|
| Thread: What the **** is wrong with these people?! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 08, 2013 10:44 PM |
|
|
|
Except YOU came up with the word "artistic" - while it's just about ENTERTAINMENT (which might be more or less artistic, but isn't the point nor the question).
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted January 08, 2013 10:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Except YOU came up with the word "artistic" - while it's just about ENTERTAINMENT (which might be more or less artistic, but isn't the point nor the question).
Agree completely.
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 08, 2013 11:12 PM |
|
|
Except that I've never talked "just about ENTERTAINMENT" and since I started the topic, I think I have a better idea what's its idea.  If you perceive it just as ENTERTAINMENT (that's the bigger brother of entertainment I guess), that's you. It hardly has anything to do with the purpose of this thread though.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 08, 2013 11:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Except that I've never talked "just about ENTERTAINMENT"
See, there is your mistake. If you don't want to talk about entertainment then why do you link to it?
I mean, I wouldn't link to a trash dump and gtry to discuss antiques, right?
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 08, 2013 11:59 PM |
|
Edited by smithey at 00:30, 09 Jan 2013.
|
I'm gonna simply rewrite the original title as I think its more fitting here
"what a hell is wrong with Z?" Why is he so butthurt that someone is using one of his heroes to make money, and why would a person who claims he is using his brain take entertainment meant for the masses and try to discuss it as if it were art ?
Discuss the wonders of the human brain and Z's logic as blinded by emotions towards historical figures...
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 12:45 AM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 00:46, 09 Jan 2013.
|
Being entertaining > being "Artistic". But obviously ONLY when you actually are, you know, *entertaining* as there's probably nothing worse than something that is both boring *and* vapid.
just a ftr
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 07:53 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 08:04, 09 Jan 2013.
|
Here's how it works:
- the paintings (and their drawing) is a form of art. Making a public exhibition of your painting is appealing to the audience to take it as a work of art. Even if for some reason that's not your intention (the f***?), the audience goes to exhibitions to see art and has certain expectations;
- making music is a form of art. Composing some tune and playing it (or asking someone else to play it) in front of other people obviously can only have as a purpose to impress them (except some very marginal scenarios) and ultimately to present this tune as a work of art.
- cinema is a form of art. Making a movie and playing it to the large audience (that's what the movies are made for, Smithey, go check this stuff out  ) is ultimately aiming to impress them and present the movie as a form of art.
See where this is going? You can't compose a song, make a concert to sing it and then claim the whole thing is just for ENTERTAINMENT. Making music is art, so want it or not you will compare this song with other songs, it happens sort of automatically (you can also check this stuff out, Smithey, very fascinating) no matter if the song is generally good, fantastic or torture to the ears. Say, in the latter case it is like appearing unwashed, unshaven and dressed as a beggar on an official party with some dress code and then claiming that you are there just for the ENTERTAINMENT. Doesn't work like that. If you don't understand it, at least stop posting nonsense.
Quote:
Discuss the wonders of the human brain and Z's logic as blinded by emotions towards historical figures...
Look, let's avoid the childish part. You've no idea what is my opinion of Leonardo, neither what are my "emotions" on the matter, you've only deduced something based on a few post in some forum. This whole thing has a completely different purpose and I already explained it clearly enough. Either talk about it or don't talk at all.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 08:20 AM |
|
|
I think there is a flaw there. Making perfect painting, music or movie is art. Anything lower than perfection is for entertaining purpose then it disappears with time, the (survival) time being the only factor separating quality from trash. Today we all agree on the valid art-works of the past but not (yet) on the present ones. Which tends to show that art is more than quick entertaining and it is tied to human evolution.
The flaw is when you affirm that movies/music are art therefore can't be made for entertainment. In fact, most of "artistic" creations of the present century are made for business purpose, by warming up again and again perfect tested schemas which exploit the lack of quality culture around.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 08:26 AM |
|
|
@Zeno:
Quote:
Now why this Leonardo **** will ultimately suck  (and I meant the trailer, Smithey, not the pseudo-historical series as a whole). Well, Leonardo is a real historical figure and as such, he's not incredibly flexible as a character, especially for those who know a thing or two about him. Putting him in a scenario where he's not part of the real history and is not his historical self simply changes him into a different person, he's no longer Leonardo. Just as successfully you can name him Caesar Casanova Pavlov and make whatever you like of him. However, the name Leonardo da Vinci is well-known and will serve as a cheap advertisement (because, if you haven't heard, Leonardo is cool) which will attenuate the attention[...] for whatever crap there is actually in the series - at least initially. Q.E.D. I kind of detest such blatant attempts to make money out of someone's renown, eventually making a mockery of some major historical name. The rest is explained above.
