Films - Are all Films Art?

losthorizon

On boards Film is sectioned (is that the right word) quite rightly under Arts. But are all fims art? I mean, is Transformers art? Or even the originial Star Wars Films? Or how about Comedy films like Airplane or Life of Brian or Theres Something about Mary?

krudler

Art is subjective, some people wouldnt consider Banksy an artist, or equate music as an art, but it is in its own way. Films have their place in art same as popular novels hav their place in literature.

johnny_ultimate

I think 'art' is a word loaded with value judgements. You can say Transformers isn't art, but how does it differ from what might be classified as an 'art' film? Mainly the fact that it's crap. But art doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Painting a purple square on a canvas may result in the painting being put up in a gallery, doesn't mean I'm going to like it though (krudler's subjective comment). And yet it would still be 'art' as such. I think cinema is an artform, much like music, video games (just to stick it to Ebert :pac:) sculpture or literature. There is crap cinema, like there is crap music, crap games, crap sculpture or crap literature. It's almost impossible to come up with a definite definition of art, so you run into problems there to. But in general, yes, films are art IMO. All films aren't high quality art though.

Nichololas

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

All films aren't high quality art though.

See Sturgeon's Law..

mikhail

I mostly agree with Johnny. All films are art. Well, except for Brett Ratner's films.

Galvasean

mikhail wrote: »

I mostly agree with Johnny. All films are art. Well, except for Brett Ratner's films.

Surely you can still be an artist even if you only paint in the middle of the canvas?

candy-gal1

imho i would say arty movies are like :
lost in translation
ghost world
amelie
a very long engagement
closer




to name a few.

Hank_Jones

All films are not art.

Think Uwe Boll.

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

Surely you can still be an artist even if you only paint in the middle of the canvas?

I was kidding.

Hank_Jones wrote: »

All films are not art.

Think Uwe Boll.

I disagree. As Johnny said, it doesn't have to be good to be art.

funkyjebus

mikhail wrote: »

I was kidding.


I disagree. As Johnny said, it doesn't have to be good to be art.

by that logic we could all take a dump on some csnvas, hang it up and declare ourselves artists. in this world babies would be the true kings of expression. surely is has to have artistuc mertit to be considerd art, which for the likes of sex and the city 2 and barneys great adventure have none.

if you can sucessfully defend either of those movies as artistic....... wow just wow. hats off to you, you know how to argue ans know nothing of art.

Eirebear

funkyjebus wrote: »

by that logic we could all take a dump on some csnvas, hang it up and declare ourselves artists. in this world babies would be the true kings of expression. surely is has to have artistuc mertit to be considerd art, which for the likes of sex and the city 2 and barneys great adventure have none.

if you can sucessfully defend either of those movies as artistic....... wow just wow. hats off to you, you know how to argue ans know nothing of art.

Ok then.

Define "Artistic Merit" for me?

Films such as S&TC 2 (which i havnt actually seen) may be absolute drivel, but you seem to cast aside every single thing about it in one sweeping blow with a very poor example imo.
As a whole, i dont care for the film in the slightest, however what about the parts that make up the whole film, can any of them be considered art?

Think the designers of the very high fashion displayed in the film, Chanel, Gucci, Armani et al are regularly considered as artists within their field...does that go out of the window because of the film?

What about the set designers, or lighting directors and cinematographers, even the musicians who play on the soundtrack? Can any of them be considered as Art?

So, if we have a number of people working on the film, who can arguably hold artistic merit, surely their collective work can lead to the opinion that the whole can be considered art?

I would suggest that your downright snobbish attitude and dismissal of Mikhail's opinion in such a manner uncovers your own ignorance of art. Art, be it good or bad, is a vehicle to create discussion, debate and thought. Not some elitist ideal which only certain people can comment on.

the_insider

I say 'potato', you say 'potatoe'.

Richard Dower

funkyjebus wrote: »

by that logic we could all take a dump on some csnvas, hang it up and declare ourselves artists. in this world babies would be the true kings of expression. surely is has to have artistuc mertit to be considerd art, which for the likes of sex and the city 2 and barneys great adventure have none.

if you can sucessfully defend either of those movies as artistic....... wow just wow. hats off to you, you know how to argue ans know nothing of art.

It's been done!

Richard Dower

the_insider wrote: »

I say 'potato', you say 'potatoe'.

