|
| Thread: Commercialization and Socialization of Art |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted June 13, 2004 03:48 PM |
|
|
Commercialization and Socialization of Art
Aren't you sick of commercial block-buster movies aimed to suck the people dry and artisticly don't posess any value? Don't you just hate reading about how a dumba$$ such as Jeniffer Lopez or Leonardo Di Caprio are one of the richest people in USA? Can you stand reading how they hoard the hard-earned money by American workers, or even more how they ruthlessly spend it?
What drives the movie industry today? It's the free market of course. Art is even named industry, which I find totally degrading. This inevitably creates large-scale commercialization and supresses the true visionary artists. They are unable to finance their movies because often production companies are skeptical about their innovative ideas and prefer to invest big money in a box-office movie that they are sure would bring back the money and hopefully multiply them. OK, one could say, I don't see a problem with few people earning some money. But the problem is huge. Whose pockets get empty while these people earn money? It's those of the people all around the world, those who have worked hard to earn them, mostly middle-class and poor people. And what do they get in return? An expensive "cheap" movie that only works in the service of the cultural propaganda, and keeps the level of public culture low; in fact lower and lower as time gets by (just look at all these reality shows, kitch and distaste that rules in show-business). People are just caught in a magical circle that they can't get out of until free market still drives the movie industry and roughly said: The get dumber and dumber every day. What's even more worse is that the movie industry doesn't produce any expendable goods and the money those people get, thanks to the capitalist system, is highly disproportional to the amount of labor they invested. Bottom line, no good comes from it; it's just a method to transfer big money in the pockets of a handful of people.
Time for a revolution, comrades! If you are against all that I described, you should join us, socialists  , and establish a better order, at least in the field of art. Also, this thread is for all of you out there that don't have any idea what socialism stands for (and there are many), and die-hard capitalists alike. I invite you all to criticize this theoretical socilist model and compare the two and see which is better.
There are two crucial components of the socialist model (modified by Svarog slightly  ). First, the center that would dictate all art (movies in particular; but it can be applied to all kinds of art) would be true artists and not the mass public, and second, the removal of the commercial and capitalist logic from the process of making and selling movies.
Private production companies would be forbidden (or at least severly limited in funds; for which I'll talk later) and the money for the movies would come from the government budget mainly and maybe organizations and companies that volunteerly would offer additional funding. Each year, artists (screenplay writers) or group of artists (entire casting team) would apply with projects to an independent body, composed of proffecional artists (film critics, actors, directors etc.) that would have to meet high standards in order to enter that Academy. That Academy would have the power to decide which of the proposed movies would be given money for production, guided by strict artistical standards and general public interest alike. That way, not every crap of a money-boosting movie would have the horrible destiny to see the light of the day.
Certainly, there's the possibility that this Academy could be closed for revolutionary and underground movies (i.e. independent production), for which there has to be found a mechanism also to be produced. The current one is OK, but I'm thinking about finding ways to improve it. Alsmost always, they are cheap, so as I mentioned, production companies oriented towards independent (Academy independent, that is) artists would be allowed to work, but with limited funds per movie, so that labeling block-busters as independent is avoided. In addition, an establishment of another Acedemy with underground and independent artists could be of some help.
However, the somewhat free market would have to be maintained in the field of technical proffessionals assigned to work on the movies. That way a competition would arise for the best people in the business, but their income would also be limited from the factors described in the following paragraphs.
How will the artists and movie workers be paid? Three instances of income would exist. First, all artists that would apply with at least one project per year, would get a guaranteed minimum income, on the rank of the job they do (not minimal as "minimal on state level"). Second, all those who get permision to shoot, would get a minor percentage reserved for salaries (strictly determined, that would not cross a top limit of say, 200,000$ per person) from the money given as the budget of the movie. And thirdly, a minor percentage (also strictly determined, with a top limit) from the assests of the movie earned from its distribution in cinemas and around the world, as a reward for being praised by the Academy and the public at the same time.
