Why I can't take John Travolta seriously

[stray]

Tell you what, go to your local art gallery and have a look.  Or go to a library and pick up a novel by someone you've never heard of.  Or watch a movie from a foreign director that'll make no sense to you.

Now either enjoy it or don't and then come back here.  Describe the art and how it made you feel and what it did for you.  Then admit that you know fuck all about the artist in question and tell me again that it's impossible to seperate Art from the Artist.

I put it to you that Art exists only through the medium of your own intepretations.

Damnit, can't resist.


I do that all the time, Ironwood. And I immediately get interested in what went on in the person's mind who created those things. Appreciating the work and wanting to know the creator are one and the same. That's how it works. No work of art is a thing unto itself -- it comes from somewhere. And the only way for me to fully get a grasp of it is to know where. Some fields it's easier to associate with the creators themselves -- like dancers, singers, and actors. Others are less transparent, but it's still all the same.

I would never understand where Van Gogh was coming from in his period in Arles without realizing he was trying to find the closest thing he could that catered to his Japanese fetish. I would never understand where Tom Verlaine came up with those crazy hammer-on's of his without finally realizing he was really a sax player before, didn't care for guitars as much, and was only trying to recreate the experience. I would never understand where Vonnegut gets his apocalyptic imagery (and why he keeps focusing on it) without realizing that he was on the ground during the Dresden firebombings. And so on and so forth.

Despite whatever bullshit coloring book "creativity" you think you have, art isn't fucking canned goods, dispensed out of some irrelevant artist's ass. Works of art have a story behind them, a personal experience, an emotion, a setting, an enemy or a lover, or just a simple inclination towards something that breathes these things into being. Just because you in particular don't think it's important doesn't make it so. It just makes you a fucking peasant.

/wince

Oh Good God.   That was painful to read.

If you're going to be an asshole, at least be sincere about it. You're just being a smartass chump again. It wasn't painful.

And again: Fuck you too.

[Tebonas]

I disagree, maybe more respectfully but just as vehemently as Ironwood.

I disagree not only as a consumer, but as a writer as well. The usage of words are an art, the way you bring emotions out of people with those words, the way you bring their heads to a certain place with them, thats the art. I can enjoy the works of people I could punch into the face, because their art has nothing to do with their views. Its makebelieve, its forcing words into patterns for desirable effects.

Thats what I appreciate in art. Not because I am a "fucking peasant", but because for me those are the important things.

[Roac]

I would never understand where Van Gogh was coming from in his period in Arles without ...

So what?  If I'm going to appreciate art, most of the time I care more about what it means to me, not to the artist.  The very fact that it is interpretive means that I don't have to accept anyone else's take on it, including the artist's.  I can, if I like; but I am more often than not interested in what the art says about my views, biases, feelings, and so forth.  Certainly an artist's background is going to have a good deal of influence on the end product, but that doesn't mean my take has to line up with that background, or their views, in any form.  Likewise, most artists have among their own creations things they feel are their best and worst; my oppinion may be in total contrast, and finding out the artist's views after forming my own oppinion doesn't change them one iota. 

And beyond that, someone has already pointed out that movies are collaborative efforts anyway.  A movie isn't a director's view; it's the view of the writers, the producer, the director, the actors, the prop designers, and more.  A writer may find that what was a decent work was cut to shreds by a bad director, or saved by a good one.  Or a bad director may find that even he can't spoil an incredible performance by the lead actor. 

[Sky]

I don't get it about Firefly sometimes. I just wasn't awed by the project much at all, but it seems it has quite the following here.

Great dialogue.

Oh, and I agree with Stray here. Art contains part of the artist. Doesn't mean you have to like him, I don't like a lot of great musicians I've met. My girlfriend is surprised by how easily I can overcome someone's asshole personality if they're a good musician. Because a lot of good musicians are assholes. But the yin to that yang is that they have a beautiful creative soul. I often wonder if there's a connection. You may not /know/ what part of the art is the artist, but your ignorance doesn't invalidate the fact.

