| Author |
Message |
|
| marantzo |
 Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:47 pm |
 |
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: And I think there's an egotism involved in the reasons artists create art, which is very similar to what is being described here.
There is egotism involved in any enterprise and sometimes it's not involved. Art is certainly no difference in this respect. So what you are saying is nonsense. Van Gogh, Matisse, Chagal, Pizarro, Rouseau, and some artists that I know personally but you probably would never heard, produced some wonderful art and egotism had nothing to do with their reason for producing it.
Art may be in the eye of a particular beholder, but fine art is in the eye of a mutitude of beholders over many generations and it only indicates that some people have know valid taste in art and 'think' it's art. It isn't. I agree with , I think it was Marc, who said that there really is no such thoing a bad art. If it's bad, it's not art. The word art, itself, obviates that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:50 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Of course there's egotism involved in any activity. Duh. But you're "no bad art" statement is the true nonsense. |
Last edited by Joe Vitus on Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Befade wrote: Quote: Art, to me, is an end in itself, not a functional mechanism. Art doesn't necessarily "do" anything. It is.
I agree with Joe. Beauty (art) is in the eye of the beholder. If you think an elephant swishing a paintbrush with his trunk can make art......well then it's art to you. If you think the only place it belongs in a museum is in the restroom trash can......then it's not art to you.
I went to art school with Martin Mull (I don't think that makes ME famous). He held a show of his paintings in a rest room at the Boston Museum of Art. Called "Flush with the Walls."
Well, I don't think art is in the eye of the beholder. But since any given beholder is going to think they analyze art correctly, it's probably a waste of time trying to argue them out of it. We're all trapped in our perceptions, it seems.
My point is that art isn't functional. It doesn't have to accomplish something to have worth, the way a lamp has to illuminate, or subway car has to get you from one point to the other. Its existence is its worth. I agree with Wilde that "all art is quite useless." And agree with him that this is a very high compliment. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Joe Vitus wrote: Of course there's egotism involved in any activity. Duh. But you're "no bad art" statement is the true nonsense.
Joe as is the case on occasion, you speak pedantically, which is annoying enough, but you also tend to speak that way on subjects that you have no life experience with. Is your entire knowledge gleened from books? There is definitely egotism involved in your statements. Misplaced egotism. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:15 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| I don't have any life experience with art? You do? What drivel is this? |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Yes I do. No you don't. I was an artist. Were you? Some of the things I produced were not art. Some were. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
When were you an artist? More to the point, how can you know I was/am not?
You're a horse's ass, Gary. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now you've hurt my feelings.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rod |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:39 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 2944
Location: Lithgow, Australia
|
Alfred the Great. There's a tremendous film in the saga of the Wessex King who led his ragged mob of farmers to victory against the Danish hordes and became the only English monarch to be called "The Great". This is not that film. This is wildly uneven movie that is, at the least, not boring, starring David Hemmings, who is very good in the lead. Directed by Clive Donner, who would later do another good-bad, historical film, Cromwell, Alfred is presented as a troubled '60s anti-hero who wants nothing more than to be left alone and become a monk. The pressures of being forced to be king and warrior, and the temptation of banging Mercian Princess Aelhswith (Prunella Ransome, who had been excellent in Far From The Madding Crowd) and betray his Christian principals, drives him sufficiently dotty to bed Aelhswith roughly (ooh er!). Thus, he drives her into the arms of hot blonde Norse god Guthrum (Michael York, in a dizzyingly bad performance), whose cohorts of Black Sabbath fans are raping, pillaging, and desecrating the countryside. Alfred gets taken down a peg or two, hides out in the marshes, befriends a gang of bandits (led by Ian McKellen, in his film debut; he's very promising), and eventually emerges from the wilderness with a promise to write the Domesday Book and to kick some Viking ass.
It's chiefly interesting in giving us a passionately conflicted hero; Alfred has pacifist ideals but is a sadist when feeling conflicted. Only when he dedicates himself to mass slaughter can he fulfill his peace-needing soul. It's certainly more interesting then most heroes we get these days. The film around him is often cardboard in the extreme, though, a post-modern jumble of The Vikings, El Cid, with a dash of Look Back In Anger. |
_________________
A long time ago, but somehow in the future...It is a period of civil war and renegade paragraphs floating through space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| tirebiter |
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:19 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4011
Location: not far away
|
Nobody here is an artist but me, so SHUT UP!
billy: the "miracle negro" meme is about to get a lot of play in the media because Rush Limbaugh has seized on it as his new pet term for Barack Obama-- some editorialist in the LATimes used the term in an edit about Obama, and Rush says that means he can use it too. Ha ha! Obama is a Miracle Negro-- a liberal paper said so! All of the term's literary and cultural subtlety has now been stripped away and it's become an insult to a presidential candidate.
I've read several fascinating studies of the "miracle Negro" concept, and they ring true. What it says about American culture now is in the hands of Rush Limbaugh. Feh. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ehle64 |
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:29 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 7149
Location: NYC; US&A
|
| that shit is so frightening to me. no, i'm not joking. |
_________________
It truly disappoints me when people do something for you via no prompt of your own and then use it as some kind of weapon against you at a later time and place. It is what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| jeremy |
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:34 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6794
Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)
|
| Who says the term doesn't fit? Perhaps in the American psyche, he holds all the wisdom and dignity born of struggle and forbearance, he is an exemplar, a transforming figure like Djimon Hounsou or even God himself, Morgan Freeman. Hooray for Hollywood. |
_________________
I am angry, I am ill, and I'm as ugly as sin.
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking.
I know the meaning of life, it doesn't help me a bit.
I know beauty and I know a good thing when I see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:14 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Anything that will help Obama win I am in favor of. My feeling is that the only bad publicity is no publicity, and if "miracle Negro" becomes a positive catchphrase for some (even if not for Limbaugh) then it's OBM. (My new acronym; figure it out.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:05 am |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
| Red-Headed Woman was a bit of a disappointment after Baby Face. The plot is more conventional and creaks at times. Both stories feature a strong-willed gold-digger in the title role. Jean Harlow's acting can't match Stanwyck's, but Harlow does make for a sexier and more believable man-magnet. Really all of the women throughout both films with their short wavy helmet hairdos just don't turn me on too much. At times, Harlow uses the type of baby voice (think Betty Boop) that was popular with some female singers of that era. I was impressed that they used the song Nobody's Sweetheart as background music at one point. A song I love. Red-Headed Woman was all right, but I'll return to Baby Face. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:23 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| It's the film that brought about the censor's code. That Harlow's character got away with everything infuriated the morals of every uptight and repressed person in the country. Of course, it wasn't until Mae West did her magic that the Code was really brought down heavily on the industry. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
