Oxigen_Waste Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Because it was taking up too much space in the Weed thread: Artistic quality is purely objective. The enjoyment you derive from it is 100% subjective, but it's artistic and conceptual worth is totally objective. And therefore art is either good art or bad art. Bla bla bla bla, you all know what I'm on about, because it's pretty much what I'm always on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 This is a far cry from what you were actually saying... "These 5 anime are the best. Fact." And pretty much stating that certain films are factually better than others. You know that's wrong, completely. You never mentioned critic reviews when stating why they were the 'best', merely classed them as factually the best. I wouldn't be arguing with this so much, but you seem to think you are so clever and more knowledgable than most people. I've said all I have to say on this matter (this being your huge ego), so let's move on, eh? A topic isn't necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted August 14, 2008 Author Share Posted August 14, 2008 This is a far cry from what you were actually saying... "These 5 anime are the best. Fact." And pretty much stating that certain films are factually better than others. You know that's wrong, completely. You never mentioned critic reviews when stating why they were the 'best', merely classed them as factually the best. I wouldn't be arguing with this so much, but you seem to think you are so clever and more knowledgable than most people. I've said all I have to say on this matter (this being your huge ego), so let's move on, eh? A topic isn't necessary. They are the best. It's a fact. There are some others who could be there as well, that's debatable, but those are the best. Again, some films are factually better than others. The way you put it, it's impossible to compare two films, since nothing can be "better", and yet thousands of books and websites devote themselves to the skimming of good and bad movies so that you don't have to make that search for yourself. But apparently it's all meaningless, since, as you claim, movies can't be better than each other, it's all the same, The Godfather and The Departed are the same, The Matrix and Gattaca, they're the same... there's no better or worst, it's all entertainment. That's what you're saying, do you realise that? That's pretty much like equating Citizen Kane to Scary Movie. Also, I am "so clever and more knowledgable than most people". That's also a fact. In some areas, not all. Movies and music for example. Even so, Sheikah, come on, we all know you're just saying that there's no such thing as objective artistic evaluation as a means to justify your bad taste and live at peace with yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Until the point we can quantify said piece of art, after that it comes down to personal taste, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted August 14, 2008 Author Share Posted August 14, 2008 Until the point we can quantify said piece of art, after that it comes down to personal taste, right? Not really, no... the only thing that comes down to personal taste is how much you enjoyed it and liked it. It's worth is completely sepparate from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Also, I am "so clever and more knowledgable than most people". That's also a fact. In some areas, not all. Movies and music for example. Yes, I'm sure you are. I'm off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 That's sort of what I'm saying, I mean we can evaluate a films script, editing or actors, or a cartoon's animation and drawings, but after that it depends on the person viewing it. I guess if we could layer it, the artistic value would be the part we can quantify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 *claps* To be fair to all, Oxigen is a bit good when it comes to having opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted August 14, 2008 Author Share Posted August 14, 2008 That's sort of what I'm saying, I mean we can evaluate a films script, editing or actors, or a cartoon's animation and drawings, but after that it depends on the person viewing it. I guess if we could layer it, the artistic value would be the part we can quantify. Exactly. That's the worth. All the rest is the subjectivity of appeal and entertainment, which is relative to the ones watching it. Which is exactly why there are such things as family movies and kid's movies. But I don't need to tell you anything, you already know eveything as it is. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Which is exactly why there are such things as family movies and kid's movies. I don't quite get that. Are you trying to say that family/kids films are less artistic than other films? