When was the last time...
Eskimo
that this sort of attention presently being paid to Titanic was given?
Very curious.
Jim Dedman
>that this sort of attention presently being paid to Titanic was given?
>Very curious.
I would imagine that the last time this much attention was paid to it was in
1985, when Dr. Ballard discovered the location of the ship.
jd
---
Jim Dedman
jde...@mail.utexas.edu
Personal Page: http://wwwvms.utexas.edu/~jdedman/
Editorial Column Archive: http://wwwvms.utexas.edu/~jdedman/archive/
Hot4Hose
>that this sort of attention presently being paid to Titanic was given?
>
>Very curious.
Well..... My rec.arts.movies memories stretch back about five or six years,
which is undoubtedly longer than most, but almost assuredly less than some. It
seems to me that Independence Day actually eclipsed the number of Titanic posts
for quite a while; one of the other "old timers" will undoubtedly correct me if
I wrong.
All will agree, I'm sure, that like the Titanic posts, "ID4" got very, very
repetitive, very very quickly.
The all time number two, no question about it, was Pulp Fiction. Every single
detail of production, every single nuance, every line of dialogue endlessly
scrutinzed and debated. The number of "I'm putting the phrase 'pulp fiction'
in my killfile" posts alone probably far exceed the number of posts the average
film inspires in here. The dotted square that Uma Thurman draws in the air in
the car even had it's own thread, as at least one viewer insisted that this
cartoony little bit, taking up less than a second of film, was enough to ruin
the entire movie for him. (Well.... we would not read this stuff if we did not
find it amusing.....)
But the alltime champ....the King....the most kickass movie in the history of
rec.arts.movies was unquestionably Twelve Monkeys.
Not that good of a movie (although many swore at the time that viewing it was
life-affirming experience, it's hardly ever even mentioned any more), not even
all the popular, it nevertheless inspired every single person who bought a
ticket to enter the newsgroup to either have the movie explained to them, or to
present their brilliant, penetrating analysis of it to the Usenet-using
movie-going comminity. (If you've been around here for longer than two days,
you will not be surprised to hear that such analyses generally elicted such
delighted gasps of awe as "You're full of shit!" and so forth.)
And....ummmm... are you people SURE that the "I'm in insurance" lady at the end
was a time-traveller? It really did seem to me that was she was still living
through what was then her past (well, it was her past when she was in the
future, but when she was IN the past of her future self, it was really her
PRESENT. So was she in her past from her future's point of view, in other
words, did she KNOW she was in her past when she was in the present, or did she
think she was in the present because she didnt know she was from the future
yet?) And of course, there were many posts much, much less lucid than this.
Uhhhh....hope this helps?
Gary Pollard
Over a longer period, does any of these eclipse the number of times that
"Star Wars" comes up?
Gary
Eskimo
Jim Dedman wrote in message <681ols$r4r$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>>that this sort of attention presently being paid to Titanic was given?
>>Very curious.
>
>I would imagine that the last time this much attention was paid to it was
in
>1985, when Dr. Ballard discovered the location of the ship.
Dear me. I actually meant the same kind of attention given to a movie, but
I see my wording was poor.
Eskimo
>Over a longer period, does any of these eclipse the number of times that
>"Star Wars" comes up?
Probably not, but what was the last movie that got this sort of attention
given to Titanic. I want to say, Titanic is the biggest movie since ______.
Perry Melchor
Tris Orendorff wrote:
> There is one or two per year that go above 50% of the message traffic:
>
> Men in Black
> Independence Day
> Jurassic Park
> T2:Judgement Day
>
> are the last four that I remember.
I wouldn't say these went over 50%, but "Contact" and "Star Trek: First
Contact" generated extremely heavy response.
Gary Pollard
Eskimo wrote in message <683dg7$9vo$1...@m5.nassau.cv.net>...
>
>Probably not, but what was the last movie that got this sort of attention
>given to Titanic. I want to say, Titanic is the biggest movie since
______.
... the last big one?
Gary
Tris Orendorff
"Eskimo" (bluero...@hotmail.com) writes:
> that this sort of attention presently being paid to Titanic was given?
>
> Very curious.
There is one or two per year that go above 50% of the message traffic.
Men in Black
Independence Day
T2:Judgement Day
are the last three that I remember.
