all 36 plots
saint benton of the one-winged dove
needed to get into a Project of Import. This was part of the campain to
keep kids off of drugs. Now, I ca say with some certainty that no
school project ever kept anyone from at least trying drugs to see how
they liked them if they were presented. That aside, the School Wide Project
was that all the students were to compose a theme and make a poster with
the idea "The future and world is in our hands because we are the future."
behind it. I suppose that the designers of the anti-drug campaign figured
that if kids were making posters, they wouldn't feel like lighting up
a spliff or huffing airplane glue.[1]
The anti-drug campains of my youth were hysterical, second only to
the anti-se^Wsex-education program in pure humor value. The level of
intensity of the people that put on the anti-drug program was scary.
The police had special community outreach officers and they had
tshirts and rallys. They made everything sound so spooky and the world
of illicit drug taking very scary. They gave the impression that if
you so much looked cross-eyed at a bag of herb, you were going to end
up a junkie on Alpa Road[2]. The problem with those programs being that
it makes it all more naughty and forbidden, and teenagers like to do
naughty and forbidden things. The sex education program was a little
more informative, because at least sex wasn't illegal, but as a
concequence of the sex ed program, I now have the failure rates for
every concievable type of birth control tattooed on my brainstem. When
I am in the nursing home, humming the legend to zelda theme, I'll
punctuate it with babbling about the advantages and disadvantages of
using the diaphram. Of course, birth control information is pretty
much useless for me, except as party trivia, but that is beside the
point.
Going back to the original thread, the people of the school were
instucted to make these posters and write our paper. Now, being young
and enthusiastic (( as opposed to being young and cynical, like I am
now )) I bubbled over with ideas to express my meger artistic talents
on said poster. As people filed out of the auditorium, I heard
various throngs of people talk about what they were planning on doing,
and in about sixty seconds, I got to hear every idea that I had
thought of.
It was then I learned that there wasn't anything new under the sun. No
matter how good you think your idea is, someone has already thought
of it, and could probably do a better job of it than you could.
I ended up avoiding the activity completely, though a bit of deft
pleading and whinging with the person that would have been responsible
for collecting mine.
I didn't do it because I didn't think that it would have been fun of
my motovation, but because I would have to compare whatever I had performed
later with other people, who had the same ideas that I had had and far
greater talents than me, and their work singled out for approval, I would
be compared and found wanting.
Now, if I had been able to come up with an idea that no one else had
for the theme, I would have been original and there would be no comparison
with other's because while we had been performing the same activity, my
work would be sufficently distinct from others that it would be of it's
own merit on pure originality.
But, there ain't nothing new under the sun. All the themes are used, and
all stories can be reduced to variations on the same 36 plots. All
characters and situations you can buy for the price of a deck of tarot
cards and a book of Grimm's fairy tales.
I think that is why some people try to strive for originality, because
things that are truely original are rare. People preen themselves on being
different from others, but if you dig into archtypes enough and flip
open a copy of the DSM-III you can reduce their distinctions to variations
on a theme.
And that destroying. Even if something is New To You, people of greater
experience can tear you down by making your original experience just a
weak carbon copy of Someone Who Obviously Did It Better That You.
May the One shine on us all, even if we are a path of cinders.
--
saint benton of the one-winged dove -- ICQ: 32861590
The Blue Citadel: http://www.velvet.net/~benton/
alt.gothic.quotes: http://www.velvet.net/~benton/quotes.html
join the journal cult: http://benton.livejournal.com/
[1] Seeing as that was as advanced as drug taking got on the middle
school level, because people hadn't upgraded to smoking draino
and huffing freon yet.
[2] Local street famed for it's drug trade and as much red light action
as a town of 30K can muster. Drug trade was mostly heroin and
cocaine, because home was a great place to import the stuff.
Nyx
benton of the one-winged dove) wrote:
> All the themes are used, and
>all stories can be reduced to variations on the same 36 plots
I'm always hearing this. But what are they? Name the 36 plots. Because
I really think you would have to simplify a lot to boil things down to
36. "Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl
back" isn't really a valid plot. There are endless variations on
something like that.
And sometimes, very rarely, maybe once in a generation, there is
something new under the sun. This is an article of faith with me.
Nyx
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass." Cordelia Chase on Buffy
ICQ:9744630
AIM: nyx2323
maggot
Nyx wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:59:58 GMT, ben...@nethescurial.net (saint
> benton of the one-winged dove) wrote:
>
> > All the themes are used, and
> >all stories can be reduced to variations on the same 36 plots
>
> I'm always hearing this. But what are they? Name the 36 plots. Because
> I really think you would have to simplify a lot to boil things down to
> 36. "Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl
> back" isn't really a valid plot. There are endless variations on
> something like that.
SImplifying is exactly what is involved. The details of a plot are just
those, but I have seen lists that boil down the plots even further, and
very efectively so. The details are just, to quote hitchcock, the
McGuffin. That which compels you to watch the same story over again.
Take any movie and I guarantee you it will easily be siphoned down into
one of these categories.
In example:
1. Cinderella, virtue is eventually recognized
2. Achilles, the fatal flaw, a tragedy
3. Faust, The debt that catches up with the debtor (can be downsized
into #2)
4. Tristan, The sexual triangle (I mean seriously, how many ways can you
tell this story?)
5. Circe, The spider and the fly
6. Romeo and Juliet, star crossed lovers, any romance
7. Orpheus, the gift that is lost and sought
8. David and Goliath, man against the machine/state/heavyweight champ
9. The wandering Jew, the persecuted traveller that can never go home
You can also go into the barest form:
Man againt man
Man against nature
Man against himself
maggot
saint benton of the one-winged dove
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:59:58 GMT, ben...@nethescurial.net (saint
>benton of the one-winged dove) wrote:
>
>> All the themes are used, and
>>all stories can be reduced to variations on the same 36 plots
>
>I'm always hearing this. But what are they? Name the 36 plots. Because
>I really think you would have to simplify a lot to boil things down to
>36. "Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl
>back" isn't really a valid plot. There are endless variations on
>something like that.
~ long URL ahead *~
>And sometimes, very rarely, maybe once in a generation, there is
>something new under the sun. This is an article of faith with me.
http://www.black-gate.com/36plots.htm
There is a listing of them, if you don't want to buy the book.
