they might be looking at need to be "calibrated." Again, because part of the "Modern" (or post-Modern, if you like) condition is the profusion of a sort of "pragmatic" notion of use. And again, this is why art need to be "labeled" as art, otherwise, we would naturally tend to ask, "what's the use?" What is the use of a Pollock? What is the use of Duchamp's Fountain?

Here we have something to the effect of what Heidegger called the difference between "presence-at-hand" and "ready-at-hand." For example, "presence-at-hand" is to be with something. Not to use it, but to see it's possibility, it's just being of Being, in a way. Ready-at-hand though is more literally "ready to be used" in a clearer, pragmatic way. So, Fountain has a sort of presence-at-hand, we see the object, we can imagine it's use, but we can note it's non-functionality and so, in a sense, we just "sit with it." The same urinal in a bathroom has a clearer, ready-at-hand use, should we need to relieve ourselves, dispose of a liquid and so on.

Again, this is why I'd generally say that a tool, that is ready-at-hand, is not art, regardless of it's aesthetic. Precisely because it is ready-at-hand. It's use is basically proscribed by formal use. Art on the other is informally conceptual. It's "use" is not ready-at-hand use, it's for you to "sit" in the presence of some "concept." Now, we, with a Modern mindset, see things mainly as "ready-at-hand" or it's direct negation "unreadiness-at-hand." That is, something useful or something literally meaningless or in the way. Again, because we predicate Being on the notion of use or usefulness.

Art to me, is directly positioned, especially in the Modern (or post-Modern) age, precisely because it is so counter to our everyday experience and notions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:
He is actually "a force against it". Maybe not as a director but for sure as a producer (and he invested in saving old movies while major studios literally let them rot in their archives)

Well, I am quite glad to see that. I did note in a different post that I was largely ignorant to the specifics, so I am glad to be shown as being wrong, or at least so in part.

Thing is, I do think he still does perpetuate the paradigm to some extent, but it is nice to see that he is at least doing something to mitigate it.

Interesting discussion

I (and I thnk some others here) can perceive art as not being limited to the abstract or the "useless" -

Even if we did, some abstract or similar art is functional - the solid gold toilet stolen from Blenheim Palace was also a functional toilet (which was the cause of all the damage) and I would argue that most modern arts primary function is as a comercial item - an object to sell. hence it has purpose - to make money.

I work with beautiful 18th century serve porclain like this - they were designed as both artistic creations and usable items? Do you not think they are works of art - regardless of if you like them or not?



Also I don't see how this is not art because it is a copy?



The wonderful hand made tools that have come down to us through ages are not art, things like those decrated with scrimshaw - I really don;t see how the recent creation of a new style of art invalidates these older forms of art?

And again, this is why art need to be "labeled" as art, otherwise, we would naturally tend to ask, "what's the use?" What is the use of a Pollock? What is the use of Duchamp's Fountain?

Again I disagree - many convetional pieces of art are easily perceived as such - we don;t say whats the point of that Van Dyck or that illustration of a Space Marine say but because much modern art appears to be nothing special - that the artists lack of self confidence in their own abilities means that they have to tell us "this is art" when that should and could be self evident as it has been for the lifetime of humanity?

The opposite is the more outlandish abstract that forces you to acknowedge that this is art only because it can be nothing else - again to me that just shows how weak the work often is....

Well, I think we can all agree that defining what is and is not art i something that requires a great deal of thought and no one definition exists. However, we all disagree on where that line is.

I have no problem with that state of affairs. We are all ultimately trapped in Plato's Cave, and arguing over Shadows.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I work with beautiful 18th century serve porclain like this - they were designed as both artistic creations and usable items? Do you not think they are works of art - regardless of if you like them or not?

No, I do not find that to be a work of art. And it has nothing to do with the notion of quality, or it's aesthetics. It's absolutely wonderfully done and I wish I had it myself. I wish I had even a modicum of the skill that would allow me to make it make myself. But that doesn't make it art.

See, the thing is, my personal definition of art is absent any notion of value. Art is not more valuable than craft. In fact, most of the time craft is far and away more valuable simply because it is actually useful, in the pragmatic sense.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Also I don't see how this is not art because it is a copy?

