Quote:
Originally posted by PerfectionGirls
Joe... people become artist so they can entertain and for teh love of there art.. I did not give a rats ass if the people who came to hear us perfom knew anything about my craft. My only hope was that they were entertained and maybe even moved by our performace. Most of them had no idea the years of effort and the mechanics that went into our performace. They just wanted to hear the music and to be entertained.
Thats how I view movies... I dont care about all the years of training or the writing or the "artistic" value of the film. I want to have a huge tub of popcorn and a Pepsi and enjoy the movie. Its called entertainment and I like it.
|
What were you playing? Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi? I bet you weren't playing something that was put together by a bunch of money-hungry executives whose job security is based upon how well their next film/piece of music does financially. I'm sorry mate but art and commerce DO NOT mix. Never have, never will.
Of course there are American film artists. The Coen Brothers, David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, P.T. Andersen, Hal Hartley... and many others. But these guys are writer/directors. Their body of work makes sense as a whole. Just like looking at Van Gogh's work as a whole makes sense in the context of his life. Or Mozart's.
You can call Hollywood films what you want. Entertainment? Sure. I might disagree. But when I go to the movies, I probably see films a little differently than you. That's not to claim superiority, that's just because that's where my interest and my knowledge lies. I'm sure you hear a classical concert differently to me because you understand music theory to a greater degree than I do. But Hollywood films are very rarely art. Mostly, they're products, put together by people whose job it is to make money for the studio. There's no artistic process. There's simply commercial concerns.
Your comparison doesn't quite make sense to me. You claim not to care about "years of training" but surely you can tell the difference between a musician who has been playing his instrument for a year and one who has been playing it for thirty? It's all in the craftsmanship, the artistry, the subtleties. You claim not to care about the "writing" but isn't this just "composition"? Surely you can tell the difference between something ordinary and something inspired or magical when it comes to musical composition? You claim not to care about the "artistic value" of films. So why is art important at all? You called music an art and I agree it is an art. If you don't care about a film's "artistic value" then you are saying you don't care about art at all. Or maybe you just put your art above all others. What would you think if some guy said to you after one of your concerts "Yeah man, it was okay but i can't dance to your stuff." That's what you are sounding like to me. Don't denigrate film as art because you don't understand what makes it artistic.