May the One shine on us all, even if we shrink from sight.
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:59:58 GMT, ben...@nethescurial.net (saint
> benton of the one-winged dove) wrote:
>
> > All the themes are used, and
> >all stories can be reduced to variations on the same 36 plots
>
> I'm always hearing this. But what are they? Name the 36 plots. Because
> I really think you would have to simplify a lot to boil things down to
> 36. "Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl
> back" isn't really a valid plot. There are endless variations on
> something like that.
Of course there are, which is why we watch, but the fundemantal
elements are all the same. This is largely because we're using 4000
year old narative structures, and frankly, we like it for the same
reason we like diatonic and pentatonic music. Boy can be a garbageman,
and girl can be a princess and we'll be happy with that, but its still
going to bear remarkable similairy to Some Kind of Wonderful, Roman
Holiday etc. etc. and I'll bet my bottom dollar that boy meets girl in
the first 10 minutes, boy gets girl at roughly 25 minutes Boy loses
girl between 35 and 45 minutes boy starts to get girl back at 65
minutes but doesn't succeed until the last 10 minutes of the
movie/play. With books, you just get more acts and more subplots.
> And sometimes, very rarely, maybe once in a generation, there is
> something new under the sun. This is an article of faith with me.
Depends on what you mean by new. Cubism was pretty inovative, but its
still a method of depiction, not a new art form.
Jim Dugan
maggot
rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Depends on what you mean by new. Cubism was pretty inovative, but its
> still a method of depiction, not a new art form.
I'd have to argue againt that. It was a new art form in the sense that
collage, an invention of Braque and Picasso was the direct result of
cubism, meaning the linking of various things to create a wholly
interprative idea, rather than a fixed one determined by the artist.
Cubism and Impressionism have been the only new forms of art we have
seen since classical times introduced representative art over styilized.
maggot
Nyx
wrote:
>I'd have to argue againt that. It was a new art form in the sense that
>collage, an invention of Braque and Picasso was the direct result of
>cubism, meaning the linking of various things to create a wholly
>interprative idea, rather than a fixed one determined by the artist.
>
>Cubism and Impressionism have been the only new forms of art we have
>seen since classical times introduced representative art over styilized.
I'd say film was a new art, too. You can compare it to theater, but it
really went further than that.
Also, it took the "collage" thing and ran with it.
{artfag, artfag!]
Nyx
"What if I were Romeo in black jeans?" Michael Penn
ICQ: 9744630 AIM: nyx2323 Yahoo: Nyxxxx
maggot
Nyx wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:16:29 -0700, maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net>
> wrote:
> >Cubism and Impressionism have been the only new forms of art we have
> >seen since classical times introduced representative art over styilized.
>
> I'd say film was a new art, too. You can compare it to theater, but it
> really went further than that.
>
> Also, it took the "collage" thing and ran with it.
Like you said: collage.
Film is indeed a new medium, but like "collage," the theory of montage
involves essentially the same process: Juxtaposing two or more items
against one another to develop a new idea, meaning, or reaction.
Ironically, Eisenstein developed and experimented with his theories
initially in theatre, while designing sets for Futurist productions.
maggot
maggot
VeganWicce wrote:
>
> >1. Cinderella, virtue is eventually recognized
> >2. Achilles, the fatal flaw, a tragedy
> >3. Faust, The debt that catches up with the debtor (can be downsized
> >into #2)
> >4. Tristan, The sexual triangle (I mean seriously, how many ways can you
> >tell this story?)
> >5. Circe, The spider and the fly
> >6. Romeo and Juliet, star crossed lovers, any romance
> >7. Orpheus, the gift that is lost and sought
> >8. David and Goliath, man against the machine/state/heavyweight champ
> >9. The wandering Jew, the persecuted traveller that can never go home
>
> you forgot any kind of philosophical work, the mergence and resolution of
> contradiction.
That's an Orpheus. Waiting for Godot would fall neatly into #9, whereas
No Exit is Quite clearly #2. Even The Apology is little more than a
long winded #8.
maggot
rad...@earthlink.net
Nyx wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:16:29 -0700, maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I'd have to argue againt that. It was a new art form in the sense that
> >collage, an invention of Braque and Picasso was the direct result of
> >cubism, meaning the linking of various things to create a wholly
> >interprative idea, rather than a fixed one determined by the artist.
> >
> >Cubism and Impressionism have been the only new forms of art we have
> >seen since classical times introduced representative art over styilized.
>
> I'd say film was a new art, too. You can compare it to theater, but it
> really went further than that.
>
> Also, it took the "collage" thing and ran with it.
>
> {artfag, artfag!]
>
> Nyx
Its still the same form though, its just more visual. It still uses the
same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
tragedy, comedy or drama. The plot and character development (and the
fact that it uses them) is unchanged. The only genuinely innovative
thing in film thats not merely an exploitation of the medium is the
documentary, and whether, or in what way depicting the actual is art is
a whole other issue.
Jim Dugan
VeganWicce
>2. Achilles, the fatal flaw, a tragedy
>3. Faust, The debt that catches up with the debtor (can be downsized
>into #2)
>4. Tristan, The sexual triangle (I mean seriously, how many ways can you
>tell this story?)
>5. Circe, The spider and the fly
>6. Romeo and Juliet, star crossed lovers, any romance
>7. Orpheus, the gift that is lost and sought
>8. David and Goliath, man against the machine/state/heavyweight champ
>9. The wandering Jew, the persecuted traveller that can never go home
you forgot any kind of philosophical work, the mergence and resolution of
contradiction.
monica
Gee! A brain is functioning!
sOjfda7bbZabbghafbaa69huAMRFghtaohcscqds3bMaGd8A8aGz5paeiGziccefddaacGbuff
7IJKiEsmiMRXHaaiacpiusIL
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;give him a religion and he'll
starve to death while praying for a fish"
Hardrock Llewynyth
Year of Our Lord Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:49:52 -0700:
>> >1. Cinderella, virtue is eventually recognized
>> >2. Achilles, the fatal flaw, a tragedy
>> >3. Faust, The debt that catches up with the debtor (can be downsized
>> >into #2)
>> >4. Tristan, The sexual triangle (I mean seriously, how many ways can you
>> >tell this story?)