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanchez Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Just for reference which list of 5 shows did this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 well, i can see what oxigen is saying, certainly, some movies are better then outhers, to most people any way, yet personal preference seems to be some after thought in all of this. i'll use the example of there will be blood (as its such a good example). there is literaly a shit ton of awsome stuff about the movie, plot, acting, direction, and yet for some reason, it bored the crap out of me. does that make it a bad film? depends on what the films aim is, if its to showcase all of these artistic merits, then no,its not a bad film, its a fucking amazine film that should be worshiped. yet if the films aim is to entertain me, then yeah, its a bad film as it failed in its aims. was the films aim to be pretentious and require some type of education in artistic cinema to enjoy? i dunno. point is, that you cant judge all art by the same merits, what a film sets out to do isnt always the same. some films try to portray greed (there will be blood) outhers, atempt to protray mans inmhumaity towards man (the pianist) outhers try to make you laugh (dumb and dumber). outhers just wanna kick ass (die hard). ultimatly, if the film succedes in its goal, isnt it a good film? sadly, to many films these days have the aim of taking money of restless audiences who are bored if there isnt clevage, car races and gun fights every few seconds. is it the film industries fault for spoiling us, are people dumber these days, or is it just a sign of our times in which people dont wanna be made to think, they just want a distraction from the monotony of life? criticising a form of art for not causing some type of reaction is unfair, its like criticising my walk for not incorperating a light show. that isnt my aim. if a film wants to be artistic it usualy ends up on a pedistal were a lonly few stand and sneer down at those who dont get it feeling all smug and superior, seemingly unaware that there just alienating them selves by treating outhers as morons for not sharing there opinion. like what you like, for as the old saying goes "I may not know art but I know what I like." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 The thing is...art is all about portraying emotions. And everyone reacts to different ways of showing emotion in different ways. Which makes art 100% taste and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted August 14, 2008 Author Share Posted August 14, 2008 I don't quite get that. Are you trying to say that family/kids films are less artistic than other films? No, I'm just saying that you can't present certain demographics with certain types of movies and expect a positive reaction. Try screening The Rules Of The Game at a primary school or Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas at a retirement home, I guarantee you the results will be disastrous, regardless of both movies being fantastic. Just for reference which list of 5 shows did this? They weren't 5, it was a loose list of those which are the most fullfilling animes, I think it was somewhere along the lines of Cowboy Bebop, Fullmetal Alchemist, Death Note, Mushishi, Evangelion, Monster & GTO. I don't remember if I listed movies or not, but as for series, these are the cream of the crop... although If I was commanding officer, I'd had Trigun, Serial Experiments Lain, Haruhi and perhaps some others, but that's me. i'll use the example of there will be blood (as its such a good example). there is literaly a shit ton of awsome stuff about the movie, plot, acting, direction, and yet for some reason, it bored the crap out of me. does that make it a bad film? depends on what the films aim is, if its to showcase all of these artistic merits, then no,its not a bad film, its a fucking amazine film that should be worshiped. yet if the films aim is to entertain me, then yeah, its a bad film as it failed in its aims. was the films aim to be pretentious and require some type of education in artistic cinema to enjoy? i dunno. It bored the crap out of you, hence it's your problem, not the movie's. Get it? The film wasn't made to make you feel comfy, it was made to illustrate a point, to get a message accross, and it does so superbly. All the possible "flaws" that you speak of aren't the film's, but your own, for not being able to keep up with it. And it's not even that artsy (in the snob sense of the word) a movie, it's completely normal in it's execution and pertinent in it's themes, there's no dramatically present pretentiousness in the movie... every single person on earth should be able to enjoy said movie, and if they can't, it's their own fault, not the movie, it's not the work that adapts to you, it's you that must adapt to the work. That being said, "aim to entertain" is bollocks, film is an art form, and art was never meant to entertain, it's a means of expression and communicating. point is, that you cant judge all art by the same merits, what a film sets out to do isnt always the same. some films try to portray greed (there will be blood) outhers, atempt to protray mans inmhumaity towards man (the pianist) outhers try to make you laugh (dumb and dumber). outhers just wanna kick ass (die hard). ultimatly, if the film succedes in its goal, isnt it a good film? sadly, to many films these days have the aim of taking money of restless audiences who are bored if there isnt clevage, car races and gun fights every few seconds. is it the film industries fault for spoiling us, are people dumber these days, or is it just a sign of our times in which people dont wanna be made to think, they just want a distraction from the monotony of life? Very well put, except for the Dumb & Dumber reference, it's hardly worth a mention as far as comedy is concerned. Even so, you said it ever so rightly, a film can only be judged by it's aim, but one must understand entertainment is never an aim, it's a side-effect, and a pleasent one, at that, that matters little to the actual worth of the movie. Remember, though: being entertained hardly matters if there's no soul to the movie... When I watch Die Hard, I'm entertained and also pleasently rewarded, as it's