Subject:
|
Re: Ecce Homo -- Mel Gibson's Passion (more fluff, sorta...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:12:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
176 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
What flick would someone consider a ‘truly art’ from America?
Like “Citizen Kane” or the like?
|
Could you restate that please?
Are you asking for a list of films that might possibly rise to the level of
being called “art”? Does the list have to be composed of strictly american films
for some reason?
???
FWIW, I don’t actually subscribe to a definition of art that is actually that
high or elitist. At the same time I do think that some people have other, or
more serious, intent behind their work than to just make money. There’s nothing
wrong with making money, it’s just that it doesn’t often or necessarily lead to
the creation of something of lasting value. Of course, there are no absolutes
amongst the foregoing assertions...hence no high barrier for calling soemthing
“art.” From here we *might* distinguish some things as being low, middle, or
high art.
Do you want a list of films that could be considered “high” art?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
22 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
|
|
|
|