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d++ s a C+ UC++++ P+ L E- W+ N++ o- K++ w+ O+ M !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ !5
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Tris Orendorff
"Eskimo" (bluero...@hotmail.com) writes:
> that this sort of attention presently being paid to Titanic was given?
>
Very curious.
There is one or two per year that go above 50% of the message traffic:
Men in Black
Independence Day
Jurassic Park
T2:Judgement Day
are the last four that I remember.
Gary Pollard
Personally, I don't see film as art and film as entertainment as a
contradiction.
Gary
Alex Crouvier
There are films which people want to see, and there are those they need
to see.
Do I want to see the cheesy heroes to prevail at the end? Sure, if he
earns it.
Do I want to see the world as a shitty place? Sure, if the director and
writer could convince me.
Alex Crouvier
Gary Pollard
I find the world a shittier place in "Die Hard III" than in many movies
people would class as "art" movies.
But I still don't see art and entertainment as mutually contradictory. What
many others label art (i.e. it has subtitles) entertains me. Some
entertainment is worthwhile art.
Gary
Alex Crouvier
Perry Melchor wrote:
>
> Tris Orendorff wrote:
>
> > There is one or two per year that go above 50% of the message traffic:
> >
> > Men in Black
> > Independence Day
> > Jurassic Park
> > T2:Judgement Day
> >
> > are the last four that I remember.
>
> Contact" generated extremely heavy response.
>
> Perry
> innr...@ix.netcom.com
CONTACT is probably the other movie (besides TITANIC) which is not just
another movie. I called the film mediocre and I got hate mails and death
threaths worthy of a rabid skinhead. I thought Robert Zemeckis'
'intelligent' movie is a cop-out, leaving out Sagan's mathematical proof
of God.
Alex Crouvier
Eskimo
> leaving out Sagan's mathematical proof
>of God.
His what?
Gary Pollard
See the list of movies I like.
There are plenty of good entertainment movies there. How arty is "Babe"? But
"Babe" was a film that created its own world, set up its own rules, and
followed them. How arty is "Terminator II"?
If your feeling is that if you like Bergman and "Babe" you MUST be into art
films, I don't agree. And I don't see the difference. Tarkovsky's films are
entertaining for those who like them. As are Pasolini's. They are just not
lowest common denominator films.
Gary
epbrown wrote in message <34a7bc11...@news.enteract.com>...
>On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:02:01 +0800, "Gary Pollard"
><gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>>Personally, I don't see film as art and film as entertainment as a
>>contradiction.
> It's like an Elvis-people/Beatles-people thing. Now, Beatles people
>can like Elvis, and Elvis people can like the Beatles, but somewhere
>down the line, in your heart of hearts, you make a stand. And you, Mr.
>Pollard, are a film-as-art person, obviously. Sure, you can smile and
>say a film is entertaining, but the words ring like Picasso saying his
>favorite painting is DOGS PLAYING POKER, or Calvin Klein saying that
>rather than his own colognes, he just slaps on some Brut or Old Spice
>and he's ready for another hectic day in the world of high fashion.
> The great tragedy of life is that both camps are willing to
>acknowledge that the other has merit, but insists on judging movies by
>the merits they believe in. (Okay, so it's not so tragic, it isn't
>that great, and it has nothing to do with life - still a cool line.)
>I've found the Evil Dead series to have a unifying effect, esp. ED2.
>The Raimi's are entertaining writers and have a flair for camera
>angles as well.
> epbrown (my *best* line still being the bit about the 4 Horsemen of
>the Movie Apocalypse "Bigger, Louder, Faster, and Costlier")
>Stop by the Portable Computing Center for reviews,
>editorials, and the FAQ on laptop computers.
>http://www.enteract.com/~epbrown
>Laptops: Kiwi 680TX and IBM Thinkpad 560
MasonBarge
Contact, sigh, the "God and Pi" posters were as persistent as a leg-humpin'
dog. Titanic hasn't even touched ID4 or Pulp Fiction so far.
- Mason Barge
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee." -- Abraham Lincoln
Jean-Yves Desbiens
MasonBarge wrote:
Not too Mention Jurassic Park (that was one doozy of post flurry,
many thousands of posts in a week). And then there was
terminator 2 which had one of the most protracted discussion of
them all, lasted for years.
