Artistic value: objective or subjective

[MoogleViper]

Jesus fucking christ, that's the most wilfully ignorant view point ever! I'm so very glad I don't think like you.

 

How exactly is it ignorant?

[Dan_Dare]

because you're basically saying art (all art) is useless and has no purpose, and the only gauge of worth is profit!

 

God, the thought of that being even possibly true might just make me take to the streets with an M16.

[KKOB]

because you're basically saying art (all art) is useless and has no purpose, and the only gauge of worth is profit!

 

God, the thought of that being even possibly true might just make me take to the streets with an M16.

 

Totally agree, it's rediculous to say as long as something's popular and makes money it's fantastic. If this were the case then Harry Potter, Indiana Jones 4 and Star Wars episode 1 are some of the best films ever made.

 

B/S.

[MoogleViper]

because you're basically saying art (all art) is useless and has no purpose, and the only gauge of worth is profit!

 

God, the thought of that being even possibly true might just make me take to the streets with an M16.

 

I never said art was useless and had no purpose. I was saying the purpose of a film was to make money, not to be good art. The film might try to bee good art, but only so that the good art will make money. A film can be many things, but most films intend to make money, that's the bottom line.

 

Why do people work? So that their work can be good art? Whether you like it or not money makes the world go round. Don't like it? Then stop using that computer that you paid for with money. We all use money every day. We need it to live. Very few people live comfortably without it.

[Haden]

Both. People have different tastes but within genres stuff is generally considered better.

 

Pulp Fiction is better than White Chicks as a film. But this doesn't take into account uses of films. White Chicks is a better movie to get drunk to with mates and rip the piss out of it cause its so shite.

 

Also with games mechanics sort out a lot of stuff. You can objectively state that the camera in Mario 64 is better than some buggy piece of shit like Starshot Circus. Thats just a fact. When it comes to looking at them as a piece of art thats different. But there is a clear objective case to prove that Mario 64 is better than Starshot because of the work put into it and quality of said work that is shown in end result.

 

What is hard to quantify is how memories and linking art with personal events changes everything. Say you hear a song you quite like over and over during one summer. That song then becomes your summer song of year whenever and it can elevate it to beyond where the person liked it before.

 

Sorry if im rambling now but yeh my answer is both at the same time! Even though that isnt helpful haha

[MoogleViper]

Totally agree, it's rediculous to say as long as something's popular and makes money it's fantastic. If this were the case then Harry Potter, Indiana Jones 4 and Star Wars episode 1 are some of the best films ever made.

 

B/S.

 

I wasn't actually saying that. I was pointing out that the only quantifiable measure that can be used to mark how good a film is is money. That's its purpose. Personally I think a good film is a matter of opinion.

[Dan_Dare]

but that's not their purpose at all! AT ALL!

 

Maybe for the trash bullshit that you clearly cherish, but not for anything actually, you know, worth watching.

[MoogleViper]

but that's not their purpose at all! AT ALL!

 

Maybe for the trash bullshit that you clearly cherish, but not for anything actually, you know, worth watching.

 

Of course it is. Being a write, director, actor or any other person that works on a film is a job. They are doing it to make money. They might enjoy their job. But that doesn't stop them from taking home a salary every month.

[KKOB]

I wasn't actually saying that. I was pointing out that the only quantifiable measure that can be used to mark how good a film is is money. That's its purpose. Personally I think a good film is a matter of opinion.

 

Good, but what about arthouse and small independant films. They can be truely stunning examples of art, where the people making the films do it for the love it not to make money and indeed make little.

 

Surely this alone justifies the need for art critics who express their own subjective views to bring little golden nuggets to the surface of our conscious.

 

I may be going off track here but it all relates to money, box office takings, and number of seats sold not being a valid measure for how good a film is.

[Dan_Dare]

Of course it is. Being a write, director, actor or any other person that works on a film is a job. They are doing it to make money. They might enjoy their job. But that doesn't stop them from taking home a salary every month.

but by your reasoning, Bret 'fucksack' Ratner is a better director than Igmar Bergman. If that's true, and I've been living in a daze all my life, Please. Kill me. Shoot me in the head because the world isn't worth my time.

[MoogleViper]

Good, but what about arthouse and small independant films. They can be truely stunning examples of art, where the people making the films do it for the love it not to make money and indeed make little.

 

Surely this alone justifies the need for art critics who express their own subjective views to bring little golden nuggets to the surface of our conscious.

 

I may be going off track here but it all relates to money, box office takings, and number of seats sold not being a valid measure for how good a film is.

 

Exactly. You're right. I don't disagree with this at all. Films can be art. But art is, as you say, subjective. But according to OW art is objective and there are factually better and worse forms of art.

 

but by your reasoning, Bret 'fucksack' Ratner is a better director than Igmar Bergman. If that's true, and I've been living in a daze all my life, Please. Kill me. Shoot me in the head because the world isn't worth my time.

 

You are misunderstanding me. I wasn't saying that whichever film made more money is better. I was saying that was the only way to actually measure it. A good film is a matter of opinion. I was disagreeing with OW who said that it was a fact. But it seems my posts were confusing.

[Charlie]

Jesus fucking christ, that's the most wilfully ignorant view point ever! I'm so very glad I don't think like you.

 

but that's not their purpose at all! AT ALL!

 

Maybe for the trash bullshit that you clearly cherish, but not for anything actually, you know, worth watching.

 

Moogle's absolutely right.

 

If it were free to 'buy' a DVD or go to the cinema, how many films do you think would be out there? Very very few becuase they wouldn't have any money to make them.

