Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.