Subject:
|
Re: How to decide what art is worth (was Re: Extropianism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:11:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
992 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Are you arguing that the endings were lower quality because you feel
> that they were not true to the character development that preceded them?
I would argue that. I would also say that while the market _is_ what
should determine what gets made, it's not the same as an objective
quality metric. It's a popularity metric. Due to preferences and
finances and whole slew of other variables, quality isn't always what
people want to buy. I suspect that I could repeatedly pull two obscure
paintings (sculptures, short films, whatever) together and have a random
group assess their 'value' or 'quality' and we would find that those
assessments don't particularly correlate with gallery sales.
> Your perogative, but it may or may not be the opinion of others. Or are
> you arguing that the endings were lower quality because they had lower
> production values? Nope...
They were lower quality because decent art shows a piece of the
creator's heart and when an artist changes that for mass appeal, it is
more sterile. In the case of the two movies sited, I have no particular
knowledge to support or refute the claim that those were the original
endings, but I think I like them better too.
> > 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.
>
> Well, what does it mean exactly, to be a "great filmmaker"? How do you
> judge, if not by how much the film is valued? And the objective measure
> of its value is the gross.
I'm more comfortable with the distinction between artist and craftsman
than the distinction between great filmmaker and money-grubbing hack. I
think that the more a movie maker works to produce his true vision
(possibly at the expense of revenue) the closer to the artist label he
falls. The more he lets go of his own vision in order to capture
revenue, the more of a craftsman he is. In my opinion.
That said, not every movie has to be a work of art. The ones that are,
we in my household refer to as films and the ones that aren't we call
flicks. I like some of each.
> > 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.
>
> That would never happen, but if it did, I would think that the GP
> perceived him to be of low quality even if you and I didn't.
I disagree. I think that most teens don't like Bach (JS, CPE, or
another?) but are comfortable stating that it is of high quality and
just not their thing. Again I think that the market isn't about judging
quality. Also, since it's not an all-or-nothing deal, who cares? I can
go to CDNOW or wherever and buy my Bach and I can buy art films when I
want to. Not everything needs to by high quality.
> 1 - I gotta be careful here, or I am going to be defending the WWF! Ack.
You've already defended the MN governor.
--Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