Almost all the incomes from the distribution and sell of movie rights would go in the govennment budget (not for salaries of the Academy, in order to keep them away from dependance of their decisions by the masses). However, those incomes would be kept fairly medium, since the government would try to keep the prices of the movies low enough for all people to afford them, so the evident result would be flourishing of the art.
In the end, what would the consequences of imlementing a socialist model be? It would keep the scums that are only there for the money away from movies. The restoration of the term art, instead of industry; restoration of true artistic standards, and the general advancement in public cuture and awareness. Qulity rather than quantity, and low prices so that they increase the number of people who go to the cinema. And last but not least, end of the Hollywood farce with movie "stars" living as seperate kind aside from the other "mortals". And no more "Jeniffer loves to sh!t in golden toilets only" headlines. 
Viva La Revolucion!
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
posted June 13, 2004 05:21 PM |
|
|
The people like it..
Maybe not a cultural "elite" but they are so few so their views dont really matter.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 13, 2004 06:24 PM |
|
|
People may like whatever you serve them (if you serve it properly). What I'm talking here is about what is in their greatest interest.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 13, 2004 07:26 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 19 Jun 2004
|
It's A Good Point
You make a good point Svarog. I can assure you that it is nothing more than a capitalistic venture made by a media-using superstar. On occasion the famous person will actually realize they have the power to change the world for the better but that is very rare. Usually we americans get to see them scurrying for the easiest way to avoid the new tax bracket that they will find themselves in. Haha, it's really sort of humorous to watch. Once a person becomes as famous as Jennifer Lopez or the like then the government taxes them the most. To avoid such heavy taxation they try to legally get rid of their monies by giving it away to charities as quickly as they can. Charity donations are non-taxable and thus bring the person's gross income down to a reasonable tax bracket.
These movie stars and pop-singer-stars simply utilize the modern day's greatest propaganda tools. They don't really have any political sway with the people. In fact you will find them often forgetting this and then the government will step in and give them a swift kick in the arse to remind them that they are simply "entertainers" and not politicians.
This is not to say, however, that the clout of the superstar is ignored. Politicians realize this and regularly use the superstars at fund-raising events to help fund political campaigns.
Bottom line = superstars are usually selfish persons on a vanity scale equal to clear narcissism. They may have made serious politicians turn their heads in recognition in the 70's and 80's but not today. That's why rappers aren't as popular anymore. Most people realize they are simply trying to get more money, as opposed to trying to help further world peace or something honorable like that.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Daddy
Responsible
Supreme Hero
and why not.
|
|
posted June 14, 2004 12:04 AM |
|
|
Well, you're quite right with what you say, Svarog.
TV gets worse and Cinema more boring with every new movie (OK, exceptions exist). And besides, it gets more expensive, too. (once 10DM, now nearly 10€!)
And when I read how much money such Teen-Idol_Superstars, casted by dumb TV-shwos, got, ich could vomit 
Or that Basketball-Pro, who got a 5m² bed and a gym in his house....
Why don't those people give their money to me instaed of buying such useless things?
regards
Daddy
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 14, 2004 01:44 AM |
|
|
Hey Consis, welcome to the HC Cominterna.
My post dealt more with the way the whole system should work, but you made an excellent depiction of how morally-corrupted and unworthy the superstars are today; another reason why we should get rid of them.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 14, 2004 03:27 PM |
|
|
Well Svarog, I mainly agreed with your post, but being a liberal-democrat-socialist, I would like to see some kind of mechanism designed to secure the freedom of speech in your system, since "artists" may be tempted to make their works of art in a way that the government may like. Or that the government (or this Academy of yours) will only accept certain kinds of "messages" in art.
This is maybe the greatest problem in our favorite ideology: That Marx made his theories before the breakthrough of the modern democracy, and that the leading socialist country in the world in most of the 20th century, was a country with no democratic tradition, and that this country's leading ideologist (Lenin) lacked the wit to understand that there cannot be a truely egalitarian society without democracy.