[Engels]

Although I think Stray's being somewhat abused for an off the cuff comment earlier on, I just have two things to say to Stray:

Homer

Shakespeare

[Lantyssa]

I find I cannot stand the works of someone I cannot respect.  It may be wonderful given no context, and ignorance can certainly be bliss for me when it comes to this, but if I know enough to dislike the artist there is no point in showing me anything of theirs.  Feeling someone is an amazing person does not cause me to like a work any better.

Art in any form rarely moves me though.  Maybe that is why knowledge of the person can affect my perception.  Maybe it's just I feel the work is tainted and doesn't deserve recognition.

[WindupAtheist]

Space thriller Serenity has beaten Star Wars to the title of best sci-fi movie in an SFX magazine poll of 3,000 fans...

...who, judging by the box office returns, were apparently the only 3000 people to buy tickets.

OH SNIZZAP.

But no, I kid.  Serenity was actually pretty good when I finally caught it on cable a while back, and I wasn't even a Firefly fan.  If they had made another one, I'd have watched it.  Just remember that if you can point to Britney Spears record sales and sagely intone that not everything popular is any good, I can just as easily point to Vanguard and tell you that having a tiny-but-rabid core fanbase of internet geeks means nothing if nobody else gives a shit.

[Morat20]

Space thriller Serenity has beaten Star Wars to the title of best sci-fi movie in an SFX magazine poll of 3,000 fans...

...who, judging by the box office returns, were apparently the only 3000 people to buy tickets.

OH SNIZZAP.

But no, I kid.  Serenity was actually pretty good when I finally caught it on cable a while back, and I wasn't even a Firefly fan.  If they had made another one, I'd have watched it.  Just remember that if you can point to Britney Spears record sales and sagely intone that not everything popular is any good, I can just as easily point to Vanguard and tell you that having a tiny-but-rabid core fanbase of internet geeks means nothing if nobody else gives a shit.

Firefly DVD sets sales were huge -- they quickly sold through the actual people who watched the show when it aired. I borrowed the first disc from a friend, and ended up buying the box set off of that (it was 40 bucks, and I didn't have to wait until after the weekend for Disc 2). Loaned the first disc to my father-in-law, and he did the same thing.

Lot of word of mouth. 20-odd million for a sci-fi release really isn't bad. No big-name stars, based on a tv-show, sci-fi -- it had "I'll fucking suck as a movie" written all over it to the average theatergoer.

[WindupAtheist]

All sci-fi peen-waving aside, the big problem with Serenity was that they overbudgeted.  I'm sure fans would rather have seen a movie with effects closer to TV level, but which was successful enough proportionately to merit sequels.

[Evil Elvis]

40 million isn't alot for a sci-fi action movie.

Most mouth breathers don't care about a movie's story, they just want to see big name actors showing titties and blowing shit up.  Even Sandra Bullock is a big enough name to draw in 40+ million domestic for a shit film.  No big names, no big name directors, no big box office.  Add in poor advertising through traditional channels, and you're just bracing for impact.

I'd guess the studio has [just barely] recouped production + advertising costs.  But it's a good movie, and good movies will sell strong later down the road.  Noone's going to buy fucking Premonition 10 years from now in Hi-Def Cortex Feed, but Serenity will still sell.

[Trippy]

40 million isn't alot for a sci-fi action movie.

40 million isn't a lot for a Hollywood studio movie in general. For example, The Spy Kids movies were made for around $40 million each and Robert Rodriguez is known for making movies "cheaply" by major studio standards.

[Roac]

All sci-fi peen-waving aside, the big problem with Serenity was that they overbudgeted. 

Uh, no.  They went on the cheap for that movie, considering with sci-fi you kinda need interesting sets and effects of some sort.  A good bit of the press at the time was how he got so much bang for so little dough. 

[Ironwood]

Tell you what, go to your local art gallery and have a look.  Or go to a library and pick up a novel by someone you've never heard of.  Or watch a movie from a foreign director that'll make no sense to you.

Now either enjoy it or don't and then come back here.  Describe the art and how it made you feel and what it did for you.  Then admit that you know fuck all about the artist in question and tell me again that it's impossible to seperate Art from the Artist.

I put it to you that Art exists only through the medium of your own intepretations.

Damnit, can't resist.