PAUL ADAMS
One thing about all this Titanic Bruhaha: It's making it harder and harder
for me to avoid seeing it, and continue posting here. Even though I think
I'm very unlikely to like the movie, I'm starting to feel left out, or
something! Nah, I still won't go see it.
PAUL ADAMS
Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote in article
<684u2v$m2...@news.asiaonline.net>...
Not only do I not see art and entertainment as contradictory, I don't
believe there's any difference at all. Not even the slightest. And I'm
serious.
John V. Goldsmith
Coal Porter (cpo...@broadway.com) wrote:
: Guernica was not meant to entertain. There are countless other
: examples. In Titanic (the movie) one can be swept away by the
: fictional romance but cannot ignore the enormity of the human
: tradgedy. Titanic is a complex work of art, not just entertainment.
Getting out of hand here.
Let's not put Titanic and Guernica in the same paragraph.
Dave Platt
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Coal Porter wrote:
# On 4 Jan 1998 10:28:27 GMT, "PAUL ADAMS" <ada...@worldnet.att.net>
# wrote:
#
# <Not only do I not see art and entertainment as contradictory, I don't
# <believe there's any difference at all. Not even the slightest. And I'm
# <serious.
#
# Guernica was not meant to entertain. There are countless other
# examples. In Titanic (the movie) one can be swept away by the
That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that art and
entertainment aren't directly opposed. Of course some art is not
entertaining, and some entertainment is not art. But that doesn't mean
that some can be both.
# fictional romance but cannot ignore the enormity of the human
# tradgedy. Titanic is a complex work of art, not just entertainment.
I wholeheartedly disagree. It's a fairly simple work of craft, not a
complex work of art. Where are the gray areas, the difficulties? There's
no challenge in the reactions Titanic tries to get.
Titanic reminds me of what Pauline Kael said about Bird - when someone
who's not an artist tries to make art, they mistake it for earnestness.
Harpreet S. Kohli
PAUL ADAMS (ada...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote in article
: <684u2v$m2...@news.asiaonline.net>...
: > I find the world a shittier place in "Die Hard III" than in many movies
: > people would class as "art" movies.
: >
: What
: > many others label art (i.e. it has subtitles) entertains me. Some
: > entertainment is worthwhile art.
: Not only do I not see art and entertainment as contradictory, I don't
: believe there's any difference at all. Not even the slightest. And I'm
: serious.
Have to disagree with you on this one, although it is very subjective. Some
people are entertained only by artistic movies, thus art and entertainment
are the same to them. Others enjoy flicks like say MIB, which is definitely
not art. It may take a lot of hard work to come up with cool FX, but the
movie itself is not fresh in ideas and is not looking to provide any
insight into human nature. OTOH, some art movies provide a dark insight into
human nature and I can definitely say that I am not entertained by seeing
my dark side. I enjoy both kinds of flicks, and I feel that although art and
entertainment are definitely not contradictory, they are not the same. There
is an overlap though.
--
HK
Paul Adams
Coal Porter wrote in article <34b11c15...@news.alt.net>...
>Guernica was not meant to entertain. There are countless other
>examples. In Titanic (the movie) one can be swept away by the
>fictional romance but cannot ignore the enormity of the human
>tradgedy. Titanic is a complex work of art, not just entertainment.
What was Guernica meant to do then? All art, and all entertainment (which
I consider to be identical) appeal to our aesthetic sense. They do
something other than inform or communicate data. Something need not be
uplifting or joyful to be regarded as either art or entertainment. I am
entertained by dissonance, pathos, horror, etc. The reason I object to a
distinction between art and entertainment, or high art and low art, is
because it establishes a false dichotomy. Many people seem to believe
that one is appreciated primarly on an emotional level, the other on an
intellectual level. But I think that's crap. Guernica can be appreciated
on an emotional level, on a visceral or aesthetic level, and that's
certainly how I appreciate (or "enjoy") it. And no education nor
intellectual analysis is necessary for this appreciation. I think the
distinction between art and entertainment aught to be discarded, because
it creates so many false impressions. Instead lets try to distinguish
between good and bad, successful and unsuccessful, rather than high and
low. Unless you want to stick to the old model: comedy = entertainment,
tragedy = art.