Because in the end, ther is only three "ultimately good values": Democracy, Human Rights and Socialism.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted June 14, 2004 03:50 PM |
|
|
Ever heard the saying, "Don't touch snow because it smells"? Nah, prolly not
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
posted June 15, 2004 06:17 PM |
|
|
Are you being rude?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted June 16, 2004 12:56 AM |
|
|
Svarog thats all very nice but there are two problems...
First of all i'm generaly againts goverments , or any other institution, interfirence into the world of art. Artist should should not make things for money, but still he/she should be absolutly free to do whatever he/she wants. The idea of some academy controling what movies should be made sincerly discustes me.
Second thing is that this kind movie "industri" would work only inside well established socialist/comunist country.
Democracy needs the midle class drones, and the movie industri is just one (of the bigest) way of influencing/controling them. They would never give up of such a good and in the same time subtle method of control.
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 16, 2004 10:43 AM |
|
|
Sadly, that is so true...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2004 12:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Aren't you sick of commercial block-buster movies aimed to suck the people dry and artisticly don't posess any value?
No.In fact I`m glad they exsist, because they make it
more easier to distinguish between people of good taste and
those who enjoy new Jennifer soap operas.
Anyway here`s some quotes about fame, and famous people:
"Fame is a fickle food, on a shifting plate.""
Emily Dickinson
"The reason I`m in showbusiness , I assume all performers are – it`s “Look at me, I`m on top of the world Ma!"
Lenny Bruce
"Famous people are very traumatized individuals with a deep-seated sense of unworthiness… They believe that fame will mean a end to pain, and acces to love."
Pamela Helen Connolly
"Celebrity distorts democray by giving the rich, beautiful, and famous more authority than they deserve"
Maureen Dowd
____________
Truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 16, 2004 12:49 PM |
|
|
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but cry.
I mean, I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
Mariah Carey, 31.january 2000.
To quote Pink Floyd: "Is it anybody out there?"
Or, "Is anybody home?"
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 16, 2004 01:44 PM |
|
|
Terje and Shirastro thank you for your feedback. Woock, thank you for your totally off-topic uninventive spam.
Quote:
I would like to see some kind of mechanism designed to secure the freedom of speech in your system, since "artists" may be tempted to make their works of art in a way that the government may like. Or that the government (or this Academy of yours) will only accept certain kinds of "messages" in art.
BIg difference fella. It's not the government the one that would decide, but an independent body of artists and proffessionals.
Still, it narrows somewhat the direction of thought the artists would take in order to fit the standards of the Academy. I can see your point. But, even that is better than going for commercialization, populism and low values. Also, I don't think that those people in the Academy would be narrow-minded or closed for new-ideas, since being a legitimate body of proffessionals, they are a projection of an entire generation, school of artists, the best of the best at that point in that place.
In addition, i mentioned the devices that would support the underground movies, in case they are rejected by the Academy.
Compare that (I know it's not perfect) with today's system where the artists are entirely dependant on the common men's taste (i.e. teenagers mostly) and the companies' funding, and at least for me the choice is obvious.
Quote:
That Marx made his theories before the breakthrough of the modern democracy, and that the leading socialist country in the world in most of the 20th century, was a country with no democratic tradition, and that this country's leading ideologist (Lenin) lacked the wit to understand that there cannot be a truely egalitarian society without democracy. Because in the end, ther is only three "ultimately good values": Democracy, Human Rights and Socialism.
I don't know why people can't understand. Socialism is not in contradiction with democracy. It's an economic system, an order of society and has nothing to the with the government system. There can be a socialist country ruled by dictator or by the people in the most direct democratic way.
Maybe the misconceptions arise because so far there haven't been such examples (unfortunately) and hence the paranoia from anything leftist. The reasons for these dictators emerging in socialist countries are many (mainly the revolutionary establishment of socialism instead of democratic), but it is nothing dependant on the nature of socialism itself.
There are absolutely no problems or "lack of wits" in Marx and Lenin. Their theories hold water now and for the many centuries to come. Lenin was not in favor of dictators, but due to the specific historical conditions then, a lack of democracy was necessary.
