For "Art"'s Sake. (Was: Re: Is Television Production Art?)
Charles Pope
> Flaky52822 wrote:
>
> > Television journalism -- and I am talking about magazine shows primarily
> > -- has no real "vision". Sure the producer generally carries the project along,
> > but they shoot with numerous crews. You show up on a job as the first camera
> > and you may have never even discussed the assignment. So you go in with no
> > fore-thought. You are working partially from rote or a scheme you developed
> > that fits most situations. Your artist in the Crate and Barrel plant isn't
> > implementing his/her own ideas even thought they may care a great deal about
> > their craft. The person turning the pots may be making crappy pots (and not art
> > by the way) but at least, should the impulse strike, they could turn over a new
> > leaf and strive for art. The Crate and Barrel guy/gal sticks to the routine.
>
> Here I am ready to do something productive with my day and you go and post this!
> First of all lets start friendly. I agree with you. Not all film is art. Not all
> art is Art as far as I'm concerned. Art is not some absolute term in the way that
> the crazy Senator from S. Carolina would love to define it. But as far as I can
> figure out Art doesn't live or die because of the integrity of the creator. Art is
> a personal recognition that what you see, hear or taste is of such a high caliber
> that it should be given the title. But then what is Bad Art? I think that's a lazy
> term, that when you really think about it, is nothing more than a contradiction in
> terms.
>
> Dickens got paid by the word and that is most probably why his books spend two to
> three pages describing each room his characters walk into. Are Dickens' works Art?
> If I held to my own definition I'd have to say no. Personally I don't like his
> work. His stories are too soap operaish and way too coincidence ridden for my
> taste. But I recognize this as a personal opinion and allow his prose to be put
> into the category Art. Why? I don't know. Tyranny of the masses I guess.
>
> The paintings in the Sistine Chapel, are they Art? Few would disagree, but how
> many hands ended up painting those ceilings. You argue that there needs to be a
> Direction, a singular vision in order for something to be defined as Art. Well if
> ever there was a singular vision it exists in a pottery factory.
>
> Going back to that analogy, you argue that the factory potter doesn't make art
> because of his lack of control just like the videographer shooting a Dateline
> interview doesn't have control over the look of the entire piece. Sure. But I
> don't think that invalidates an assertion that the videographer (or the potter)
> can try to make Art out of the images he or she records. Our inability to define
> things out of a museum setting as Art stems from an bias that I think is
> completely unjustified.
>
> Bear with me. I'm not flying off the deep end here. I simply believe that Art can
> exist independent of the larger picture. Just because few if any people would see
> "Porky's" as a piece of Cinematic Art doesn't mean that the people working on it
> didn't attempt to bring there own artistic visions into the piece and it doesn't
> mean that certain aspects of the film don't succeed in some artistic way. (okay,
> so maybe it's more likely that everyone on the show was just working for a pay
> check but I'm trying to make a point)
>
> Say for instance John Toll shot an infomercial. Huge budget, full blown 65 mm
> production. Are the visuals artistically captured? For what John Toll charges they
> better be.
>
> What we need to do here is define what the parameters of Art are. For me, "Art" is
> a marketing gimmick. It's a term that some craftsman coined to have an excuse to
> raise his prices. It's a term that creates an exclusive hierarchy where one thing
> is "well crafted" and another is "Art" I just can't see what the difference is
> other than personal opinion. You're just imposing your own sensibilities and
> disguising them as an absolute independent of yourself.
>
> Duke Ellington phrased it best. "If it sounds good. It is good."
>
> BTW - I don't think your a snob Tom. I just think you've been hanging around those
> damn Blue Bloods too long. Come on over to the land of red buttes, cows, and
> polygamists or get your ass down to the Black Rose and have a couple of Guinesses
> for Arts sake!
Now you two are starting to sound like Niles and Frasier! Why don't you phone up NBC
or Paramount and ask if you can borrow the Cafe Nervosa set to make a video of your
debate...?
Which reminds me that Kelsey Grammer, David Hyde Pierce and John Mahoney never did go
ahead with their widely-rumoured ('bout a year or so ago) plan to appear in the
Tony-winning play ("Art").
CPJ.
Dave
>
> Tim Gibbons wrote:
>
-miles and miles of art discussion snipped-
> >
> > BTW - I don't think your a snob Tom. I just think you've been hanging around those
> > damn Blue Bloods too long. Come on over to the land of red buttes, cows, and
> > polygamists or get your ass down to the Black Rose and have a couple of Guinesses
> > for Arts sake!
>
> Now you two are starting to sound like Niles and Frasier!
Hey, Chuck? I know you have interests in both these newsgroups, but
there's no need to drag an essentially non-Frasier related thread into
the alt.tv.frasier group.
There's enough off topic crap in there to begin with.
Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
rat...@gate.net
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE* I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.