Because art, to me, is necessarily the creative endeavor. To copy is precisely not to be "creative" it's to be immacative. Now again, please don't confuse my position. I wish I could even copy something that well! It's amazingly skillful, technically brilliant. But it is not art to me. Still, I am not making any case to "art good, craft bad." Just the opposite. Craft, technical skill, those are exemplary things in their own right, but they just are not the same thing as art or artistry to me. Again, that isn't a valuation of which is "better" it's just a difference in what constituted of.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Again I disagree - many convetional pieces of art are easily perceived as such - we don;t say whats the point of that Van Dyck or that illustration of a Space Marine say but because much modern art appears to be nothing special - that the artists lack of self confidence in their own abilities means that they have to tell us "this is art" when that should and could be self evident as it has been for the lifetime of humanity?

The opposite is the more outlandish abstract that forces you to acknowedge that this is art only because it can be nothing else - again to me that just shows how weak the work often is....

Well, here again, just the label of "art" does not make something worthwhile art. One can be an artist and make poor art. That is, art that is not made as well as it could, that does not serve it's artistic purpose, that fails to convey the artistic intent. And even in that, part of it is craft, in-itself. Part of the art of representational art is the craft of representation, for example.

But again, to me, part of the "problem" of Modern, or post-Modern art, is that we are so predicated on notions of use that some thing likely do need to be labeled to make clear that they are no in commercial service. Now, I think you are right in a sense, that if the art was stronger, in-itself, it would stand to not need that. Thing is, art is largely commoditized, art schools pushing out "artists" that likely have no vision, no real intent to speak of. They have nothing to say and no way to say it. It's an industry and industry is quite the antithesis of art, to me.

Hey H,

I respect that we have different lines in the sand for what constitutes art. Hopefully this doesn't sound condescending, but if you've ever had to design and manufacture your own tool, I think you would appreciate the artistry that goes into it. We all appreciate different things. For me, well made tools are art. There is skill, imagination, execution, and the transition from idea to form / function.

I don't think I have much more to say on the matter. I don't feel the definition of art is wide enough to encompass what I consider art and you seem to be of the opinion that my definition of art is too wide... we have different criteria, and will draw different conclusions.

I think art *can* be for art's sake. The function is to have a compelling form, be it music, or visual art, poetry, what-have-you. I also think that art can exist without concern for form, or intent, or anything except what the observer finds beautiful, or fascinating, or in basic terms, "special".

Happy trails.

 H wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I work with beautiful 18th century serve porclain like this - they were designed as both artistic creations and usable items? Do you not think they are works of art - regardless of if you like them or not?

No, I do not find that to be a work of art. And it has nothing to do with the notion of quality, or it's aesthetics. It's absolutely wonderfully done and I wish I had it myself. I wish I had even a modicum of the skill that would allow me to make it make myself. But that doesn't make it art.

See, the thing is, my personal definition of art is absent any notion of value. Art is not more valuable than craft. In fact, most of the time craft is far and away more valuable simply because it is actually useful, in the pragmatic sense.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Also I don't see how this is not art because it is a copy?

Because art, to me, is necessarily the creative endeavor. To copy is precisely not to be "creative" it's to be immacative. Now again, please don't confuse my position. I wish I could even copy something that well! It's amazingly skillful, technically brilliant. But it is not art to me. Still, I am not making any case to "art good, craft bad." Just the opposite. Craft, technical skill, those are exemplary things in their own right, but they just are not the same thing as art or artistry to me. Again, that isn't a valuation of which is "better" it's just a difference in what constituted of.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Again I disagree - many convetional pieces of art are easily perceived as such - we don;t say whats the point of that Van Dyck or that illustration of a Space Marine say but because much modern art appears to be nothing special - that the artists lack of self confidence in their own abilities means that they have to tell us "this is art" when that should and could be self evident as it has been for the lifetime of humanity?

The opposite is the more outlandish abstract that forces you to acknowedge that this is art only because it can be nothing else - again to me that just shows how weak the work often is....

Well, here again, just the label of "art" does not make something worthwhile art. One can be an artist and make poor art. That is, art that is not made as well as it could, that does not serve it's artistic purpose, that fails to convey the artistic intent. And even in that, part of it is craft, in-itself. Part of the art of representational art is the craft of representation, for example.