The terms "art" and "entertainment" are used in many ways which I feel are
inappropriate. Some use "art" as a word of praise, and "entertainment" as
a word of condemnation. Others, who feel they have a more basic common
sense approach to aesthetics, form the ridiculous impression that so
called "high art" can not be appreciated on an emotional level. Those who
dislike classical music for instance, seem to think that when I listen to
Mahler I'm only engaging in some sort of abstract, intellectual exercise,
or merely claiming an appreciation of what educated people call "art."
What they don't seem to realize is that Mahler's music is beautiful, even
when it is dissonant, and that I like it because I truly like it, I enjoy
it, it entertains me, in just the way that whatever popular music they may
listen to entertains them.
If I say that I like the films of Godard, such as Weekend, or Alphaville,
often those who don't like these films, or have not seen them, seem to
regard me as some sort of intellectual student of film, who can't just
"loosen up and have some fun." But this attitude is pathetic and absurd.
Alphaville is for me the ultimate in loosening up and having fun. I go to
films like Independence day too, with the idea of having fun, but they're
not fun, not because they are "mere entertainments," but because they're
bad, because they fail so completely to entertain me. Similarly, I love
the films of Kurosawa. But it's not because I somehow managed, through
tedious hours of study and analysis, to figure out what makes a film like
Rashoman "art." It's because when I see Kurosawa's films, they get to me!
I think "wow! excelent! What incredible characters! What a story! The
passion, the drama, the romance of it all!" This doesn't mean the films
don't also "make me think." But any entertainment, "high" or "low" can
make you think, so long as it's good.
Another example: A few months back I read several works by Voltaire, and I
read Jonathan Swift's _Gulliver's Travels_. Now, if you tell someone that
you're reading Voltaire (and they never have), you will often get this
sort of response: "Oh, Voltaire. What, are you some kind of intellectual,
high brow, artsy fartsy, studying for your doctoral thesis or something?"
If you tell them that you're reading _Gulliver's Travels_, you're likely
to hear (from those who don't know what they're talking about) "Why are
you reading a children's book?" Personally, I can't think of any two
authors who have more in common in terms of style, use of language,
character, story content, and wit, than Voltaire and Swift. So how do the
uninformed develop such odd impressions? I believe that these reactions
come from people's ideas about "high" and "low" art, or "art vs.
entertainment." And the sooner we squash such distictions, the sooner we
will come to understand the value of art.
So, is Guernica "art," and therefore not "entertainment." I wouldn't say
so. It appeals to a different aspect of our aesthetic sense than a purely
light comic work, or pretty landscape might. And since we generally
regard the word "entertainment" as applying to those works which give us
an optimistic, uplifting pleasure, I admit that it's hard to make the word
"entertainment" stick to a work like Guernica. But the fact is that
Guernica appeals to our aesthetic sense, which is generally the goal of
"art" and "entertainment" alike.
Guernica appeals to the same aspect of our aesthetic sense that a horror
film appeals to, though perhaps it does so more effectively. How do we
classify a good work of horror? Is it "art" or "entertainment?" Perhaps
we might call it a "morbid entertainment." "A brutal confrontation with
the power of violence and death." However you classify such a work, it's
in the same class as Guernica, except perhaps in terms of success or
quality.
But no doubt some people will balk at my attempt to force the word
"entertainment" onto Guernica, so now that I've thought it over I've
decided to make a concession. If we decide that "entertainment" can only
refer to those works which are uplifting or optimistic, then I will step
back and say this: "All entertainment is art, even if all art is not
entertainment." In other words, entertainment can be regarded as a
subclass of art. But neither can be regarded as inherently "higher" nor
"lower," and both serve the function of appealing to our aesthetic sense.
Both can communicate to our hearts, and to our minds.
Robert Chapman
In article
<Pine.SV4.3.91.980105...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave
Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
> I wholeheartedly disagree. It's a fairly simple work of craft, not a
> complex work of art. Where are the gray areas, the difficulties? There's
> no challenge in the reactions Titanic tries to get.
Why do all films have to have 'gray areas'? Why can't a film be black and
white (metaphorically), especially when it's about a disaster, disasters
have few gray areas. Why must every film challenge you, can't a film
simply tell a compelling story?