>> >5. Circe, The spider and the fly
>> >6. Romeo and Juliet, star crossed lovers, any romance
>> >7. Orpheus, the gift that is lost and sought
>> >8. David and Goliath, man against the machine/state/heavyweight champ
>> >9. The wandering Jew, the persecuted traveller that can never go home
>>
>> you forgot any kind of philosophical work, the mergence and resolution of
>> contradiction.
>
>That's an Orpheus. Waiting for Godot would fall neatly into #9, whereas
>No Exit is Quite clearly #2. Even The Apology is little more than a
>long winded #8.
So, out of curiosity, where would Illuminatus! fall?
I can see elements of 8, but it doesn't quite qualify since the Big vs
Small are both pretty much the same thing. I suppose Man against
Himself would probably work.
What abou Ulysses, or Finnegan's Wake?
hardrock
--
Hardrock Llewynyth GAC DNRC hard...@speakeasy.org
http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock/
I will honour and express all facets of my being; regardless
of state and local laws.
maggot
Hardrock Llewynyth wrote:
>
> Thus did maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> the Unworthy write in this
> >> you forgot any kind of philosophical work, the mergence and resolution of
> >> contradiction.
> >
> >That's an Orpheus. Waiting for Godot would fall neatly into #9, whereas
> >No Exit is Quite clearly #2. Even The Apology is little more than a
> >long winded #8.
>
> So, out of curiosity, where would Illuminatus! fall?
Ooh, that's a good one. I'd have to say that's a spider and the fly,
but I can't remember how the trilogy ended. It's been a long time.
> What abou Ulysses, or Finnegan's Wake?
Been wayyy too long since I read Ulysses and I never read Finnegan's
Wake.
maggot
Nyx
>
>Its still the same form though, its just more visual.
But, when you start breaking down things into forms then of course
nothing is ever new. And a "form" is a simplicfication. My point is
that the only way you can say something like "there are 36 stories" is
by gross simplification and generalization.
> It still uses the
>same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
>tragedy, comedy or drama.
But *life* uses that same narrative structure. Also, not every film
uses narrative structure at all. They're horrible, but have you ever
seen Andy Warhol's early films? Like before his Dracula movie? Or
Liquid Sky? I don't really like films without narrative structure, but
they do exist.
Plus, is absence of narrative structure enough to make something new,
or just a way of getting away from the 36 stories? "The Soft Machine"
by Burroughs comes to mind.
Was Joyce creating a new art form, or just re-creatitng the novel?
Nyx
"A sullen little malcontent doling out french fries to an
unsympathetic world." Kids in the Hall.
ICQ: 9744630
AIM: nyx2323
Nyx
wrote:
>Ironically, Eisenstein developed and experimented with his theories
>initially in theatre, while designing sets for Futurist productions.
Let me guess, it didn't work and he started making films out of
despair?
Nyx
"Man is the bored animal." Ray Bradbury
ICQ: 9744630
AIM: nyx2323
Lisiblac
rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > Depends on what you mean by new. Cubism was pretty inovative, but its
> > still a method of depiction, not a new art form.
If by 'method of depiction' you mean style and 'art form' you mean
medium, yes I suppose you're right. Though I would tend to define art
itself (be it visual, auditory, or pertaining to any other sense) as a
'method of depiction'.
maggot wrote:
>
> I'd have to argue againt that. It was a new art form in the sense that
> collage, an invention of Braque and Picasso was the direct result of
> cubism, meaning the linking of various things to create a wholly
> interprative idea, rather than a fixed one determined by the artist.
Well Picasso and Braque still had some pretty fixed ideas on how one
was meant to interpret their collages. There's a whole body of
philosophy out there dealing with subjectivity and whether the origin of
meaning lies with the author or the audience. No one can agree. I'd
venture to say that it wasn't until Dada that the meaning became so
random as to be completely interpretable by the audience (or
un-interpretable as the case may be, and, as such, still controlled by
the artists perhaps, the very notion of uninterpretability being the
meaning.) Watch me contradict myself. Dada does that to people. ;) [All
hail Tristan Tzara!!!!!! DA DA! DA DA!]
> Cubism and Impressionism have been the only new forms of art we have
> seen since classical times introduced representative art over styilized.
O.K., absolutely no offense, but someone's been studying art with a
modernist or reading texts written by modernists. To say that Cubism and
Impressionism are the only styles of art that *anything* is a product of
too many art historians getting degrees without studying enough of the
earlier periods to gain a historical perspective and then going out and
writing books that corrupt the masses into thinking modern society is
far superior philosophically than anything that came before. Also, I'm
not sure what you mean by 'representative art'. If you mean the term to
be interchangable with 'naturalistic', meaning the artist has used
light, shadow, perspective, and modeling to acheive an image giving the
illusion of an object as it is found in nature. Yes, Classical art falls
generally under this category, with some serious exceptions for imperial
art whch uses stylization (the application of stylistic techniques to
strategically remove the image from its naturalistic state in order to
impose a pre-determined interpretation of nature on the viewer) to give
propaganda value to the image. Cubism and Impressionism really stand at
the opposite end of the spectrum from Classical in this dialectic, both
of them being highly stylized (or abstract) approaches to visual
representation.
Nyx wrote:
> I'd say film was a new art, too. You can compare it to theater, but it
> really went further than that.
> Also, it took the "collage" thing and ran with it.
There is a ton of fantastic art-historical literature out there that
addresses the impact the invention of photography and moving images on
the 'more traditional' visual arts. Movements like impressionism,
futurism, art nouveau, and cubism were a direct and conscious reaction
to the invention of film processes. Impressionism, pointillism, and the
like took off from the idea of still photo processes and the
manipulation of light to achieve the desired effect. Cinema emerged in
1895. This, combined with the impact of industrial automation on many
aspects of life, was the inspiration for art nouveau, futurism, cubism,
collage, and so on.
> {artfag, artfag!]
Guilty! Sorry if this post is a bit (!) pedantic, I'm used to spouting
this stuff off in lecture format. It's actually a relief to discuss it
with real people rather than three-degreed art pundits for a change. Oh
how I am sick of academia!!!!!!!!!!! Save meeeeeeeeeee!! *makes drowning
in philosophy noises*
*glurp*
Lisiblac
Erika V.