I'm having a US presidenital candidate moment, which is the correct spelling

Condatis

Not all films are art. Some are made as expressions of opinion or attitude – as with Al Gore.

Hank_Jones

All films are not bloody art.
I refuse to think of some of the trash films out there as art.
Something has to at least of some quality in order to be considered art.

Art - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Morlar

That film can be an art form, doesn't mean that every piece of **** churned out of hollywood is 'Art'.

Given the subjective nature of film it can be argued that all film is art. Trying to define the paramaters under which to consider the inclusion of films as art is as troublesome as doing so for each piece of sculpture, painting, etc. Either you class it all as art of you enter into a very problematic process of deciding what qualifies.

faceman

funkyjebus wrote: »

by that logic we could all take a dump on some csnvas, hang it up and declare ourselves artists. in this world babies would be the true kings of expression. .

Well actually, there is a young child that creates paintings that are sold at exuberant prices. I did a quick google search to find the article but i cant remember the child's name.

It created a big debate over whether expressionist art is really art or just random crap on canvas.

Because afterall, the child was just putting random crap on canvas.

pickarooney

Music is maths but maths is science and science isn't art. However, when used as a medium to express, music is art, as is film. What did Transformers express, exactly? (I haven't seen it).

Morlar

pickarooney wrote: »

What did Transformers express, exactly? (I haven't seen it).

It was a cubist expression of a surreal world.

Warper

All original films are works of art except documentaries. Just because something is classified as art does not mean it is necessarily good. Like art, a lot of films are sh1t.

Renn

faceman wrote: »

Well actually, there is a young child that creates paintings that are sold at exuberant prices. I did a quick google search to find the article but i cant remember the child's name.

It created a big debate over whether expressionist art is really art or just random crap on canvas.

Because afterall, the child was just putting random crap on canvas.

My Kid Could Paint That

mikhail

pickarooney wrote: »

Music is maths but maths is science and science isn't art. However, when used as a medium to express, music is art, as is film. What did Transformers express, exactly? (I haven't seen it).

All the old themes: heroism, young love, adventure, sacrifice. Why are they art when a dead writer uses them but not in a film? It shows an eye for a beautiful shot (it's not just the hot girl - it's the colours and the pose) and an exhilarating action sequence. It also expressed Michael Bay's military fetish, racism, misogyny and homophobia.

Mickeroo

Film is indeed an art form, as with music but I would not call all movies art. Thinking in terms of music for a moment, I would consider any musician who writes their own songs and composes their own music as art(be it good or bad) but there's no way something like westlife or girls aloud could be considered art, it's a manufactured product not an expression of anything, and art is a form of expression. Doing a cover of uptown girl to sell to 12 year olds is not art.

This counts with films too. Crap like the olsen twins movies, those stupid disney movies the rock et al have been showing up in lately are as far from art as you can get. They are a can of coke compared to a fine wine if you get what i mean. Even comparing them to something like the Dark Knight, arguably a pretty commercial film in some ways, but it's full of dark themes and commentary about modern society, it wasn't just made to sell action figures.

To answer something the OP said too, Life of Brian is definitley a work of art, sure its seems dumb on the surface, but in reality it's a very clever satire of religion.

Rant over :P

pickarooney

mikhail wrote: »

All the old themes: heroism, young love, adventure, sacrifice. Why are they art when a dead writer uses them but not in a film? It shows an eye for a beautiful shot (it's not just the hot girl - it's the colours and the pose) and an exhilarating action sequence. It also expressed Michael Bay's military fetish, racism, misogyny and homophobia.

Is that not an exact replica of a shot of Jennifer Lopez in U-turn?

faceman

Renn wrote: »

My Kid Could Paint That

Thanks!

aand the irony of it being made into a movie, for the purpose of this thread!

ztoical

Hank_Jones wrote: »

All films are not bloody art.
I refuse to think of some of the trash films out there as art.
Something has to at least of some quality in order to be considered art.

Art - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

While the subject matter and production values of a film may not fall under the dictionary definition of what is art, the creation of the film is an art forum. Sounding mixing is an art forum, cinematography is an art forum, editing, writing, acting, directing etc etc are all art forums and while they might not all come together to forum a great whole alot of the time they are still artistic expressions. There are plenty of painters whose work does not appeal to me or whose work that I think is just not up to a high enough standard but I can't turn around and say they work is not art. The crap 5 euro mass produced paintings sold at Dunnes are just as much art as anything hanging in the National Gallery they just don't hold the same value.