But again, to me, part of the "problem" of Modern, or post-Modern art, is that we are so predicated on notions of use that some thing likely do need to be labeled to make clear that they are no in commercial service. Now, I think you are right in a sense, that if the art was stronger, in-itself, it would stand to not need that. Thing is, art is largely commoditized, art schools pushing out "artists" that likely have no vision, no real intent to speak of. They have nothing to say and no way to say it. It's an industry and industry is quite the antithesis of art, to me.

Hmm - Its rare that any artist - now or previously did not have sale in mind -

Sèvres employed some of the finest artists of the era to paint their pieces - all are unique creations made to evoke feelings of wonder, joy, envy, lust etc etc - I don't really understand how these can't be art.

If its not something you have come across then enjoy -https://www.christies.com/features/Sevres-porcelain-collecting-guide-8706-1.aspx

I do find it strange that you can't acknowledge any form of "art" that is either practical or commercial as acual art - is there anything that does not fall into these categories I wonder? Even children's drawings are done for a reason.....

I am not saying you are wrong...but I just don't understand your POV?

 greatbigtree wrote:
Hey H,

I respect that we have different lines in the sand for what constitutes art. Hopefully this doesn't sound condescending, but if you've ever had to design and manufacture your own tool, I think you would appreciate the artistry that goes into it. We all appreciate different things. For me, well made tools are art. There is skill, imagination, execution, and the transition from idea to form / function.

Well, I don't equate notions of skill to the notion of art. Different things to me. Skillful work is skillful, artistic work is artistic. Some artistic work requires skill. Some might now. Some skillful work require notions of artistry. Some don't. Just because something is skillful does not make it art. And vice versa, of course.

I have immense respect for art. And for works of skill. I just don't put them together. I am not trying, in any respect, to tell you you are incorrect, in any way, shape, or form. Rather, I am clarifing my position and simply presenting what I see in yours as differentiating it to mine. There is absolutely nothing "correct" at all in my position.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The function is to have a compelling form, be it music, or visual art, poetry, what-have-you. I also think that art can exist without concern for form, or intent, or anything except what the observer finds beautiful, or fascinating, or in basic terms, "special".

Happy trails.

Well, I was just pointing out that the notion of "value," that is, exactly what you say there, is not present in my definition of art or artistry. Again, my view on art is not contingent upon valuation. Yours seems to be contingent upon exactly that notion. I'm not criticizing that, I am just pointing it out as a matter of distinction.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Hmm - Its rare that any artist - now or previously did not have sale in mind -

Sèvres employed some of the finest artists of the era to paint their pieces - all are unique creations made to evoke feelings of wonder, joy, envy, lust etc etc - I don't really understand how these can't be art.

If its not something you have come across then enjoy -https://www.christies.com/features/Sevres-porcelain-collecting-guide-8706-1.aspx

I do find it strange that you can't acknowledge any form of "art" that is either practical or commercial as acual art - is there anything that does not fall into these categories I wonder? Even children's drawings are done for a reason.....

I am not saying you are wrong...but I just don't understand your POV?

Well, let me start by saying that I am certainly not an artist, not artistic, and not even mildly creative in any real sense. It could well be the fact that I simply do not understand the artist's position. Fair enough. But I can only think that which I can think.

Here is the issue I find. There is, to me, a difference between something made with the purpose of being sold and something made which is then sold. Of course, in the real world, as opposed to some ideal world, nothing is purely one or the other. However, while all those pieces are splendid, I have my doubts that they are art, to me. Again, the issue at hand is a teleological one. Functional pieces are clouded by the functional final cause. There is no doubt they feature highly creative decoration made with spectulary technical proficiency. But that is not artistic, in-itself, to me.

Could anything actually be "true" art, in my estimation? Sure. Like I mentioned, Duchamp's Fountain. Pollack's Autumn Rhythm. Likely millions of other examples. The point is not that there is no intent or no reason for being made. But rather, that the reason is artistic, in the sense of being, first and foremost, the action, process and endeavor of artistic expression. If the primary matter of it's being made is something outside that, then yes, I am suspect that is is not just commercial and a commodity.