Lisi...@home.com
Maker of Badass Camping Dinners, Starter of Fires, and Resident Art
Historian
rad...@earthlink.net
Nyx wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:07:02 GMT, rad...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Its still the same form though, its just more visual.
>
> But, when you start breaking down things into forms then of course
> nothing is ever new. And a "form" is a simplicfication. My point is
> that the only way you can say something like "there are 36 stories" is
> by gross simplification and generalization.
>
> > It still uses the
> >same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
> >tragedy, comedy or drama.
>
> But *life* uses that same narrative structure.
I'd argue that life may be analyzed with that narative structure, but it
doesn't organically exist. Way too much lack of resolution without an
artificial construct. To paraphrase an old saw on how to write a
screenplay: Act I introduce your character, Act II run him up a tree
and throw rocks at him, Act III Have him figure out how to get down.
Real life is pretty much one long Act II.
> Also, not every film
> uses narrative structure at all. They're horrible, but have you ever
> seen Andy Warhol's early films? Like before his Dracula movie?
Only the sleeping one (and no, not all 8 hours) but that runs into the
whole documentary thing of chronicalling, rather than creating.
Actually, I do recall another one with a black woman with enormous
breasts runing around topless, that I think may be Warhol, but again
same dilemma.
> Or
> Liquid Sky? I don't really like films without narrative structure, but
> they do exist.
I havent seen Liquid Sky in quite a while, but my recollection is that
its just a scrambled three act.
> Plus, is absence of narrative structure enough to make something new,
> or just a way of getting away from the 36 stories? "The Soft Machine"
> by Burroughs comes to mind.
>
> Was Joyce creating a new art form, or just re-creatitng the novel?
Joyce is rather convoluted, but I'd argue that he simply took the novel
to its logical and most extreme conclusion. Element by element, he
didn't do anything anyone else never did
Jim Dugan
maggot
Nyx wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:07:02 GMT, rad...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > It still uses the
> >same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
> >tragedy, comedy or drama.
>
> But *life* uses that same narrative structure. Also, not every film
> uses narrative structure at all. They're horrible, but have you ever
> seen Andy Warhol's early films? Like before his Dracula movie?
Andy warhol's rearly films were not movies to be watched in the sense we
commonly do. They were used as wallpaper, background for parties, etc.
Of course six hours of watching the entrance to the empire state
building is going to be boring, it was never meant to be watched in the
sense you are talking about.
Now experimental film falls into many categories, but the 36 plots are
considered for narrative story telling purposes. You can no more
compare an experimental piece to a narrative film than you can compare a
Judd minimalist piece to Star Wars.
maggot
maggot
Nyx wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:43:25 -0700, maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Ironically, Eisenstein developed and experimented with his theories
> >initially in theatre, while designing sets for Futurist productions.
>
> Let me guess, it didn't work and he started making films out of
> despair?
>
No, he was wildly successful and sought out film to attempt to further
the possibilities for the art form he was working with.
maggot
maggot
Lisiblac wrote:
> maggot wrote:
> >
> > I'd have to argue againt that. It was a new art form in the sense that
> > collage, an invention of Braque and Picasso was the direct result of
> > cubism, meaning the linking of various things to create a wholly
> > interprative idea, rather than a fixed one determined by the artist.
>
> Well Picasso and Braque still had some pretty fixed ideas on how one
> was meant to interpret their collages. There's a whole body of
> philosophy out there dealing with subjectivity and whether the origin of
> meaning lies with the author or the audience.
But that matter is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was the
cubists who kickstarted the whole concept that artists determination
could be subjective at al
maggot
maggot
Lisiblac wrote:
> maggot wrote:
> >
> > I'd have to argue againt that. It was a new art form in the sense that
> > collage, an invention of Braque and Picasso was the direct result of
> > cubism, meaning the linking of various things to create a wholly
> > interprative idea, rather than a fixed one determined by the artist.
>
> Well Picasso and Braque still had some pretty fixed ideas on how one
> was meant to interpret their collages. There's a whole body of
> philosophy out there dealing with subjectivity and whether the origin of
> meaning lies with the author or the audience.
But that matter is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was the
cubists who kickstarted the whole concept that artists determination
could be subjective at all.
>
> > Cubism and Impressionism have been the only new forms of art we have
> > seen since classical times introduced representative art over styilized.
>
<snip>
> Cubism and Impressionism really stand at
> the opposite end of the spectrum from Classical in this dialectic, both
> of them being highly stylized (or abstract) approaches to visual
> representation.
You use the words 'stylized' and 'abstract' as if they were
interchangeable, as if the Heirarchy of Scale and other such conventions
could be compared with 50's pop art just becuase they employ disjointed
images. There is nothing stylized about modern art (in general), and
the only thing abstracted about classical art is required to be
abstracted in every single piece from the period.
maggot
Lisiblac
> > > I'd have to argue againt that. It was a new art form in the sense that
> > > collage, an invention of Braque and Picasso was the direct result of
> > > cubism, meaning the linking of various things to create a wholly
> > > interprative idea, rather than a fixed one determined by the artist.
> >
> > Well Picasso and Braque still had some pretty fixed ideas on how one
> > was meant to interpret their collages. There's a whole body of
> > philosophy out there dealing with subjectivity and whether the origin of
> > meaning lies with the author or the audience.
>
> But that matter is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was the
> cubists who kickstarted the whole concept that artists determination
> could be subjective at all.
O.K. first you say the cubists proposed the idea of interpretive art as
an alternative to a fixed meaning imposed by the artist, then you say
they kickstarted the concept of subjectivity being an issue at all. I'm
not arguing that subjectivity of artist vs. audience was a key issue
with them, but it was not a new idea.
People like Vasari, Descartes, Petrarch, etc. (i.e. the first
humanists) gave us the concept of the individual artistic genius thst
dictates interpretation, based in part on classical models, right? Now
whether the artist's subjectivity was at all connected with the
inspiration of a higher being (Descartes and Vasari), collective social
Kunstwollen ('artistic will') or Zeitgeist (Hegel), or a independent
product of the human mind (Kant) varied through the ages depending on
one's own philosophy. But I do believe it was in Kant's "Critique of
Judgement" that we first see a discussion of the human will being the
independent author of aesthetic creation AND response.