I do that all the time, Ironwood. And I immediately get interested in what went on in the person's mind who created those things. Appreciating the work and wanting to know the creator are one and the same. That's how it works. No work of art is a thing unto itself -- it comes from somewhere. And the only way for me to fully get a grasp of it is to know where. Some fields it's easier to associate with the creators themselves -- like dancers, singers, and actors. Others are less transparent, but it's still all the same.

I would never understand where Van Gogh was coming from in his period in Arles without realizing he was trying to find the closest thing he could that catered to his Japanese fetish. I would never understand where Tom Verlaine came up with those crazy hammer-on's of his without finally realizing he was really a sax player before, didn't care for guitars as much, and was only trying to recreate the experience. I would never understand where Vonnegut gets his apocalyptic imagery (and why he keeps focusing on it) without realizing that he was on the ground during the Dresden firebombings. And so on and so forth.

Despite whatever bullshit coloring book "creativity" you think you have, art isn't fucking canned goods, dispensed out of some irrelevant artist's ass. Works of art have a story behind them, a personal experience, an emotion, a setting, an enemy or a lover, or just a simple inclination towards something that breathes these things into being. Just because you in particular don't think it's important doesn't make it so. It just makes you a fucking peasant.

/wince

Oh Good God.   That was painful to read.

If you're going to be an asshole, at least be sincere about it. You're just being a smartass chump again. It wasn't painful.

And again: Fuck you too.

It WAS Painful, that above also was painful because it's really, really, really hard over the internet to comprehend just how lunatic you are.  You're completely missing the point (and, in fact, ignoring it) in order to make yourself RIGHT.

You CAN seperate the Art from the Artist.  It's about conception and comprehension and, frankly, if you require a 3000 word thesis on the life and times of Van Gogh to like his fucking piccies, then I have to wonder what kinda fucking irony beast is rampaging in your head to call ME a peasant.  (Oh and bravo on that too.  Groping for invective to sling and you come up with Peasant.  Waaaaay to prove my point about Art these days as being full of elitist arseholes and their handjob giving cronies.)

You're 3 Paragraphs up there are totally, totally, totally fucking irrelevant.

1 - "I do it all the time"  :  I put it to you that I could feed you a SHIT story about the artist and you'd wander away thinking you'd come to some grand conclusion.  You fucking Peasant.  Learn to think for yourself.  Appreciate the art for what it does FOR YOU.  It's YOUR interpretation.  And you know what ?  An Unmade Bed is just a fucking mess thrown about by some callous opinionated Cunt and then wanked over by other Callous opinionated Cunts that quite literally do it to keep themselves Relevant.

2 -  "I would never understand Van Gogh" :  You know what ?  You still fucking don't.  You have no idea what was going through his batshit little head and scanning the dry pages of the life and times of Gogh and where he fucking lived should do fuck all for you.  What should is 'Damn, that's a nice painting of some flowers'.

3 - "Life, History, Breathing the creation of fruits of my vagina with labours of many splendoured colours" :  I Put it to you that tons and tons of bad art can say the same.  Further, I put it that the guy who does your drywall or paves your road could say the same.  Come back and tell me it's art.

You're defending a position that's not right.  Unless, as discussed, you want to take an unknown peice of art from and unknown artist and dismiss it totally.  Which really, really, really makes you an elitist douchebag.



Or we could agree to disagree.  It's up to you.

[schild]

holy shit

did i just read art theory on f13

no really

i just lost the ability to capitalize

fuck you guys

i quit art theory when i quit being a teaching assistant for art theory

i mean really its a bunch of bullshit

seriously id know

now stfu

[Tebonas]

I know that feeling!

I went to a technical school and learned about electrical engineering. I hate everything regarding the hardware parts of electrical engineering now and work something as far away from that as I can.

[Ironwood]

Ok, THIS is for you then Schildly.

[Sky]

I was an art major for a while, too. And it always turned into this thread. I blame John Travolta.

[Murgos]

I took a 2 credit art appreciation class in college and I think I have a better understanding of art than either Ironwood or Stray.

But that's kind of the point of art, every asshole's opinion is valid.  Because, you know, it's a personal thing.  Art can be removed from the artist but also, art can be appreciated while having full knowledge of the artists history and intent, all at the same time and all in the same person.  It's not that difficult a concept.

