|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2008 : 13:58:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by dglas No, Dave, my counter-examples succeed because that was the point I was making. | Yeah, I think he was saying your counter-examples fail at being art. They succeed at being counter-examples. In other words, I don't think he was disagreeing with you.
|
Oops. My bad...
If HH is right about that, Dave, My apologies.
Now, my failure to interpret Dave properly makes me wonder about the role of interpretation in the status of a given work as art. I always thought the measure of "artfulness" (for lack of a better word) was how well it conveyed the artist's intent. Put another way, "Did it do what was it was intended to do?" Hence it is meaningless to deride a Jackie Chan flick for failing to have profound character development, because that is not the intent of a Jackie Chan flick. How do we decide what is bad art?
|
-------------------------------------------------- - dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...) -------------------------------------------------- The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil + A Self-Justificatory Framework = The "Heart of Darkness" --------------------------------------------------
|
Edited by - dglas on 12/27/2008 14:12:41 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2008 : 19:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas Now, my failure to interpret Dave properly makes me wonder about the role of interpretation in the status of a given work as art. I always thought the measure of "artfulness" (for lack of a better word) was how well it conveyed the artist's intent. Put another way, "Did it do what was it was intended to do?" Hence it is meaningless to deride a Jackie Chan flick for failing to have profound character development, because that is not the intent of a Jackie Chan flick. How do we decide what is bad art? | I agree with much of this. I'm a big proponent for judging a movie in the context of its genre. I would give both Caddyshack and The Godfather full marks (5 stars out of five or whatever), because both succeed at being (in my opinion) great at doing what they set out to do. Some people take umbrage at that. "Are you saying Caddyshack is as good a movie as The Godfather?" My response is, no, of course not, but they aren't really directly comparable like that. Caddyshack is a comedy, and it succeeds at that. The Godfather is a drama, and it succeeds at that.
However, I guess I would add, though, that The Godfather is a better movie if we are considering everything together because it attempts more. Yeah, a Jackie Chan flick is supposed to be mindless fun, but "mindless fun" is a lower bar to set for a piece than "universally understood human drama." So I wouldn't say it's improper to make a distinction between, say, Stephen King and Shakespeare. Both are excellent for what they do. But only one is going to be taught in literature classes 200 years from now, and there is a reason for that.
Otherwise we have to consider such things as advertisements. In most cases, ads and commercials are designed to evoke an emotional response, whether it's Coca-Cola's Santa Claus ads or a particularly weepy Hallmark moment. The reason such ads fail to be art, in my opinion, is because they were designed to a sell a product. Perhaps even more fuzzy are things that were originally created as art but then later used to sell products. Think of a classic rock song being used to sell cars or computer operating systems. Do such paid endorsements diminish something's "artness?" I think a great many people would say "yes." Selling out is synonymous with losing one's artistic soul.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/27/2008 19:12:14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|