Ron Carrier where are you when I need you most? ;)
> > > Cubism and Impressionism have been the only new forms of art we have
> > > seen since classical times introduced representative art over styilized.
> >
> <snip>
> > Cubism and Impressionism really stand at
> > the opposite end of the spectrum from Classical in this dialectic, both
> > of them being highly stylized (or abstract) approaches to visual
> > representation.
>
> You use the words 'stylized' and 'abstract' as if they were
> interchangeable, as if the Heirarchy of Scale and other such conventions
> could be compared with 50's pop art just becuase they employ disjointed
> images.
I did there, yes, to simplify. Stylization art-historically defined is
the application of stylistic principles (of any sort, be it scale,
color, pattern, etc.) to remove an image from nature. Stylization is one
method of acheiving abstraction (simply defined as a removal from
naturalism). So I guess you would say stylization is the method and
abstraction is the product. Whether the image be by Gislebertus in 1129
or by Andy Warhol in 1968, it can still be defined as stylized or
abstract. Neither term is period-specific at all. Honest.
Lisiblac
Erika V.
Lisi...@home.com
Hardrock Llewynyth
of Our Lord Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:52:59 -0500:
>But *life* uses that same narrative structure. Also, not every film
>uses narrative structure at all. They're horrible, but have you ever
>seen Andy Warhol's early films? Like before his Dracula movie? Or
>Liquid Sky? I don't really like films without narrative structure, but
>they do exist.
Slackers doesn't use a narrative structure; and is really quite an
amazing film.
I think the problem is that the 36 structures don't account of
non-narriative or non-traditional narrative structures. Admittely,
these are very hard to pull off, but they can be done.
One of the most commonly attempted is the "stream of consciousness"
structure. Few besides Joyce have been able to master it; but its
quite amazing when they do. The aforementioned Slackers is a good
example of a modification of the SoC style.
Hardrock
Nyx
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>
>
>Slackers doesn't use a narrative structure; and is really quite an
>amazing film.
>
I forgot about Slackers. I'd have to agree that it's a good film. But
it may be more of a documentary.
But, OTOH, I just realized that music video doesn't usually have a
narrative. I guess the argument there would be, are they films or just
a reworking of the montage?
>I think the problem is that the 36 structures don't account of
>non-narriative or non-traditional narrative structures. Admittely,
>these are very hard to pull off, but they can be done.
>
Which is why I generally don't like them. When done well [Joyce or
Ulysses] they are wonderful. When done poorly [just about everyone
else] they are garbage.
Nyx
``It doesn't suck. I was expecting nothing. I've had a steady diet of nothing.
So I didn't expect a change.'' JOSS WHEDON
maggot
Lisiblac wrote:
maggot wrote:
It is courteous if you do not snip the name of the person from the post
you are replying to when you trim...
> > But that matter is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was the
> > cubists who kickstarted the whole concept that artists determination
> > could be subjective at all.
>
> O.K. first you say the cubists proposed the idea of interpretive art as
> an alternative to a fixed meaning imposed by the artist,
I will accept that interpretation except for the "proposed part." I
said collage was "was the direct result of" cubism and proposed my
interpretation of what collage meant to the art world. I did not say
that they "proposed" the idea, though it might be safe to say that since
DuChampe was a Futurist when he started asking such questions it might
not be an unfair analysis.
> then you say
> they kickstarted the concept of subjectivity being an issue at all. I'm
> not arguing that subjectivity of artist vs. audience was a key issue
> with them, but it was not a new idea.
Well, I won't attempt to contradict you, but I think you are taking me
too literally. There is little doubt that the art world, whether the
Paris or NY school or whichever scene you were a part of, did not
consider these issues to be a part of their job description until after
the development of cubism which opened up a Hell of a lot of minds to
new approaches to art. The "new idea" that I refer to should be
stipulated with the words "in art."
> > > Cubism and Impressionism really stand at
> > > the opposite end of the spectrum from Classical in this dialectic, both
> > > of them being highly stylized (or abstract) approaches to visual
> > > representation.
> >
> > You use the words 'stylized' and 'abstract' as if they were
> > interchangeable, as if the Heirarchy of Scale and other such conventions
> > could be compared with 50's pop art just becuase they employ disjointed
> > images.
<snip>
> So I guess you would say stylization is the method and
> abstraction is the product. Whether the image be by Gislebertus in 1129
> or by Andy Warhol in 1968, it can still be defined as stylized or
> abstract. Neither term is period-specific at all. Honest.
Yes but these are highly semantical points you are making. The simplest
way I can put what I see as the difference is that the previous schools
of art have been either wrapped up in representational art, or following
a strict code of stylization. Anything can be defined as abstract,
Michelangelo's David has an abstracted right hand, Whistler's
Arrangement in Grey and Black, No 1 is, well, the name says it all, yet
few would refer to either work as a piece of abstract art as we
understand it today, and in spite of the fact that cubsim is very much a
stylistic choice today, it was no more a choice to be made when it was
developed than it was for Imhotep to build a pyramid instead of a
ziggaraut.
maggot
maggot
Nyx wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:38:10 -0700, Hardrock Llewynyth
> <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Slackers doesn't use a narrative structure; and is really quite an
> >amazing film.
> >
>
> I forgot about Slackers. I'd have to agree that it's a good film. But
> it may be more of a documentary.
>
> But, OTOH, I just realized that music video doesn't usually have a
> narrative. I guess the argument there would be, are they films or just
> a reworking of the montage?
The question is "does it have a plot?" If it doesn't have a plot then
there is no point trying to fit them into a list of plots because it is
a list of plots, not things to do with the medium of the motion
picture. That list can be much shorter. Narrative, documentary,
experimental, and maybe philisophical. Music videos are often
narrative, but usually experimental in nature. Slackers was narrative,
it had narrative structure (i.e. one thing clearly leads to another in
an established fashion, characters, places, names, are established and
do not change). The plot is *very* loose, as it is a collection of
vignettes. Each character has a goal impeded by a conflict, and each
vignette ends in a resolution. A guy wants to pick up on girl by
impressing her with his knowledge of JFK conspiracy theories. He fails,
next sketch. What was amazingly well done is how Linklater knitted the
scenes together and maintained interest. Not that he somehow did away
with plot, because he didn,t.
maggot
Xena
>Thus did maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> the Unworthy write in this
>Year of Our Lord Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:49:52 -0700:
>
>>> >1. Cinderella, virtue is eventually recognized
>>> >2. Achilles, the fatal flaw, a tragedy
>>> >3. Faust, The debt that catches up with the debtor (can be downsized
>>> >into #2)
>>> >4. Tristan, The sexual triangle (I mean seriously, how many ways can you
>>> >tell this story?)