Yes, this does likely put me at odds with many people, artists or not. In fact, it even puts me at odds with myself, because I must admit that things I feel are, flatly put, "hot garbage" are, in fact, art.

But I don't fault you, I don't "understand" my own position in many ways. It's been something that I just found in myself and, like I said, sometimes I don't even like it. But, I see no flaw in it, as such, and so I keep it, because to me, it is highly sensible. And I'll take sensibility over intelligibility I guess. Or something, I don't know, like I said, I'm not particularly smart or anything.

Well, I guess I do have more to say!

In order for me to be moved, and perceive an item as art, a certain degree of skill is required. Or talent, however a person wants to describe ability.

I’m not creating art as I type this. I am communicating. Road signs are not art, they are communication. Poetry, would be art. Poor poetry is not art, because it isn’t really poetry at all. It becomes communication instead.

Many stories, that are art, also contain functions. Be it societal critique, a morality tale, inspiration, or any other manner of function, stories are art. Done poorly, the story does not achieve its functions, even if that function is to be an entertaining diversion.

Some modern art is just a pile of garbage. If you look out in front of Zubic’s , in London Ontario (a metal recycler) they’ve taken garbage material and turned it into art. Sculptures of animals, insects, dragons... they’re done with skill. You recognize the medium is scrap, but it is the skill in creation that makes the sculptures art. In part, the difficulty of the medium is precisely what makes them art.

Again, we can define art differently. That’s cool. Neither of us has a more-valid view or anything. Again, I look at it from an introverted perspective. If it doesn’t move me, the intention of the artist is irrelevant. Other people can care about the outside world in their extraverted ways... and be moved by the intentions of others. That’s cool for them, but it doesn’t work for me.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Well, I guess I do have more to say!

In order for me to be moved, and perceive an item as art, a certain degree of skill is required. Or talent, however a person wants to describe ability.

I’m not creating art as I type this. I am communicating. Road signs are not art, they are communication. Poetry, would be art. Poor poetry is not art, because it isn’t really poetry at all. It becomes communication instead.

Many stories, that are art, also contain functions. Be it societal critique, a morality tale, inspiration, or any other manner of function, stories are art. Done poorly, the story does not achieve its functions, even if that function is to be an entertaining diversion.

That's a fair point, but I think notions of skill simply differentiate the worthwhileness, not the actual artisticness of something. Also, funny that you'd mention stories, but my favorite author (R. Scott Bakker) is from London, Ontario too, haha.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Some modern art is just a pile of garbage. If you look out in front of Zubic’s , in London Ontario (a metal recycler) they’ve taken garbage material and turned it into art. Sculptures of animals, insects, dragons... they’re done with skill. You recognize the medium is scrap, but it is the skill in creation that makes the sculptures art. In part, the difficulty of the medium is precisely what makes them art.

Well, it's actually just the thing that I don't see skill as denoting art. Many things require immense skill, but that doesn't make them art, in my opinion. In fact, some art is just the opposite. Is Jackson Pollack's Autumn Rhythm particularly skillful? No, my kids have made things that look like it. But I can't find a way to deny that it is art. In fact, it's very artful to me. And also, I don't like it. At all.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Again, we can define art differently. That’s cool. Neither of us has a more-valid view or anything. Again, I look at it from an introverted perspective. If it doesn’t move me, the intention of the artist is irrelevant. Other people can care about the outside world in their extraverted ways... and be moved by the intentions of others. That’s cool for them, but it doesn’t work for me.

Well, I don't think there is anything wrong with that position, but to me, it is incomplete. I am an overly introverted person and I guess, because of that, I am inclined to force a consideration of the extroverted in an effort to balance.

The Prince of Nothing, right? One of my favourite trilogies.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The Prince of Nothing, right? One of my favourite trilogies.

Yeah and the follow up Aspect Emperor series. Although the follow up isn't quite as good, overall, it definitely contains some of the greatest moments. It's more abstract, but it is also fantastic and vastly more thought provoking than anything else I've found in genre. There is even talk of another series to follow, although not yet written.