But have in mind that a wide populist democracy is not always the best solution. Because people (as long as they are uneducated) often don't go for the best, but for the one that decieved them the most (such as it would be in this particular movie case).
Quote:
Artist should should not make things for money, but still he/she should be absolutly free to do whatever he/she wants. The idea of some academy controling what movies should be made sincerly discustes me.
Yeah, I'm all for that too. But in reality, free-minded artists are not rich people so that they can afford making any movie they'd choose. Someone has to finance them, and unless you find a better way, I believe this is the best.
Quote:
Democracy needs the midle class drones, and the movie industri is just one (of the bigest) way of influencing/controling them. They would never give up of such a good and in the same time subtle method of control.
True. I didn't for a one moment belive that the government would give up of it. It just goes in their favor and in favor of those few rich people and so called "artist" that prey upon the little people.
However, I suppose you know that in smaller countries, where there is no movie indutry, governments fund the movies with their tiny assets from the budget, and truly artisitc movies are being made. Also, coproductions play their role too. As an example, I can say that this year, the cinematography (financed by coproductions and somewhat from the government) in Macedonia will produce only several movies, but all of them are of great artisitic quality and are expected to win many awards on international festivals. They even hope for an Oscar.
As far as celebreties are concerned, I say: Off with their heads.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 16, 2004 03:32 PM |
|
|
Well we do have something of a state supported movie industry via the Lottery and so on, however I don't really think it works very well.
On the issue of your suggestion, given the experience with our art in this country I would suggest that the system you suggest would still stiffle different ideas. What you are suggesting is trading popular art for art which artists say is good, talented. The experience here is that this leads to even more rubbish in the form of modern art, because the "elite" tells us it is art. That would be the danger in your suggestion about movies, elite movie makers telling us that this movie is the best thing since sliced bread, but 90% of the public think it's unwatchable tripe.
IMO some form of balance would be needed in that system between public demand and artistic desire. The public will not go and see a movie purely because some artist says it's really deep and meaningful The balance is needed to ensure that movies retain some degree of interest for the public. Personally I would rather support heavily the artistic side of movies through a similar system to yours (without state control) and leave the movie system as it is than enforce on the public movies that the cultural elite tells the public are good.
The public would never accept that they should be forced to watch only what is artistically determined "art" by some critic. Nor should they be either, movies should be about choice and variety to some degree. I agree that our artistic movies should be supported more and promoted more so that they both get made and are seen, but this is people's leisure time we're talking about, they have the right to spend it as they wish. If they wish to go and see Lethal Weapon 28 rather than The Hours, then so be it, what we need to do is support more movies like The Hours and the smaller movies, and promote their release more, subsidise their sales more.
The public are entitled to choice is what I'm saying, American Pie might not be any better artistically than one of your Macedonian movies, but it will be likely to be more popular, and no knee-jerk reaction to this is likely to win the public over.
Further the system would need to be adopted throughout at least the western world, otherwise the whole shebang would merely move to another country and produce there in oder to be paid more and recieve freedom.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 16, 2004 07:15 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 16 Jun 2004
|
I Agree With PrivateHudson
Freedom of Art Subjectivity
He's right you know, not about the unwatchable tripe part, but the overall agenda that is already present world-wide. As I recall history shows that many ancient and not so ancient rulers have tried what Svarog is suggesting. That is why we have the system of today. Those ancient hands-on approaches to something as subjective as art were ineffective.
I think that if the world is to progress in a steady fashion then it would need the freedom and the space to grow. Thinking outside the box is what art is all about in my opinion. We all have our own condensed ideas and opinions. When a great piece comes along, usually what makes it so great is that it is able to successfully bring the appreciator along into its own point of view, thus taking us to another level of understanding. Acknowledgment need only be by the poor and uneducated but it is still a great accomplishment none the less.