Yes, this is true and I imagine it played no small role in the early drafting of the show, except you make an unwarranted leap by saying that an advertising tactic subsequently means that the show is going to suck. Said advertising tactic will boost the expected viewers, which will boost the funding for the show, which will (probably) result in a better show. High budget shows don't make good shows by default, but it helps, especially for shows that involve lots of "stuff" in them (comedies and romances are dirt cheap to produce. Other stuff tends to be more expensive). Artists have had to worry about funding for centuries and can still create some pretty enjoyable stuff, not necessarily in spite of financial concerns, but perhaps even because of them.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 08:34 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 08:46, 09 Jan 2013.
|
There is no reason to separate art from entertainment or to claim that one is the higher or lower level of the other. A good song or a good movie will certainly entertain you and they'll entertain you more than a mediocre song or a movie.
On the other hand - who starts making something with the clear intention to make it just mediocre in the end, except when he/she's lazy or unmotivated? Of course you don't aim to match the great painters in history with all of your paintings when you start drawing, nor to be Beethoven or "Lemmy" Kilmister  when you start composing music but in all cases you attempt to do something which, at least in your opinion, will be good. Otherwise why start at all?
Quote:
Yes, this is true and I imagine it played no small role in the early drafting of the show, except you make an unwarranted leap by saying that an advertising tactic subsequently means that the show is going to suck.
Well, this very thread is an ad hoc advertisement for the show so I can't be saying that, can I? My point is that choosing a real historical figure as the main character of a production which presents itself as some sort of low fantasy is already a bad move, no matter how the rest turns out. And that there is no reason to do that except for advertisement purposes. Naming the character differently won't change the substance of the series one bit but then the advertisement cost will be higher and the final product will have to be at least partially unique in order to be differentiated from the other (somewhat) fantastic stuff out there - which in turn means higher production standards. Right now "the name sells".
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 08:41 AM |
|
|
|
Painter, musician or writer is a job also, you can't expect all students from a conservatory to have artistic talent, most of them are just skillful, intelligent and good copiers. There is a need to separate art from entertainment, the same as the need of separating impression from true emotion. It is very hard to define what is a true emotion, the term diluted with time and is often confused with a good mood.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 08:58 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:07, 09 Jan 2013.
|
The line between entertainment and art is very gray indeed. Some of the classics of our time, (best example being plays of Shakespeare) were written for entertainment purposes and there are many "idealist" high art stuff that has been forgotten over time. The test of time is not the only criteria and is not an objective one either. The spirit of the age (Zeitgeist if you will) also determines which pieces are being revised as classics and not. Tristram Shandy (18th century) was forgotten in the 19th century but now considered a true classic and grandfather of post-modern novels. What is The Godfather, art or entertainment? It was a box office hit and is one of the greatest films ever made. Art is not artsy all the time.
Also I don't think any piece of art is perfect, it can be said they (the artist and only in some cases) are aiming for perfection, but that's all.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 08:58 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 09:00, 09 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
Painter, musician or writer is a job also, you can't expect all students from a conservatory to have artistic talent, most of them are just skillful, intelligent and good copiers. There is a need to separate art from entertainment, the same as the need of separating impression from true emotion. It is very hard to define what is a true emotion, the term diluted with time and is often confused with a good mood.
Actually there is a requirement for a minimal level or artistic talent to be a painter, musician or a writer if go through a formal training in some academy, otherwise you won't enter in the first place. The standards there are am official barrier.
Also, I'm not talking about how good or talented you are but that the field in which you express yourself is not a vacuum. You paint - there are other painters as well, some of them very talented, so you'll be compared to these other painters. Of course if you are just mediocre nobody will even think to compare you directly with, say, Rembrandt, but rather with the painters from your current category - but you are still part of the "painting community" so to speak.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 09:04 AM |
|
|
What I wanted to say, on topic, is that the well tested schemas for creating a good business "art" are presents in your example. If the movie was about Jolly Joker (no pun ) it will certainly not sell work without artistic qualities, but bringing Da Vinci aura in the title already evokes art drums. It is about the buyer psychology.
A bit similar to why companies release Heroes 4-10 games, without having creative ideas or concepts on how to make them. They all rely on H3 aura and they know there are enough idiots ignorants to buy whatever comes with that title.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 09:30 AM |
|
|
ART is no purpose in or for itself. It's just a label that is patched onto things. Art can be extremely boring OR entertaining while entertainment can be quite unartistic, but still entertaining - just ask the people watching a good game show 2000 years ago in the Roman Colosseum.
Of course - THEN, after such a game show, the cultivated Romans might go and congratulate the choreographer(s) of the show for their great (artistic) direction and timing (composition to increase the thrill gradually and to a climax).
It doesn't do to pick one thing and then dismiss it. Can porn be artistic? Doubtlessly. Is that necessary for those who generally like that kind of stuff to feel entertained by it? Not so.
Is a TV show art? WHO CARES? the only important thing is the rating, that is, how many will watch it - you could produce the most artistic show in the history of TV, if the ratings wouldn't be there they would cancel it.
So "being entertaining" is the main condition for those productions, because it's the prerequisite for SURVIVAL - artistic or not.