>>> >5. Circe, The spider and the fly
>>> >6. Romeo and Juliet, star crossed lovers, any romance
>>> >7. Orpheus, the gift that is lost and sought
>>> >8. David and Goliath, man against the machine/state/heavyweight champ
>>> >9. The wandering Jew, the persecuted traveller that can never go home
>>>
>>> contradiction.
>>
>>That's an Orpheus. Waiting for Godot would fall neatly into #9, whereas
>>No Exit is Quite clearly #2. Even The Apology is little more than a
>>long winded #8.
>
>So, out of curiosity, where would Illuminatus! fall?
>
>Small are both pretty much the same thing. I suppose Man against
>Himself would probably work.
>
See this boot tip? Sit on it and spin, slime ball!
Xena
Xena
>>
>> But, when you start breaking down things into forms then of course
>> nothing is ever new. And a "form" is a simplicfication. My point is
>> that the only way you can say something like "there are 36 stories" is
>> by gross simplification and generalization.
>>
>> >same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
>> >tragedy, comedy or drama.
>>
>
>doesn't organically exist. Way too much lack of resolution without an
>artificial construct. To paraphrase an old saw on how to write a
>screenplay: Act I introduce your character, Act II run him up a tree
>and throw rocks at him, Act III Have him figure out how to get down.
>Real life is pretty much one long Act II.
Your act is the worst. Why don't you go find a garbage can, get
in, and take your true place in the world.
Oh, I know why! You're too stupid to find your own way out of the
zoo. The turkeys, who are smarter than you are, were taken out
of the cage after you got caught boffing their hinees.
Xena
>
>> Also, not every film
>> uses narrative structure at all. They're horrible, but have you ever
>> seen Andy Warhol's early films? Like before his Dracula movie?
>
>Only the sleeping one (and no, not all 8 hours) but that runs into the
>whole documentary thing of chronicalling, rather than creating.
>Actually, I do recall another one with a black woman with enormous
>breasts runing around topless, that I think may be Warhol, but again
>same dilemma.
>
>> Or
>> Liquid Sky? I don't really like films without narrative structure, but
>> they do exist.
>
>I havent seen Liquid Sky in quite a while, but my recollection is that
>its just a scrambled three act.
>
>> Plus, is absence of narrative structure enough to make something new,
>> or just a way of getting away from the 36 stories? "The Soft Machine"
>> by Burroughs comes to mind.
>>
>> Was Joyce creating a new art form, or just re-creatitng the novel?
>
>Joyce is rather convoluted, but I'd argue that he simply took the novel
>to its logical and most extreme conclusion. Element by element, he
>didn't do anything anyone else never did
>
>Jim Dugan
Xena
Lisiblac
> Yes but these are highly semantical points you are making.
Granted, but while it is less than satisfying to stick to a
pre-determined semiotic framework to discuss a highly variable
phenomenon like art, the framework has been put in place in order to
provide a stable common ground for those who wish to argue a point on
the subject, just like in any science. You have to know the math in
order to interpret the phenomenon, or else no one else in the field will
know what you're talking about. I used to LOATHE semiotics when I first
started studying it, but now I really see its importance. (ACK, Erika,
the die-hard contextual art historian goes postmodern. Kill me now!)
> Well, I won't attempt to contradict you, but I think you are taking me
> too literally. There is little doubt that the art world, whether the
> Paris or NY school or whichever scene you were a part of, did not
> consider these issues to be a part of their job description until after
> the development of cubism which opened up a Hell of a lot of minds to
> new approaches to art. The "new idea" that I refer to should be
> stipulated with the words "in art."
Yes, but "in art" doesn't necessarily include only "those who produce
art". If we are talking abut the intellectual history of Europe, there
has always been a very tight dialogue between visual artists, literary
authors, critics, and philosophers. You may see the most ready
expression in the actual products of this dialogue (works produced by
artists), but rest assured the dialogue behind it does not include
simply the ideas of artist A or artist B. In the twelfth century, to
take a random example, Hugh of St. Victor, academic, and Abbot Suger of
St. Denis, artistic patron, worked hand-in-hand to 'create' (I use this
term loosely) the style of architecture we now know as Gothic. Now, much
bantering went on even then about the interpretation of stained glass
images as either a subject determined by God (via the artist) or by the
'spiritual pilgrim' (i.e. the viewer.) Of course, they did not go about
this in a modernist philosophical manner. But my only point is that this
issue as a conscious question was not completely new at the turn of the
twentieth century, which really goes back to the original idea of this
thread. Is any idea completely new, or just a re-working of previous and
long-standing themes in the history of human ideas? I might reinterpret
that question as "Is there a limit to the human intellect?" Probably,
given that there is a limit to most things. Any neuroscientists,
philosophers, or mathematicians out there who want to tackle infinity
vs. the human mind?
By the way, what's your profession, maggot, that you're so up on modern
art? I went for years thinking I was living in an alt.gothic world of
computer folk and djs (this is a sweeping generalization, I know . . .
but yeah, most of the a.g people I know are one or the other.) I love
them dearly but always end up in conversations that end with "ummm, er,
I can't imagine more disparate fields than yours and mine." :P
alt.gothic art fags stand up and be counted!
:)
Lisiblac
Erika V.
Lisi...@home.com
maggot
Lisiblac wrote:
>
> maggot wrote:
>
> > Yes but these are highly semantical points you are making.
>
> Granted, but while it is less than satisfying to stick to a
> pre-determined semiotic framework to discuss a highly variable
> phenomenon like art, the framework has been put in place in order to
> provide a stable common ground for those who wish to argue a point on
> the subject, just like in any science.
Yet the last 100 years should have gone some ways towards teaching us
that art *cannot* be considered a science any more than religion can.