As difficult as it is to say for me, even Jerry Springer has a place among the world of art. I think his show is the modern day Chaucer(if you will please forgive me for taking such a bold leap to comparison). It's called tastless humor among those who shun it but I can't ignore its popularity, as PrivateHudson was alluding to about the "American Pie" reference(at least I think he was).
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted June 16, 2004 11:22 PM |
|
|
I agree. The public decides what is art. If not for people buying her records, Jennifer Lopez would not be popular; she would not be high art.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 17, 2004 01:55 AM |
|
|
I'm sorry guys. A capital disagreement here.
PH, first of all, supporting the artistic movies is good, but by leaving the current commercialization going,
first, not much effect will come out of the artistic movies
and second, the extremely negative effects of the commercial movies would still be in place.
By prefering the commercial movies over the "rubbish in the form of modern art", you are only, in my opinion, putting yourself in the service of the dangerous propaganda and brain-wash, and the economical exploitation that is exercised on the masses. That was the intention of my first paragraph, to underline the negative influence commercial movies have on the global mind.
Second, I don't think that popular movies would be abandoned, but simply they would be given a sort of "Visa" by the Academy whether or not a particular movie fulfils the basic artistic standards. After all, the movie makers would be motivated to a certain extent to produce such movies since they'd get a small but proportional cash bonus for a movie that is sold well.
Also, the so called Academy would not be a group of loonatics or avantgarde wackoes, but a body of preffessionals and artists that would have sense for the common interest of the people. Just take the American Academy for example, the films they prefer are not of the highest artistic quality, but they are decent enough, as opposed to a whole pile of crappy expensive movies, that only horny teenagers and brain-washed people would watch.
I think the difference between mine and your point of view would be that I believe that movies such as "The day after Tomorrow" or "Lethal Weapon" should not even exist, because all they do is brain-wash, destroy brain cells, take time and suck money. Not even for leasure, since under the disguise for leasure and fun lies a rotten propaganda, that is suicidal for the one that consumes it. I believe it's better the people to stay without "leasure" and turn to themselves for a moment, than be the victims of such ruthless cultural degradation.
Consis,
Quote:
I think that if the world is to progress in a steady fashion then it would need the freedom and the space to grow. Thinking outside the box is what art is all about in my opinion.
Precisely. And if you follow me, that's exactly what I'm trying to achieve here. Thinking outside the box (or screen)
Quote:
We all have our own condensed ideas and opinions. When a great piece comes along, usually what makes it so great is that it is able to successfully bring the appreciator along into its own point of view, thus taking us to another level of understanding. Acknowledgment need only be by the poor and uneducated but it is still a great accomplishment none the less.
No, our mission should be to enlighten the "poor and uneducated", not to leave them in cultural darkness and one-sided view of things. The "acknowledgment they
give to a work of art" would be more along the lines of "Yeah, he kicked their f***in as$es!", than what you're trying to say here. And I can't see how can this kind of acknowledgment bring you to an another level of understanding, which I agree, should be the "mission" of art.
Quote:
As difficult as it is to say for me, even Jerry Springer has a place among the world of art. .... It's called tastless humor among those who shun it but I can't ignore its popularity, as PrivateHudson was alluding to about the "American Pie" reference(at least I think he was).
Hail Jerry - the Picasso of the 21st century! Calling Jerry an artist, I'm sure would make many artists kill themselves.
I don't say we should ignore their popularity, I say we should destroy their popularity. Popularity does not imply anything, and to the lowest degree, it implies quality. It holds no value by itself whatsoever in my opinion.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 17, 2004 02:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
PH, first of all, supporting the artistic movies is good, but by leaving the current commercialization going,
first, not much effect will come out of the artistic movies
But by destroying to a large degree the popular form of movie you merely reverse the trend into a system whereby movies become more akin to opera or theatre, mostly enjoyed by a cultural elite that look down on the other forms of entertainment.
Quote:
By prefering the commercial movies over the "rubbish in the form of modern art", you are only, in my opinion, putting yourself in the service of the dangerous propaganda and brain-wash, and the economical exploitation that is exercised on the masses.