On that topic, story-telling can be both an art and a craft at the same time. The art, to me, pertains more to the vision, the conveyance of the idea or ideal through the medium. The craft is the actual skillful doing. In most cases, things will be some sort of mix of both. Pseudo-artistic craft or pseudo-craft art are possible, even common. Modern art is full of the latter. Paintings, or sculpture, or an installation where the craft is totally subsumed to the artistic expression. In other words, there is next to no craft at all.

The knee-jerk response to this, like to a Pollack or say a Rothko, is "that's not art, anyone could do that!" In a sense, that is right, because anyone could. But not everyone did. While something like aesthetic beauty is "in the eye of the beholder" to me, art is "between the artist and viewer." Art does not reside solely in artist or viewer, nor in the artistic substrate itself. This is always why you can have "process art" and the like.

So, to bring this back, I think one can make a movie is that artistic and poorly crafted, artistic and wonderfully crafted, not artistic and poorly crafted or not artistic and wonderfully crafted. Those are all possibilities, fit for different functions. And to me, that is what really sets things apart, is the question of function, the question of "aboutness." To me, valuation just does not enter into somethings status as art. Valuation simply informs me of it's value to me. But I am not the arbiter of art, things can be artistic that I don't like or care about and still be art.

Ah.

See, to me, Art is strictly subjective. To me, there is no “objectively defined” art. What I consider art, may not be by others, and what others consider art may not be to me.

Which doesn’t bother me. Nihilistically speaking, all categorizations are ultimately arbitrary, even if they possess a strong internal / external logic, or are otherwise beneficial to people.

My categorization of a given film / movie / piece of cinema / safety video as being deep / entertaining / artful / communicating clearly works for me. But another person might find a different categorization to be helpful.

Relating this back to Scorsesee, the tone implies that his definition of “cinema” is superior to more broadly accessible “movies”. I think that’s crap, because they’re different purposes. And his notion that a small number of people / groups have “too much control” over movie making?

You can tell a story without money. If you have the means to record, you can make a movie. You might not have an editor, or a sound track... but you can still tell a story.

To me, he sounds like he’s complaining about not having his name write a blank cheque for him. Now he’s got to show a reason for investment, and now there’s a bottom to his wallet for making “cinema”.

Mr Morden wrote:

Why this big issue with some critics? If their work fits your taste then consume it and use it to inform your media consumption choices. And if their opinions don't fit your taste then just don't consume them. It's not like some random critic's work has a chance to derail the annual Disney/MCU 250 million blockbuster. Why do you care so much about some person's opinion when their tastes are so different from yours?

Why the need to defend critics at all?

Why do people care what they say anyway.

People also tend to use Critics to define if a film is good or bad not matter that many have no actual qualifcation or reason to be listened to more than any other person.

I don't need to defend them. I just find it strange how much of an allergic reaction some people have to opinions of others the moment those people get paid for it. I care for some critics/reviewers because I can either use their work as a shortcut to finding stuff I might like or because their writing interests me and offers me interesting perspectives that I might otherwise not consider (that's always neat), kinda like it's with reading non-fiction articles in general. Otherwise one might as well stop reading/consuming that type of work altogether. I mean why care what anybody writes? Why even watch movies when you could just imagine stuff in your mind?

Using critics like that is essentially a fallacy (appeal to authority), and those are as strange as the other side that distrusts critics due to the job title. And both seem to think that critics have more influence/power than critics actually have. If I remember correctly one of the reasons why Disney actually considered buying Twitter a long time ago (around the time after Twitter got "new and interesting" for the mainstream media) was that people were trusting their friends more than ads, critics, or any other official PR stuff when it came new movie releases. And you could trace that quite well through Twitter's API (at the time) and Disney thought that was valuable information (maybe even useful for manipulating your potential audience). In the end they backed off because… well, it's twitter and we know now in what situation they are as a company.

H wrote:

Mario wrote:
He is actually "a force against it". Maybe not as a director but for sure as a producer (and he invested in saving old movies while major studios literally let them rot in their archives)

Well, I am quite glad to see that. I did note in a different post that I was largely ignorant to the specifics, so I am glad to be shown as being wrong, or at least so in part.

Thing is, I do think he still does perpetuate the paradigm to some extent, but it is nice to see that he is at least doing something to mitigate it.