 

Even the ones made for the love of making them won't be around because they won't have any money whatsoever to a) start of with to make the first (no bank loan because the bank knows they aren't getting it back and b) no profit from the first to pump into the 2nd film.

[Dan_Dare]

just..no. no. no. you're completely wrong, both of you.

 

 

right! the quality of a film is based on artistic merit!

 

Ticket sales have absolutely fuck all to do with any measure of quality whatsoever. They mean nothing to a film at all. They say alot about audiences, but nothing about the film.

 

Example:

 

Bret 'death of joy' Ratner's Rush Hour 3 made millions, right? it was a massive hit.

does that mean it was good? Does it fuck. All that proves is that audiences are full of dumb fucks who don't know what good cinema is.

 

by comparison, let's take a stab in the dark and say...ehh...Lust, Caution by Ang Lee. Did that make as much? no! Is it better? Of course it is! It's Ang lee!

 

see what I did there? I destroyed your argument.

[Sanchez]

Rush Hour 3 isn't a good film, but it's enjoyable so I wouldn't go and call everyone retards for liking it.

[ReZourceman]

Because I enjoyed Rush Hour 3 Im a dumb fuck?

 

 

Schweetz.

 

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?

[MoogleViper]

just..no. no. no. you're completely wrong, both of you.

 

 

right! the quality of a film is based on artistic merit!

 

Ticket sales have absolutely fuck all to do with any measure of quality whatsoever. They mean nothing to a film at all. They say alot about audiences, but nothing about the film.

 

Example:

 

Bret 'death of joy' Ratner's Rush Hour 3 made millions, right? it was a massive hit.

does that mean it was good? Does it fuck. All that proves is that audiences are full of dumb fucks who don't know what good cinema is.

 

by comparison, let's take a stab in the dark and say...ehh...Lust, Caution by Ang Lee. Did that make as much? no! Is it better? Of course it is! It's Ang lee!

 

see what I did there? I destroyed your argument.

 

Oh I'm sorry I forgot that you were ignorant and your opinion was better than everyone else's. If Rush Hour 3 brought enjoyment to that many people then it was a good film. You and I may not think so but there are plenty of people who do.

[Dan_Dare]

Now look what you made me do.

 

 

[Sanchez]

My video of me taking a shit was popular in the shit-watching crowd so its a good film.

[MoogleViper]

Now look what you made me do.

 

 

 

Post childish pictures all you want but it still doesn't take away the fact that you haven't posted one mature argument you've just shown your complete arrogance.

[Guest Jordan]

Okay, okay.

 

Calm down everyone, that includes forum staff. I have to say, i do agree with Moogle, if money didn't exist movies would be rare. People are willing to create things for money... do you honestly think all artists create art because they enjoy it? Surely there's a minority that just want that next cheque for their painting (hence the stupid cost of the things..).

[Chris the great]

ive bassicly stated my views already and wont get anything from further argument, but i can see the point oxigen makes more clearly now. when you consider a film as art, it takes personal prefference out of the equation.

 

the way im trying to consider it is like the mona lisa. you cant claim it isnt a good bit of art. you can not like it, but that dosent subtract from the painting. preference is down to you, but the art exists without you, there for your view of it is subjective whilst the thing itself if objective.

 

i agree that not liking TWBB is down to me rather then the movie. though if you dont like cassablanca, it seems unfair to call it flawless. yeah, the artistic merits are there but if you dont enjoy watching it, it succedes as art, but not as a film. so artisticaly its flawless, but as a film, it has flaws.

 

oxigen may be rude at times, but he does seem to know what hes talking about, artisitcaly at least. for the sake of his health, can we all agree that when we review films in the rate the last film section that we arnt judging the films merits, just our own enjoyment rating?

[Haden]

Dan Dare I agree with what your saying almost completely terminator 3 is not as good as 2 precisely because they altered it to tap into a market and make money if you wanted another version of dans argument.

 

But at the same time wow dan I think you should really chill out you don't win arguments by swearing and going mental

[ReZourceman]

when you consider a film as art, it takes personal prefference out of the equation.

 

Im not...sure this is what hes saying.

 

Even if that is what hes saying it is 100% an incorrect statement. Art is entirely perception. ART = entirely perception.

 

I dont see a film as art, btw. I can understand if a film is trying to be artistic, and I understand and can respect a message a film is trying to get across, with good acting, writing and direction, but that isnt art.

 

Art is 100% perception and subjective.

[Jav_NE]

 

 

All that proves is that audiences are full of dumb fucks who don't know what good cinema is.

 

 

So who says what good cinema is? Artists? Bullshit! Even artistic film makers can't agree what is good and what isnt, so how can you say they have a standard to even judge by? At least with looking at it from an entertainment perspective you can rate a film based on how much you enjoyed it. And that's what we do. Hardly anyone cares about artistic merit. Yes, maybe that's shallow, but that's the world we live in.

 

Everyone enjoys cinema for their own reasons. It is very subjective. Be objective about it if you want, but if you want to do that then you belong in the minority of people who can squabble and argue over the quality of direction and character portrayals etc etc, and you can enjoy doing it. It's hard enough to rate two films against one another as it is, but to try and group the entire industry and rate all genre and movie making styles against each other, well that's just stupid, and impossible, because quality is not objective except to those who want it to be.

[MoogleViper]

for the sake of his health, can we all agree that when we review films in the rate the last film section that we arnt judging the films merits, just our own enjoyment rating?

 

Why? When I rate a film it's ME rating it. Therefore the rating will be down to MY preference. If it wasn't down to my preference then I wouldn't bother reviewing it as there are plenty other reviews out there. If good and bad were indeed fact then there would only need to be one review for each film and any others would be the same. If OW is always right then why isn't he making money as a critic?