Rob
Dave Platt
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Robert Chapman wrote:
# In article
# <Pine.SV4.3.91.980105...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>, Dave
# Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
#
# > I wholeheartedly disagree. It's a fairly simple work of craft, not a
# > complex work of art. Where are the gray areas, the difficulties? There's
# > no challenge in the reactions Titanic tries to get.
#
# Why do all films have to have 'gray areas'? Why can't a film be black and
# white (metaphorically), especially when it's about a disaster, disasters
# have few gray areas. Why must every film challenge you, can't a film
# simply tell a compelling story?
I'm not saying it can't. However, if it does so, I don't think it could
be called a "complex" work of art. There is nothing complex about
Titanic. That's all I'm saying.
peter krynicki
Paul Adams wrote:"
>
> Guernica appeals to the same aspect of our aesthetic sense that a horror
> film appeals to, though perhaps it does so more effectively. How do we
> classify a good work of horror? Is it "art" or "entertainment?" Perhaps
> we might call it a "morbid entertainment." "A brutal confrontation with
> the power of violence and death." However you classify such a work, it's
> in the same class as Guernica, except perhaps in terms of success or
> quality.
>
Nope. And I'm sorry to take such a short exception to your well thought
out and presented post, but I say no for the following reason. Any
horror movie is enjoyable to the extent that it freightens us in and of
itself. There is nothing external to the movie which we need know in
order to make the movie horror-fiying. Take Psycho. It's scarey and you
don't have to know anything more to be scared. Now take Guernica. What
is it in and of itself? A painting with some oddly drawn people who seem
to be upset about something. And a few upside down cows or at least they
might be cows. But how did they get upside down? "It's those explosions.
From the bombs. On the town that was bombed by the Condor Legion for no
military rason." But wait. There are no explosions in the painting.
There are no bombs. And how do we know the name of the painting is the
name of a town. And the reason for that town being bombed.
So no. Whatever entertainment there is in, for example, Psycho is all
within the movie. The entertainment value of Guernica is all external to
the painting, unless you are only interested in the brushtrokes and the
color, and the execution, and not the political value of the work.
No?
Pjk
Paul Adams
peter krynicki wrote in article <34B4EA...@cylogixnt1.morgan.com>...
>Paul Adams wrote:"
>>
>> Guernica appeals to the same aspect of our aesthetic sense that a
horror
>> film appeals to, though perhaps it does so more effectively. How do
we
>> classify a good work of horror? Is it "art" or "entertainment?"
Perhaps
>> we might call it a "morbid entertainment." "A brutal confrontation
with
>> the power of violence and death." However you classify such a work,
it's
>> in the same class as Guernica, except perhaps in terms of success or
>> quality.
>>
>
>out and presented post, but I say no for the following reason. Any
>horror movie is enjoyable to the extent that it freightens us in and of
>itself. There is nothing external to the movie which we need know in
>order to make the movie horror-fiying. Take Psycho. It's scarey and you
>don't have to know anything more to be scared. Now take Guernica. What
>is it in and of itself? A painting with some oddly drawn people who seem
>to be upset about something. And a few upside down cows or at least they
>might be cows. But how did they get upside down? "It's those explosions.
>From the bombs. On the town that was bombed by the Condor Legion for no
>military rason." But wait. There are no explosions in the painting.
>There are no bombs. And how do we know the name of the painting is the
>name of a town. And the reason for that town being bombed.
>
>So no. Whatever entertainment there is in, for example, Psycho is all
>within the movie. The entertainment value of Guernica is all external to
>the painting, unless you are only interested in the brushtrokes and the
>color, and the execution, and not the political value of the work.
>
>No?
>Pjk
But what I'm getting at is that Guenica goes beyond a mere political
statement, or communication of information. It is art, and as such, it
appeals to our aesthetic sense. And because it is a treatment of death
and violence, it appeals to the darker, morbid aspect of our aesthetic
sense, the same aspect which all artistic presentations of violence seek
to appeal to. That's the connection I'm attempting to make here.
If Picasso wanted to simply communicate "War is horrible," or "The bombing
of Guernica was a brutal senseless slaughter," he would have either spoken
publicly, or written on a piece of paper "War is horrible"/"The bombing of
Guernica was a brutal senseless slaughter." But he didn't do this. He
painted a picture. The picture intends to communicate with the viewer on
an aesthetic level, touching them emotionally, and bring home in a more
concrete tangible way the force of violence. It does more than that as
well. Guernica is as much about Picasso's own artistic style as it is
about a historical event, or the horror of violence. Like all art works,
it resists an effort to boil it down to a simple message. To reduce
Guernica to "War is horrible" would be an injustice, and unfair treatment
of the work.