> You have to know the math in
> order to interpret the phenomenon, or else no one else in the field will
> know what you're talking about. I used to LOATHE semiotics when I first
> started studying it, but now I really see its importance.
I was rather the opposite until I took my first modern art course.
Since then I've found that semiotic discussions are entirely relative to
who is involved in the project at hand. SInce most of the work I do is
on an as hire basis I find that being open to radically different
approaches facilitates the development of different works for more
effectively than trying to establish a pseudo-rigid set of guidelines.
> > Well, I won't attempt to contradict you, but I think you are taking me
> > too literally. There is little doubt that the art world, whether the
> > Paris or NY school or whichever scene you were a part of, did not
> > consider these issues to be a part of their job description until after
> > the development of cubism which opened up a Hell of a lot of minds to
> > new approaches to art. The "new idea" that I refer to should be
> > stipulated with the words "in art."
>
> Yes, but "in art" doesn't necessarily include only "those who produce
> art".
Certainly not, it also includes those who percieve it which is the whole
purpose of having a discussion about interprative art.
> If we are talking abut the intellectual history of Europe, there
> has always been a very tight dialogue between visual artists, literary
> authors, critics, and philosophers.
But when referring to "art" it was almost universally in reference to
what an artist should do or how they should do it.
> In the twelfth century, to
> take a random example, Hugh of St. Victor, academic, and Abbot Suger of
> St. Denis, artistic patron, worked hand-in-hand to 'create' (I use this
> term loosely) the style of architecture we now know as Gothic. Now, much
> bantering went on even then about the interpretation of stained glass
> images as either a subject determined by God (via the artist) or by the
> 'spiritual pilgrim' (i.e. the viewer.) Of course, they did not go about
> this in a modernist philosophical manner.
Of course not, but their intent, just for this specific example, was to
illustrate the glory of god, not to allow the viewer to have an entirely
unique experence. Especially considering the theological climate of the
time, such a discussion would have been tantamount to heresy. Certainly
there is little difference to Aboot Suger's experiments in light
scattering (I don't recall the exact term) and Mondrian's experiments in
color and composition, but one was for a specific purpose and one was an
end to itself. It is the latter style which allowed the purpose of
interprative art to be fully explored and exploited, whereas the former
style encouraged rigid doctrine.
> By the way, what's your profession, maggot, that you're so up on modern
> art? I went for years thinking I was living in an alt.gothic world of
> computer folk and djs (this is a sweeping generalization, I know . . .
> but yeah, most of the a.g people I know are one or the other.) I love
> them dearly but always end up in conversations that end with "ummm, er,
> I can't imagine more disparate fields than yours and mine." :P
Well I am a theatrical designer with ambition towards theatrical and
motion picture directing. There are a great many, IMO, people in AG
interested in art and working in field not related to computers. Even
the web designers (the legitimate ones) are no less artistic than people
in my field, and Canticle runs a gallery in NYC, but he appears to be
missing at the moment which is why this thread is not full of his
opinions. We just recently had an extensive discussion over the
financial viability of being an artist throughout the ages.
maggot
David Gerard
[film]
:Its still the same form though, its just more visual. It still uses the
:same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
:tragedy, comedy or drama. The plot and character development (and the
:fact that it uses them) is unchanged. The only genuinely innovative
:thing in film thats not merely an exploitation of the medium is the
:documentary, and whether, or in what way depicting the actual is art is
:a whole other issue.
So what's porn video? I understand that plot is regarded as a damned nuisance.
--
http://xenu.netizen.com.au/ http://www.caube.org.au/
"I'm imagining that sex would just kill the marriage in the long run. I'd bring
a girl home. You'd take her from me. Eventually, I die in a horrible mastur-
batory-machine accident. A great breakfast is served at the wake." (Jealousy)
maggot
David Gerard wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:07:02 GMT, rad...@earthlink.net <rad...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [film]
>
> :Its still the same form though, its just more visual. It still uses the
> :same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
> :tragedy, comedy or drama. The plot and character development (and the
> :fact that it uses them) is unchanged. The only genuinely innovative
> :thing in film thats not merely an exploitation of the medium is the
> :documentary, and whether, or in what way depicting the actual is art is
> :a whole other issue.
>
> So what's porn video? I understand that plot is regarded as a damned nuisance.
>
Not a nuisance, just the same plot over and over.
Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets
girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy
gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl,
Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl...
maggot
David Gerard
: That list can be much shorter. Narrative, documentary,
:experimental, and maybe philisophical. Music videos are often
:narrative, but usually experimental in nature.
I'm unconvinced that the label 'experimental' can really be applied to a
field such as music video, where the approach you're labelling as being
such is commercial and *routine*.
Same for porn, where plot is a pretention.
Perhaps another word is needed.
"I fully expect that when the DSM V comes out, Net Kook will be a documented
pathology." (Jim Dugan)
rad...@earthlink.net
David Gerard wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:07:02 GMT, rad...@earthlink.net <rad...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [film]
>
> :Its still the same form though, its just more visual. It still uses the
> :same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
> :tragedy, comedy or drama. The plot and character development (and the
> :fact that it uses them) is unchanged. The only genuinely innovative
> :thing in film thats not merely an exploitation of the medium is the
> :documentary, and whether, or in what way depicting the actual is art is
> :a whole other issue.
>
> So what's porn video? I understand that plot is regarded as a damned nuisance.
Hmmmm, bad porn movies may, in fact, be their own narative form, as
while the rudiments of plot are there (they don't have to be good, just
present) very few actually have any conflict. Its all setup and climax
(so to speak). I met a fairly bright porn guy the other night (art
direction, not talent), perhaps I'll run it by him if I see him again.
Jim Dugan
rad...@earthlink.net
maggot wrote:
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:07:02 GMT, rad...@earthlink.net <rad...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > [film]
> >
> > :Its still the same form though, its just more visual. It still uses the
> > :same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
> > :tragedy, comedy or drama. The plot and character development (and the
> > :fact that it uses them) is unchanged. The only genuinely innovative
> > :thing in film thats not merely an exploitation of the medium is the
> > :documentary, and whether, or in what way depicting the actual is art is
> > :a whole other issue.
> >
> > So what's porn video? I understand that plot is regarded as a damned nuisance.