So far so good. What you are asking, Zeno, is this: can a show that mixes so freely a couple of facts - mainly to take advantage of the popularity of those facts - with fiction and fantasy, defying all sense of logic and reason (for you, at least), thereby failing artistically, be entertaining at all?
The answer is of course, yes, since "entertaining" isn't a question of whether something is artistic or not, but solely of personal likings and preferences. It's fiction anyway. The Tudors, for example, are nothing but FICTION. There are myriads of "historical novels", where authors fantasize about historical persons, with the chances they being correct in a historical sense being virtually nil.
We have currently two trends, one is delving into history; this has tradition - just think about King Arthur, something like the undead Vampire of pseudo-historic/fantasy stories. The other is transferring stories (and persons) into another time, prefarably the present.
You should know that even the most ridiculous story can be a piece of artful entertainment, if told WELL.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 02:35 PM |
|
Edited by smithey at 14:42, 09 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
Here's how it works:
- the paintings (and their drawing) is a form of art. Making a public exhibition of your painting is appealing to the audience to take it as a work of art. Even if for some reason that's not your intention (the f***?), the audience goes to exhibitions to see art and has certain expectations;
- making music is a form of art. Composing some tune and playing it (or asking someone else to play it) in front of other people obviously can only have as a purpose to impress them (except some very marginal scenarios) and ultimately to present this tune as a work of art.
- cinema is a form of art. Making a movie and playing it to the large audience (that's what the movies are made for, Smithey, go check this stuff out ) is ultimately aiming to impress them and present the movie as a form of art.
See where this is going? You can't compose a song, make a concert to sing it and then claim the whole thing is just for ENTERTAINMENT. Making music is art, so want it or not you will compare this song with other songs, it happens sort of automatically (you can also check this stuff out, Smithey, very fascinating) no matter if the song is generally good, fantastic or torture to the ears. Say, in the latter case it is like appearing unwashed, unshaven and dressed as a beggar on an official party with some dress code and then claiming that you are there just for the ENTERTAINMENT. Doesn't work like that. If you don't understand it, at least stop posting nonsense.
How is this relevant Z ? Art is all around us in almost every aspect of our lives, the only thing is that you and I wont agree on what art is, to some the way Michael Jordan played basketball was art, to others the way Justin Bieber sings is art, almost everything from the smallest creations (chair you're sitting on) to the biggest ones (Pyramids) is art, but that still doesnt change the fact that art is mainly subjective (viewed differently by different individuals)...
Is there art in entertainment ? Why of course there is, but is art important in entertainment ? why of course it isnt, entertainment is about making money by applying something to the masses, the most profitable movies are the worst pieces of art ever created (example twilight movies) coz they apply to the masses, entertainment is business and art is of no importance in business, if you cant grasp that then.. I dont know, smack yourself on the head or something...
Reality tv, makes money, good entertainment, artistic much ?
When idea is presented in the entertainment business the question is can it be profitable and not is it artistic enough, art is not important in entertainment, if its the lowest form of art but a profitable (high ratings) piece of art then its good entertainment, That is something most people understand, for some reason you dont, that is why there is no sense in discussing artistic expression in this aspect.
Leo being actually a woman, or an alien, or a demon hunter, or actual true Leo based on history.... Irrelevant, the only thing relevant is "is it catchy enough, will people watch it?"
I think it's catchy enough, I think I'll watch it (at least I'll give it a shot), I couldnt care less about the artistic expressions it will present coz all I want is to be entertained for 42 minutes...
If you want to discuss modern art or philosophical questions of "the place of art in our lives", make a thread about it, but making a thread about artistic expression in tv shows and asking where the limit is... Come on man, if you cant see how ridiculous it is on your own, stop for a moment with the tiresome arguing for the sake of arguing and actually try to understand what everyone here is trying to tell you....
Quote:
Look, let's avoid the childish part. You've no idea what is my opinion of Leonardo, neither what are my "emotions" on the matter, you've only deduced something based on a few post in some forum. This whole thing has a completely different purpose and I already explained it clearly enough. Either talk about it or don't talk at all.
So, you dont like Leo ? You dont hold him in high regard ? Was I wrong and you would have the same emotional reaction to a show portrying The life of Garcia Lorca as some underground fighter against demon fascists ?
You're right though, I dont know, I can only speculate so, Z, what is your opinion of Leonardo ?
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted January 10, 2013 09:15 PM |
|
|
Ok I say simple, he realized that the Egyptian images. He could not explain as to send a message to the future. Buy the DVD! Just great!
He did not try to predict the future. He is not a fraud. You can not get ever know or what?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted January 10, 2013 09:42 PM |
|
|
Holy **** didn't know that ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians had access to tanks and Apaches.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 10, 2013 10:31 PM |
|
|
What amazes me is that they watched Star Wars also (maybe some trailer?). You can clearly see Luke's landspider.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
| |
|
|