I agree that our appreciation of Guernica profits from our knowledge of
the painting's subject. But that doesn't really bear on the question of
whether Guernica appeals to the same aspect of our aesthetic sense that
horror films appeal to. And I don't really agree that "The entertainment
value of Guernica is all external to the painting..." Even without
knowing the context of the painting, it is clearly a portrayal of the
horror of violence, even if the violence appears rather abstract. After
all, it contains people and animals wracked with convulsions, protrate
bodies, women screaming and raising their hands to heaven, a mother
cradling a dead infant, etc.
But besides that, knowledge of the context and the supposed message of the
painting is not equivalent to viewing the painting itself. It contains a
value which goes beyond anything we can gather from the externals. The
fact that the painting profits from knowledge external to the work is due
to it's being a painting. Static works of art can't contain as much in
terms of describing characters, events, and context as a movie can unless
they are accompanied by text. But that's really just addressing one of
the many differences between a painting and a movie, and does not refute
my claim that both can appeal to the same aspect of our aesthetic sense.
peter krynicki
Paul Adams wrote:>
>
> But what I'm getting at is that Guenica goes beyond a mere political
> statement, or communication of information. It is art, and as such, it
> appeals to our aesthetic sense. And because it is a treatment of death
> and violence, it appeals to the darker, morbid aspect of our aesthetic
> sense, the same aspect which all artistic presentations of violence seek
> to appeal to. That's the connection I'm attempting to make here.
>
> If Picasso wanted to simply communicate "War is horrible," or "The bombing
> of Guernica was a brutal senseless slaughter," he would have either spoken
> publicly, or written on a piece of paper "War is horrible"/"The bombing of
> Guernica was a brutal senseless slaughter." But he didn't do this. He
> painted a picture.
Two things. One is that Picasso speaking and not painting would have
been like Hemingway painting and not writing For Whom the Bell Tolls.
IMO his "statement" via the media he was best known for served the cause
in the best way. And, as it turns out, his painting has lasted longer
than his words may have.
The picture intends to communicate with the viewer on
> an aesthetic level, touching them emotionally, and bring home in a more
> concrete tangible way the force of violence. It does more than that as
> well. Guernica is as much about Picasso's own artistic style as it is
> about a historical event, or the horror of violence. Like all art works,
> it resists an effort to boil it down to a simple message. To reduce
> Guernica to "War is horrible" would be an injustice, and unfair treatment
> of the work.
>
> I agree that our appreciation of Guernica profits from our knowledge of
> the painting's subject. But that doesn't really bear on the question of
> whether Guernica appeals to the same aspect of our aesthetic sense that
> horror films appeal to.
Now here is where I take exception. I see entertainment value as only
one aspect of art in general. If a horror movie entertains us by horri-
fying us then this is one indication that it is good art - it
accomplishes what it sets out to do. But if it horrifies us but has bad
dialogue and the picture is grainy and the voice doesn't match the lips
moving, it probably isn't.
And I don't really agree that "The entertainment
> value of Guernica is all external to the painting..." Even without
> knowing the context of the painting, it is clearly a portrayal of the
> horror of violence, even if the violence appears rather abstract. After
> all, it contains people and animals wracked with convulsions, protrate
> bodies, women screaming and raising their hands to heaven, a mother
> cradling a dead infant, etc.
>
> But besides that, knowledge of the context and the supposed message of the
> painting is not equivalent to viewing the painting itself. It contains a
> value which goes beyond anything we can gather from the externals. The
> fact that the painting profits from knowledge external to the work is due
> to it's being a painting. Static works of art can't contain as much in
> terms of describing characters, events, and context as a movie can unless
> they are accompanied by text. But that's really just addressing one of
> the many differences between a painting and a movie, and does not refute
> my claim that both can appeal to the same aspect of our aesthetic sense.
But to say that Guernica entertains us in some way similar to the way
Psycho entertains us seems to me to require stretching the definition of
entertainment too much. If entertainment is the production of an emotion
then maybe, but entertainment to me requires some amount of enjoyment.
Some attractiveness of the subject matter. The appreciation of a work
of art like Guernica for its anti-war theme isn't entertainment in the
same sense. Schllindler's List appeals to me in the same way that
Guernica does, but neither of these entertain me.
Are we splitting hairs?
Pjk
x