I don't prefer commercial movies, I happen to like both for different reasons, I do though think that enforcing some state or artistic notion of what a movie should be on the public will never work. Attempts to run art either by the state or by the cultural elite of art do not work, believe me, when you look through the galleries of modern day Britain that uses a state/artist run system in some cases what you get is utter rubbish. Nice theory, but it has never worked in practice. Whilst you may begin with an ideal of non-avant garde and so on sooner or later the inevitable snobbery and corruption rears it's ugly head.
Quote:
That was the intention of my first paragraph, to underline the negative influence commercial movies have on the global mind.
I don't think they have that much of a negative effect. People want to see these movies because they want sometimes to be entertained, not to be artistically bowled over or blown away by a thought provoking movie. It's their choice, not the choice of the artist. Any negative effect can be fought much more effectively through higher levels of support. An example, you link American teenage movies (say American pie) as being an example of brainwashing. I watch this movie, I happen to like it, not because I am brainwashed, but because I like a laugh sometimes in movies. If I want to watch a serious war movie I catch Das Boot or Private Ryan. If I want to be amused by war (black comedy) I watch Kelly's Heroes. People don't watch movies purely to be stunned by artistic content or brilliant lighting. They watch sometimes because they want a laugh, a woman might watch one of those Jenifer Lopez movies to feel good. Labelling such movies as "enemy of the art and propaganda" makes you sound amusingly like propaganda of your own.
Quote:
I think the difference between mine and your point of view would be that I believe that movies such as "The day after Tomorrow" or "Lethal Weapon" should not even exist, because all they do is brain-wash, destroy brain cells, take time and suck money.
Expand on how this occurs please. Take time and money I grant you, however people want to be entertained, not artistically astounded. Bite them Your theory would destroy the popularity of movies in return for making them an art form to please an elite. Not viable IMO.
Quote:
Not even for leasure, since under the disguise for leasure and fun lies a rotten propaganda, that is suicidal for the one that consumes it. I believe it's better the people to stay without "leasure" and turn to themselves for a moment, than be the victims of such ruthless cultural degradation.
What victims? People aren't so stupid as to only watch American Pie and Die Hard if they want culture you know! People who want variety seek it out and make sure they watch it. Censoring entertainment based on what a small elite group says is artistically pleasant is just not sensible. If you wish to take something people use for entertainment and ruin that entertainment purely to make it "art" then you've already destroyed the whole point many people go to see movies. As amusing as the theory is, the solution would be the death of the movie as popular entertainment and see it compete with the likes of opera just to amuse the cultural elite who can't stand seeing movies that they don't enjoy or wish to see.
Quote:
Second, I don't think that popular movies would be abandoned, but simply they would be given a sort of "Visa" by the Academy whether or not a particular movie fulfils the basic artistic standards. After all, the movie makers would be motivated to a certain extent to produce such movies since they'd get a small but proportional cash bonus for a movie that is sold well.
No, but your suggestion is that movies would be more chosen for their artistic merits than what appeals to the public, ie the public's will would be supplanted by what artists tell us is art. Reducing the number of "popular" movies will do little more than drive many people away from movies altogether as it becomes more of an elite pastime.
Furthermore your theory as I have pointed out is no more than a pipe dream if it is not enforced over most countries in the world with a movie industry. You might as well try and get England to win the European Championships for 10 years
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 17, 2004 02:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There are absolutely no problems or "lack of wits" in Marx and Lenin.
I didn't say that. I said that it was Lenin who had a screw loose, not Marx. Marx is perhaps the greatest thinker since Kant, IMO.
But Lenins implementation of elitism into socialism was so totally messed up, and contradicts everything socialism stands for. I've seen him called "the destructor of the greatest ideology of freedom since Paulus", and in many ways, I agree with that. Lenin was the grandfather of the facist ideology of Stalinism, and that can't be overlooked.
My apologies for this little distraction, but ideologies and such is something which interests me very much, but it's not what this thread is about, so...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
| |
|
|
