[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a few things

Ok, as I'm sure I've said before, I know next to nothing about the technical 
aspects of film creation; I know what I like, I can speak about why (script, 
costuming, set design, concept, plot, etc) but not accurately evaluate the 
film based on whatever critics and film-industry professionals consider 
relevant: I'm not versed in that vocabulary.

I *do* know a thing or two about fine art, on the other hand, and thought I'd 
stick my two cents in now that the conversation has turned toward more 
concept than detail.  

dasmith at rotse2_physics.lsa.umich.edu writes:
>   Is art the same way?
>  Do you need to know the rules well enough so that you can break them in the
>  "right" ways, or can someone create something brilliant without knowing 
what
>  they're doing?  

Every art teacher on the planet would tell you that YES, you must know the 
rules before you can break them effectively.... but the fact remains that 
'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.   Teachers and critics are concerned 
about the rules... those not versed in the medium can only address it based 
on what they recognize, and it's meaning to them personally.

The question I think we've been dancing around is: What defines "good"?
Is a piece good if it follows the rules? 
Or is it good if someone likes it?  If the majority like it?
Or is it good if it sells well?  (Marketing professionals are nodding...)
Or maybe if those well-versed in the subject like it?  
Or is it good because it means something to a person?

Consider scribbled toddler 'art'... to the child and the parent, those 
scribbles are meaningful... it's 'good', and priceless... even though the 
'artist' is three years old, and no one else recognizes what on earth that 
blotch of green represents.

How about itinerant artists around the turn of the century?  With little or 
no formal training, but a wealth of talent, they would travel and sketch 
people's farms or families... and their 'art' didn't necessarily follow 
rules, but it's found in galleries now and sells for quite large sums of 
cash... is it 'good' or not?  

Cave art...?  Was it even intended as art?  Is it only art b/c we see it that 
way now?  Is it 'good'?

The example of those who knew the rules and broke them, or created new ones, 
of course, is Modern (and Post-Modern) art.  I can appreciate *why* it's 
famous, and in museums, and expensive, and considered "good" by critics... 
but none of that makes much of it do a thing to impress me personally.  Much 
modern art fails to stir my emotions.  

I guess I think "good" is a throwaway word.  It's what people say when they 
have nothing else to say.  Sort of like "nice", or "it sucked."  It's not 
only subjective, it's vague.

I agree with whoever said that if you liked it, there must be a reason... and 
the reason is interesting because it's your own.  THAT can be discussed, and 
compared to others' reasons, and so forth.  

Not sure I've said anything that wasn't already said...
Anita
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/