Subject:
|
Re: How to decide what art is worth (was Re: Extropianism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Aug 1999 06:32:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
917 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:37BF2A50.B6DC182E@voyager.net...
>
> I'll grant that they may well have changed the endings. But what of it?
> Who is to say that the ending they chose is "lower quality"? How do you
> define quality in this context?
Quality takes time and effort. You can't just throw something together and
have it be quality, unless you're some kind of genius. In films, quality
can be seen through lots of things, like proper use of lighting, the right
type of film, actors who can act, a plot that is coherent, solid cultural
and historic ties, a powerful message, etc. The new endings were lower
quality because they specifically sacrifice character development, character
depth, and some ultimate truths about life for the sake of a buck.
> George Lucas is free to choose to organize his films however he chooses,
> and if he decides to make an ending that will be popular with many, why
> is that "wrong"? If you don't like the ending and would have preferred a
> different one, don't go. But stop being elitist by insisting that a sad
> ending is somehow "better" than a happy one.
I did not say that. That's the second time in two days you've specifically
read my comments incorrectly and then hammered me for them. Do you have a
reading comprehension problem or are you trying to turn me into some kind of
straw man? Sometimes a happy ending is good, but sometimes the only way to
get a happy ending is to ignore character and plot development.
Lucas isn't wrong for pandering to the masses, he's just less of a
filmmaker. He's obviously in it for the buck, not to be a great filmmaker.
Yet if there's anyone out there who could say "screw the bucks I've got
plenty," it's Lucas. Even by RotJ he was a wealthy man. By TFM, he was an
exteremely wealthy man, but he still pandered to the children with Jar-Jar
and sacrificed a lot of character development in order to tie 18 plot lines
together. Lucas needs to spend less time pandereing to the audience and
weaving racist stereotypes into his films and spend more time being a good
filmmaker.
> We're talking about entertainment here, after all, not the NEA, which
> loots from the taxpayer to fund what it feels "proper" art should be.
> Pah. Talk about elitist! We're not fit to judge what proper art is, but
> we have to pay for it anyway.
I do not support the NEA, so I hope you're not implying that I do. I don't
have a problem with art being a matter of supply and demand. I don't like
paying for someone else's idea of art that to me is lunatic fringe at best.
But I do draw a line between popular and quality. 95% of today's teens know
who Brittney Spears is, but probably have never heard of Dvorac, or
Beethoven, or even John Williams. Does that make Spears' work higher
quality?
> Art that cannot find a buyer is valueless, **by definition**, because
> the value of a thing is exactly what a willing buyer will give up to
> possess it. If no one wants it, it has no value.
Value and quality are two different things. If everyone woke up tomorrow
and decided that they didn't want their Bach, would he become a low-quality
composer? I don't think so. Quality, to a large degree, can be measured.
Jesse
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
49 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