I can appreciate that Sunflowers is one of the most idyllic and peaceful images every created by man.  I can also appreciate that it does this by not even looking really like a bowl of sunflowers.  I can also appreciate that this was created by a nut job who cut off his ear in a fit of passion and by all reports was seconds away from suicide most of his life.

The concepts aren't mutually exclusive.  The only person who doesn't 'get' art is the assmunch telling you that you don't get it.

[Triforcer]

I once saw a Campbell's soup can when I opened it and them somebody later said the can was involved in art somehow.  Therefore I know more about art than all of you.  I also cut my finger on the can.   

[Signe]

I once saw a Campbell's soup can when I opened it and them somebody later said the can was involved in art somehow.  Therefore I know more about art than all of you.  I also cut my finger on the can.   

I can understand suffering for your OWN art... but someone else's?  That's just daft.

[Morat20]

I once saw a Campbell's soup can when I opened it and them somebody later said the can was involved in art somehow.  Therefore I know more about art than all of you.  I also cut my finger on the can.   

I once pissed in the bathroom at the Uffizi. I think I understand art better than all of you.

[schild]

I could inflict pain in literary form in the likes of which none of you could ever imagine.

[Lantyssa]

I was a TA.  You cannot possibly write that poorly.

[Sky]

How cool! I like both T and A!

 

[Lantyssa]

Teaching Assistant.

[naum]

What does any of this have to do with Shadowbane?

[ahoythematey]

Because artists play to crush, not to sip chai tea?

[HaemishM]

No, it's because artists cut off their own ears over

sb.exe


RAGE

[bhodi]

Art..

I thought it was cool, so I dug this thread up.

[Ironwood]

Can you give me a little of the guys history and family tree so I can be impressed ?


In seriousness, I find that cool also.  And a little frightening.

[stray]

You called? :)


Seriously though, why do you keep singing that tune? Nothing I ever said had anything to do with charting out someone's personal life before I could dig their art. It was merely about attaching works of art to the people who made them.  Like, if I like something, then it's only natural for me to find more info on who made it, to find out what else they've done, to keep track on what they plan for the future, and to understand their perspective better (that is, if their works have some kind of inside joke or foreign reference).

Selby's original post made it seem like it was silly to be a fan of someone, and to keep on top of what they're doing -- And I was only making a statement against that. All of this other shit you keep on talking about is both unrealistic, irrelevant, and blown way out of proportion.

[EDIT] Damn man, this isn't even remotely "deep" or "complicated" or "quarrelsome" or what have you.

And your capacity to misconstrue all of this like I'm saying one needs to be acquainted with the artist first, before you even see their work, amazes me. You have to be an unnaturally cynical person to think I'm actually stupid enough to make that opinion. I wouldn't even project that on to a gashuffing retard.

[Ironwood]

You were making a statement of an absolute that was incorrect.

But hey, let's not do this again.

Let's instead repair to the Woot thread and take the piss out of SimuKaren's Donkey-like thighs.

[stray]

Fair enough.

Read my edit though. Whether I made some absolutes or not, I think you went too far away from what I was even trying to address.

[Selby]

Selby's original post made it seem like it was silly to be a fan of someone, and to keep on top of what they're doing

You misunderstood me.  My point was that it was silly to blindly hate someone's work despite it actually being "good" just because you didn't like the person as an artist or as a human being.  Uwe Boll was just a very extreme example of someone who generates such rage against his "work" which is mostly justified.  If he were to produce an actual good film, I would have no problem enjoying it.  But the odds of that are so low it's almost laughable based on his previous track record.

[stray]

Sorry for not understanding you. But yeah, Uwe is a horrible example really. It makes whatever point you're making that much harder to wrap my head around, I guess  

I'll be honest though: I would still hate his "good" film (if there ever was one). I'm pretty much inclined to hate anything he ever does at this point. I think that no matter what level of technical competence he reached, and no matter how well he executed something, his films would still suck. At best, they would just be well executed shit.

I don't believe that guy has any decent sense or good underlying ideas at all. If he did, then even his most poorly executed films would have shown some proof of that already. There are directors who created even worst fiascos than he has, but yet, some of them still had some cool things to say or show. They were shitty directors, but with some potential. Uwe Boll, on the other hand, is one of the directors who seems to be shitty on all fronts.