> >
> Not a nuisance, just the same plot over and over.
>
> Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets
> girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy
> gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl,
> Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl...
>
> maggot
Don't forget girl gets girl, boy gets girls, and boys get girls.
Otherwise it would get monotonous.
Jim Dugan
ButtPlug
wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:08:51 -0700, maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> wrote:
>
>: That list can be much shorter. Narrative, documentary,
>:experimental, and maybe philisophical. Music videos are often
>:narrative, but usually experimental in nature.
>
>
>I'm unconvinced that the label 'experimental' can really be applied to a
>field such as music video, where the approach you're labelling as being
>such is commercial and *routine*.
>
>Same for porn, where plot is a pretention.
>
>Perhaps another word is needed.
Perhaps you need your butt plugged.
ButtPlug
ButtPlug
wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:07:02 GMT, rad...@earthlink.net <rad...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>[film]
>
>:Its still the same form though, its just more visual. It still uses the
>:same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
>:tragedy, comedy or drama. The plot and character development (and the
>:fact that it uses them) is unchanged. The only genuinely innovative
>:thing in film thats not merely an exploitation of the medium is the
>:documentary, and whether, or in what way depicting the actual is art is
>:a whole other issue.
>
>
>So what's porn video? I understand that plot is regarded as a damned nuisance.
Get out a porn movie and turn it on.
Stick your buttplug up your butt.
Watch and beat your meat.
Then come back and tell us what you think.
ButtPlug
Jetrock
>
>> So what's porn video? I understand that plot is regarded as a damned nuisance.
>>
>
>Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets
>girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy
>gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl,
>Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl...
>
girl, boy gets boy, girl and girl get girl and electrical appliance, boy
gets inflatable sheep, girl gets cocker spaniel, girl gets boy, boy, boy,
boy, boy, boy and Ron Jeremy, boy gets self, girl gets self, and the ever
popular "girl gets a faceful of human spray cheese."
--
--Rev. Jetrock, SKIN JOB LEATHER
DARK PASSIONS PREMIERE PARTY and FINAL "BIO-MECH" Fetish Night, July 29
at BOJANGLES, 7042 Folsom Blvd., Sacramento
More details at http://www.darkpassions.com
David Gerard
>On 23 Jul 2000 08:22:36 GMT, f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:08:51 -0700, maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> wrote:
>>
>>: That list can be much shorter. Narrative, documentary,
>>:experimental, and maybe philisophical. Music videos are often
>>:narrative, but usually experimental in nature.
>>
>>
>>I'm unconvinced that the label 'experimental' can really be applied to a
>>field such as music video, where the approach you're labelling as being
>>such is commercial and *routine*.
>>
>>Same for porn, where plot is a pretention.
>>
>>Perhaps another word is needed.
>
>Perhaps you need your butt plugged.
Finally you pay attention to me. Here, let me slick down my britch. There! Plug
away!!! Grrruuuunit! Sqeeaaal!
David Gerard
>
>
>maggot wrote:
>>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:07:02 GMT, rad...@earthlink.net <rad...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > [film]
>> >
>> > :Its still the same form though, its just more visual. It still uses the
>> > :same narative structure (ie, three, very occasionally, four acts) in
>> > :tragedy, comedy or drama. The plot and character development (and the
>> > :fact that it uses them) is unchanged. The only genuinely innovative
>> > :thing in film thats not merely an exploitation of the medium is the
>> > :documentary, and whether, or in what way depicting the actual is art is
>> > :a whole other issue.
>> >
>> > So what's porn video? I understand that plot is regarded as a damned nuisance.
>> >
>> Not a nuisance, just the same plot over and over.
>>
>> Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets
>> girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy
>> gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl,
>> Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl...
>>
>> maggot
>
>Don't forget girl gets girl, boy gets girls, and boys get girls.
>
>Otherwise it would get monotonous.
It's not monotonous with that big ol plug in your butt. Hey, did you squeal and
grunt like a pig? I did.
Hardrock Llewynyth
of Our Lord Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:15:51 -0500:
>I forgot about Slackers. I'd have to agree that it's a good film. But
>it may be more of a documentary.
I don't think it really fits into a documentary form.
>But, OTOH, I just realized that music video doesn't usually have a
>narrative. I guess the argument there would be, are they films or just
>a reworking of the montage?
I'd say it's probably just montage.
>Which is why I generally don't like them. When done well [Joyce or
>Ulysses] they are wonderful. When done poorly [just about everyone
>else] they are garbage.
Yup.
But that goes for pretty much everything, to varying degrees. It's
just more extremely obvious with stream of consciousness literature.
maggot
David Gerard wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:08:51 -0700, maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> wrote:
>
> : That list can be much shorter. Narrative, documentary,
> :experimental, and maybe philisophical. Music videos are often
> :narrative, but usually experimental in nature.
>
> I'm unconvinced that the label 'experimental' can really be applied to a
> field such as music video, where the approach you're labelling as being
> such is commercial and *routine*.
I will happily stipulate that I am referrin to videos that attempt to
imbue the video with some artistic merit, such as the REM, Metallica, or
INXS videos, which were superb examples of experimental art.
I certainly wouldn't even bother to categorize Kid Rock and such, though
I suppose "promotional" could be considered a genre.
maggot
Morbid Curiosity
wrote:
>>Not a nuisance, just the same plot over and over.
>>Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets
>>girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy
>>gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl,
>>Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl, Boy gets girl...
>>
>girl, boy gets boy, girl and girl get girl and electrical appliance, boy
>gets inflatable sheep, girl gets cocker spaniel, girl gets boy, boy, boy,
>boy, boy, boy and Ron Jeremy, boy gets self, girl gets self, and the ever
>popular "girl gets a faceful of human spray cheese."
Sorry. it's obviously time for the ObMontyPythonParody:
"Well, there's smut and spanking, smut bondage and spanking, smut and
porn, smut spanking and porn, porn porn porn bondage and porn, porn
porn porn porn porn..."
"...porn porn porn porn PORN! Lovely POR-RN!"
"Or there's leather hardcore aux rivets, performed in the doggy-style
manner with riding crops and nipple-clamps, and porn."
Morbid (Just popping out the back to shoot himself, now)