I've read a few discussion about it (like this one) and it looks like people think that he probably feels like he can't contribute nuanced on those issues so he promotes people who can. Of course his own movies are still more popular because he's Martin Scorsese and not a newbie director.

greatbigtree wrote:Relating this back to Scorsesee, the tone implies that his definition of “cinema” is superior to more broadly accessible “movies”. I think that’s crap, because they’re different purposes. And his notion that a small number of people / groups have “too much control” over movie making?

To me it feels like he's using different words/phrases as shorthand for the quality of movie and not to somehow expunge MCU movies from the movie (and/or art in general terms) category. Kinda how classical music distances itself from pop music. Those are generally understandable classifications although with "nebulous edges" and not everything fits neatly into those categories. Nobody's going to look through a movie frame by frame and somehow distill if it has enough frames of high art quality so that it gets the cinema seal of approval. They are not getting kicked out of the cinema, that's actually happening to smaller movies due to Disney's influence (follow some of the links in my post above for examples of that).

It shouldn't be a controversial statement to say that MCU movies are, generally speaking, not too experimental and daring. Those are movies of solid craftsmanship that are very accessible and tend to be at least rather fun with even a few great moments that go beyond what one would expect of them. But that's also it, more or less.

And when it come to his phrasing then you can read similar phrases form every other reviewer of MCU movies. But people don't get outraged because when a review uses phrases like "it's a rollercoaster" or "it's a wild ride" and gives the MCU movie a nine out of ten score then everything is good. When Scorsese uses similar phrasing in a negative light (and sees MCU movies more as consensus driven branding endeavours aimed at the broadest possible audience), then suddenly the same classification (roller coaster, theme park ride) is wrong.

I don't need to defend them. I just find it strange how much of an allergic reaction some people have to opinions of others the moment those people get paid for it. I care for some critics/reviewers because I can either use their work as a shortcut to finding stuff I might like or because their writing interests me and offers me interesting perspectives that I might otherwise not consider (that's always neat), kinda like it's with reading non-fiction articles in general. Otherwise one might as well stop reading/consuming that type of work altogether. I mean why care what anybody writes? Why even watch movies when you could just imagine stuff in your mind?

Using critics like that is essentially a fallacy (appeal to authority), and those are as strange as the other side that distrusts critics due to the job title. And both seem to think that critics have more influence/power than critics actually have. If I remember correctly one of the reasons why Disney actually considered buying Twitter a long time ago (around the time after Twitter got "new and interesting" for the mainstream media) was that people were trusting their friends more than ads, critics, or any other official PR stuff when it came new movie releases. And you could trace that quite well through Twitter's API (at the time) and Disney thought that was valuable information (maybe even useful for manipulating your potential audience). In the end they backed off because… well, it's twitter and we know now in what situation they are as a company.

And yet here you are defending them?? You care for them - I do not care for their parastical nature - why is that an issue for you?

What has the existance or non existance of critics to do with the media or whatever else they spout off about, it would certainly exist without them. Feth them.

I saw some people talking about art as intent by the artist and Death of the author and want to chime in.

Art is what is created by the Artist with the intent of evoking an emotional response.

That doesn't mean that a work that is not art (the creator had no intention when making it) cannot evoke an emotional response from some consumer of the medium. It just means the creator had no such reaction as intent for the creation.

Which fits perfectly with Death of the author. Ultimately what you do or do not respond to and to what extent has nothing to do with the creator. feth their intentions. The viewer gets out of it what they get out of it and the creator has no say in the matter.


So we basically have 3 levels of binary choices here.

1) The creator make a thing and they either intend for it to evoke an emotion response or they don't, making it art or not. The degree of skill used to make it can be from juvenile to master and their success at evoking their intended response can be nigh universal to abysmal and non-existent. Some art being bad art doesn't make it not art.

2) The work itself either carries forward the creators intent or it doesn't. This make the work "good" or "bad". A work made to be upsetting and unsettling is successful art if that is the intent even if basically everyone hates it for what it does.

3) The consumer of the work has their own response to the work. Sometimes this matches the authors intent and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's a powerful emotional response when none was intended. What does the viewer care what the author actually intended if you subscribe to the death of the author?