quite a majestic exercise in action... when I watch Wanted, I'm etertained as well, as it keeps me busy, but has absolutely no merits and flows through me like white noise, leaving nothing in it's trail other than the fact that the last 2 hours were not boring. Even if that's how it was aimed to be, it's the creator's own fault, for creating an inferior action movie, as movies with the same aims surpass it by millions of miles. It's pretty much rendered obsolete and unncessary, correct? All in a matter of deductive logic, I believe this does make sense, yes? As for that last part, it's both, actually. Unfortunately. criticising a form of art for not causing some type of reaction is unfair, its like criticising my walk for not incorperating a light show. that isnt my aim. if a film wants to be artistic it usualy ends up on a pedistal were a lonly few stand and sneer down at those who dont get it feeling all smug and superior, seemingly unaware that there just alienating them selves by treating outhers as morons for not sharing there opinion. like what you like, for as the old saying goes "I may not know art but I know what I like." Sorry, bullshit... that's like saying failing a test is alright, if your aim was to fail it. Because it's possible not to fail the test. Take a look at 3 Ninjas. Mindless family fun. Accomplishes aim: yes. And yet, so do The Goonies, which have exactly the same aims, and do it stellarly better than 3 Ninjas... It's all a matter of knowing how to do things, no matter what aim you have, accomplishing it is never enough to achieve brilliance, you have to own it, become it and overwhelm it's aims, not merely achieving them... If you settle for achieving aims, you'll always be left with something which is good for what it is... but what it is... is mediocrity. Which basically means it sucks. As for the whole "I may not know art but I know what I like", you're taking it personally again, seriously, fuck you. Fuck me. Fuck all of us. These movies are bigger than us, what we like is hardly important to anyone but ourselves... Seriously, I hate Casablanca, I hate it with a passion. And I love Silent hill (the movie, that is). As far as I'm concerned, Silent Hill is better than Casablanca. But the truth is, Silent Hill is average and Casablanca is flawless, even if I think otherwise. So, pretty much, my opinion is wrong... not that it needs to be right, because it's mine and only affects me, but I deserve to be treated as a moron for prefering Silent Hill over Casablanca, you know why? It's a moronic attittude. What the fuck does what I like even matter if the global picture disregards my opinion, when it's not "correct"? You can go through life eating shit for lunch everyday and be happy about it, but I will eat my steak every single day and at the end of it all, I will have lead a much better life, gastronomically, than you. I'm not happier than you, no, you're happy about all those turds you ate too, but I've definitely eaten better than you. This is a stupid metaphor, I know, but one can adapt it into everything, like movies, for example. My granny will die very happy with all 400 times she saw How Green Was My Valley, and so will I with all the films that I've seen, but in the end, I will have lead a richer life then hers, cinema-wise. That is undeniable. The thing is...art is all about portraying emotions. And everyone reacts to different ways of showing emotion in different ways. Which makes art 100% taste and nothing else. It's the way that they are (from the verb to be, which signifies exitence) portrayed that matters, not the way that people react to the way they are portrayed. Art isn't about the viewer, it's about the artist, the one who made it. The viewer/listener/reader is merely a spectator which changes nothing in the work itself. That's the problem with people nowdays, they think movies are there for them (and that's the way it's becoming), when they're really there for themselves and for those who made them... we're all glancers who may choose to have a peek at someone else's soul, and should do so, but never under the pretentious belief that we are somehow relevant to the existence of such a work. So yes, art is 100% taste... the taste of the artist that is, which is recorded objectively and unquestionably in a solid piece of work, therefore rendering it 100% objective to everyone except the artist(s) himself. Am I not making sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 The fuck does objective mean? I thought it was a task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 ooh this is actually a good thread. Fuck me, forum. I'd thought we'd lost the ability to do that this week. Anyhoo- to make my own petty contribution I'm with OW on this one. The quality of art is, when you put thought in to it beyond 'that was fun/that was boring', totally objective. I'm talking about the skill of the writers, directors, camera crew and so on. The degree to which that matters to you is subjective and it's a shame more people don't pay attention to that kind of stuff. It makes the whole experience so much more enjoyable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Okay, I think I understand. Objective;something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose But surely that would be in the eye of the beholder, and its how you interpret those efforts. And what if you dont like what their objective is? Surely the subjectivity aspect is more important? I don't give a shit about this type of thing anyway, its too deep for me, and not worth the brain