|
| Thread: Commercialization and Socialization of Art |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted June 19, 2004 04:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
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.
OK, first of all, painting has never been such a popular type of art, so you can't expect to make teenage gathering points out of galleries no matter how commercial they are (unless porn of course  )
But I have to disagree about the other types of art.
Theatre, as you say an only for the cultural elite, has a great popularity here in Macedonia. Many young people go in theatres, because it's too cheap and of good quality.
The actors live like ordinary men and the directors and screenwriters are paid modestly. But what they do, they do it from love. And our plays participate in many festivals and are win awards (not commercial). Surprisingly for a government sponsored system, right?
Who mentioned anything about destroying the entertainment role of movies? I dont know why you think that art and entertainment are two opposits and cannot coexist with each other.
There are constantly numerous excellent revisions about comedies. "American Pie" had really good critics when it came out. However, "American Pie 6" would be something that the Academy would be here to prevent.
Shrek 2 was considered one of the best movies on this years Cannes festival.
Belive me, proffessionals know what is entertaining and what is not. And they don't overlook the primary role of art - to entertain and enlighten.
Tell me, when you read movie recensions do you agree usually? I do, although a good movie doesn't necessarilly have to impress me and vice versa.
I think you're exaggerating the effect that this system would have on movies, and at the same time underestimating the effect that bad movies would have on people.
Freedom is a good argument, but nourishing cultural and economical exploitation under the disguise of freedom and democracy, is not real freedom.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Marelt_Ekiran
Promising
Famous Hero
Watcher of All
|
|
posted June 19, 2004 09:53 AM |
|
|
A bit of a capitalist voice is needed here.
I think that this is once again a case of "the market decides". Being a hedonist, I believe that happiness is one of the two ultimate goals in life (I'm not going into the other). So the primary goal of movies is to make people happy. Therefore, you could send out the biggest crap that you want and if people like it, then it has served it's purpose.
The primary reason that art exists is to entertain people. If no one is entertained by a piece of art, then it is absolutely worthless, regardless of the amount of thought and deeper meaning that was put into it. And once again, the majority decides. A small group of elite artists will always have a very different perception as to what is good and entertaining art. Groups of elite film criticists have named certain movies as best ever, while 90% of the population has never even heard about them. So that movie hasn't done more than please a few nitpickers, which isn't really a significant achievement, in my opinion.
If the news that Jennifer Lopez has taken up the habit of using golden-seated toilets produces entertainment, and therefore happiness amongst people, then it has done it's purpose. And once again, money never appears out of nothing. There must be some form of service that is capable of backing up the enourmous gain of these people. If Jennifer sells an awful lot of movies and CD's to achieve her gains, then it is a justified income of money. What they do with it is their own business, and capitalism says that it should be spend in order to keep companies in business and providing people with job. So far, I don't see a single problem here.
In defence of the intelligence of the masses, bad movies and endless sequels do get sabled down by critics and usually don't do as well in the box office. But still, if the Terminator 3 gets a large outcome, providing entertainment for the masses, then it has achieved its purpose.
That is the glory of capitalism. It takes human nature as a base and adapts on it. Socialism on the other hand takes an idea on paper as a base and tries to adapt human nature to it, which doesn't work. Not all people want to become elite film critics who see the deeper meaning in movies. If they want easy entertainment, then they can get it. If the nitpicking film critic wants a good movie, it is out there. The input of resources is just directly proportional to the gain, and the smaller the audience, the lower this is.
By the way, Marx is in my top ten list of biggest asses to ever walk the face of this planet. His only concern was to overthrow the government, without a clear idea on what to do next.
____________
Perception is everything.
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted June 19, 2004 07:39 PM |
|
|
This topic started out nicely, but you pissed me off now. The heck you know what art is for. Art has no meaning or purpuse, and your so called entertaining "art" is nothing but shallow.
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 19, 2004 07:56 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 19 Jun 2004
|
Sigh.......
Quote:
Art has no meaning or purpose....
I wish I could convince you otherwise.
Art gives me meaning to life. It reminds me that people each have their own piece of beauty. It reminds me that life is worth living. It covers the entire spectrum of human emotions.
The Truth In Art
Art is life and life is art
To know this is to know we are truly magnificent on the inside
What wondrous beauty awaits the person who sees their true self
Forever it shall be and forever shall we see
All that needs be is to open our eyes and our hearts
To the never ending sea of hope and beauty
~written by Consis~
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted June 19, 2004 08:21 PM |
|
|
Done by Marcel Duchamp
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 19, 2004 08:36 PM |
|
|
I never really liked the Dadaists, but their message was clear and innovative at the time, a nihilist protest against all the conventional standards of Western art. And I respect that.
My one and only argument against Marelt's post is the one about freedom. If he doesn't believe that the present system breeds economical and cultural ruthless exploitation, then there's no point to discuss it further.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