power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 wrong use. We mean Objective view point, which is to look at something's merit from a neutral standpoint as an object, whereas from a subjective point means to engage your own emotional response to the thing, because you're the subject of it. Sorry. Terrible at explaining words like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goron_3 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Oxygen Waste, your last point was brilliant. I'll have to show it to my friend who finds raging bull (that amazing film with De Niro) 'a truly awful move' and the opening half hour of wall-e to be 'boring'. She doesn't consider movies (or art) as an art form *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jav_NE Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 That being said, "aim to entertain" is bollocks, film is an art form, and art was never meant to entertain, it's a means of expression and communicating. That right there is where you're wrong. You're trying to group films into one category, but the fact is some films are made as more of an art form and a means of expression (TWBB), and others are made for entertainment. You can't compare them or their audiences. The problem is, films like TWBB mix in with the mainstream and so is it really that surprising that people dont like it? If you ask me, these "artistic" films are better off left to cultural cinemas or something, that's where the others are. But no, they want to make lots of money don't they. Yeah, great artists they are, only caring about the dollar they make. An artist cares not about financial gain, if they really are truly doing it as a means of expression anyway. If you want to make money, you have to entertain. And to entertain is to be judged by all audiences, meaning the worth of your product is no longer objective but subjective. They make that leap themselves. If they made the film for their own pleasure, why then release it for all to see? What you're trying to get accross is when art, made purely out of someones own imagination and hobby, gets recognised and someone else brings it to the masses. When that gets judged you have a point, because the artwork wasn't created to please others. A film, like TWBB, was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Ah thanks Dan, Ill have another think about this then before I reply. I like Javs point, truth speaketh. Okay, after taking the true meaning into account, what do you guys think is more important in X? The subjective interpratation or the objective one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 It's an interesting read OW, and you present a great case. The thing is, and I'm sure many many people are like me, I don't care about what anyone else thinks. For me liking a film is entirely subjective. The world may rave about something - and that may mean that I hear about it, pick up the buzz and want to go see it, but after I've watched it, I don't care what the world, or the creators, thinks about it, it's all about me. And when I tell my friends about it I won't talk about the great performances or anything like that I'll say whether or not I thought it was a good film. If someone eats crap all their life and is just as happy with it as someone else eating fine food, then that's all that matters. The happiness, the entertainment value, the end result in the viewer. I couldn't care less about the artist. we're all glancers who may choose to have a peek at someone else's soul, and should do so, but never under the pretentious belief that we are somehow relevant to the existence of such a work This is just so irrelevant to me. A film is just that, a way to occupy a couple of hours. That's all I will ever get from them, because that's all I care to invest. And as you say "they think movies are there for them (and that's the way it's becoming)", and I'm happy about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 That being said, "aim to entertain" is bollocks, film is an art form, and art was never meant to entertain, it's a means of expression and communicating. No, a film is meant to make money. We live in a capitalist society. People aren't going to spend millions of pounds to make "art" if they don't intend to make money from it. There are two ways of measuring how "good" a film is. Whether people enjoy it or whether it makes money. They usually go hand in hand as if people enjoy it then they will spend money on it. However whether people enjoy something is subjective so therefore can't be measured accurately. However money is a quantity so it can be measured accurately. Therefore the only way you can say "film A is better than film B, fact" is whether it made more money. The best way of measuring whether people enjoy a film is by taking a large sample of ratings. IMDB have a good chart. However is isn't representative of everyone and therefore isn't accurate. So get off of your high horse OW. Your opinion isn't better than anyone else's. You may be more knowledgeable in how films were made or whatever you claim to know. But a good film is an opinion. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Jesus fucking christ, that's the most wilfully ignorant view point ever! I'm so very glad I don't think like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Great post Odwin. And I agree with points of Moogles...mainly the last sentence. Sure some films are meant to spark big debates or be seen as art, but the majority are just films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts