• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Why I Think Art Films are Overrated

76254

Saiyan Pride
Local time
Today 4:12 PM
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
27
-->
A couple years ago, my class took a trip to the Warhol Museum. Personally, I found it kind of overrated, but the point I'm trying to make here doesn't have much to do with my personal tastes. I saw this really convincing chainsaw sculpture that I thought was interesting, so I read the plaque beneath it. It said that the chainsaw somehow symbolized some aspect of capitalism, I can't quite remember exactly what point it was trying to make, but I thought "well, I never would have guessed that by looking at it." I found this to be a sort of intellectual cowardice, to hide the point you're trying to make to hide it from scrutiny.

I remembered how some time before that, I watched about the first half hour of Alejandro Jodorowski's "The Holy Mountain" before I thought "what the hell is this even about?" So I skipped ahead through some scenes, watched some clips here and there, no scene made more sense than another, and then I watched the ending. Wanting clarification, I read a synopsis on the movie, detailing how it was rife with symbolism, and the only thing I could conclude from the movie was that Jodorowski was an atheist, which I'm not even certain of. Any other point he had to make was too vague or too hidden in symbolism. So as I saw it, AJ used 115 minutes of running time and a $750,000 budget to say something along the lines of "Christianity sucks."

Judging by how lauded films like Begotten, the Holy Mountain, etc. are within the art community, it seems to me that too many artists think that any point they try to make somehow has more validity if they use some convoluted symbolism to express it, rather than presenting it honestly and straightforwardly. And I understand how films are made for dramatic appeal rather than to make any serious point, but I'd say that any point the director tries to make with a movie has no more validity than if they just made a statement, and wrapping it in vague symbolism seems like both a waste of time and effort, and intellectual cowardice. If you paint a beautiful picture that says "2+2=5," it might be heartwarming, but it's still wrong.

I put this thread in the films section, but this applies to any symbolic art. For example, Brave New World and Animal Farm might have been good reads, but they don't make Huxley's or Orwell's viewpoints any more valid than if they would have just plainly stated their views.
 

(͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Panzergrenadier
Local time
Today 4:12 PM
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
94
-->
Location
British Columbia
Full of uncreative people who wish they were and circle jerk with bullshit praise with hopes that their shit produces profound bullshit descriptions. That's how to raise to fame in their little world.

It's meant to stifle emotion and real feeling for a pretensious farce. Why? Because real art is powerful, real white European Art for example makes me feel amazing and proud of my European heritage. http://www.arc-store.com/newlaprav.html

Alejandro was a jew and Warhol might as well have been one considering all the praise he gets still from jews. Why jewish perversion of art? Because of how powerful it is, they must knock it down as much as possible.


Ilya Bolotowsky and Jackson Pollock are fine examples of this perversion, both Jewish.

https://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/painting-bought-for-9-99-at-goodwill-valued-at-15k.html
Couple finds one of Ilya's paintings at goodwill buys it for 9 bucks and apparently it's worth $15,000 in the retarded jewish art world.
And here is Jackson Pollocks gimmicky trash.
http://i.imgur.com/IPJGDVj.jpg



http://gawker.com/cleaning-lady-throws-away-expensive-modern-art-she-mist-1527595660
Cleaning lady throws out shitty modern art piece thinking it's trash :rolleyes:
Now some eye bleach, a personal favourite sculpture, Arno Breker:

 

76254

Saiyan Pride
Local time
Today 4:12 PM
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
27
-->
Being half-Jewish, I normally say the same thing to people who talk about ZOG conspiracies: Cool, where can I sign up for my share?

Also, to say that Jews are deliberately trying to "knock [art] down" is a little far fetched, dontcha think? It makes more sense to me that Jodorowski, Warhol, Pollocks, etc. are/were just your run-of-the-mill sentimental doofuses who think something's wonderful just because it's "artistic."

But at any rate, I don't purport to be an art connoisseur because I don't care much about art, and I don't tell people what to do with their money. If someone wants to spend $750,000 to say "I'm an atheist" or $15,000 for some garbage, that's their loss.
 

Puffy

Aquila
Local time
Today 4:12 PM
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
2,942
-->
Location
Hanaqpacha
I don't know how broadly you're defining 'symbolism' (seems pretty broad) but the idea that A can be representative of B (metaphor, or simile 'A is like B') is a pretty universal feature of art that extends beyond modern to classical. Conveying more than what is direct, or referring outside/inside itself to other connections and contexts, is just a means of making expressions & forms richer and say more with what's there.

I think the problem you're highlighting with obtuse connections is more to do with cliquishness, or when it becomes basically compulsory to approach an art-work with a specialised knowledge or vocabulary in order to get anything out of it. (Art that's basically art for other artists and critics...)

I'd disagree that films with 'dramatic appeal' can't be art or have serious messages anyway. I could think of loads of directors who are considered serious artists who basically always worked within the entertainment industry, and whose works can be enjoyed with or without appreciating the symbolism at play in them (Hitchcock, Kubrick, Powell, et al.)
 

Helvete

Pizdec
Local time
Tomorrow 3:12 AM
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
1,541
-->
I don't think you can judge art as an objective. The vagueness will mean different things to different people and some maybe nothing at all. From my experience with art the most enjoyable or intriguing pieces or films I'v seen, have just been there to create an expression of some kind which can be interpreted in multiple different ways. Rather than it being created with the intention of impressing people or for a specific audience.

With your example of a picture showcasing '2+2=5' being wrong, but maybe heart warming. You have to remember that, especially with something so obviously wrong that it's probably trying to send a different message. The artist know's it's wrong. Why he did it's a hugely debatable matter. Most art will try to make you think, which IMO makes it interesting.
Until you put the effort of thinking about what meanings it could convey then you most likely won't get anything out of it. I haven't seen the films you mentioned but if you want I could list a fair few I'v seen.

If you just want something more coherent then go back to Hollywood ;)
 

paradoxparadigm7

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 10:12 AM
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
695
-->
Location
Central Illinois
I would find a world without music, art, poetry, literature etc...quite barren and paltry if it was reduced to flat assertions to be dissected and scrutinized. But more to the point, you mentioned "intellectual cowardice" as a main objection. There are many artists that express their views via their medium that indeed sparks discussion, dissection and scrutiny. Just as your post is doing now. Just because the artist isn't here (now) for you to debate with, doesn't mean he/she is a coward.

Words strung together to make sentences are symbols of concepts. Symbolism is universal across all cultures and goes back to early man. Semiotics is a field of study that focuses on meaning-making. And mankind cannot be divorced from his/her innate propensity for meaning making. It's one of the hallmarks of being human and has been a driver of our advancement. Hence, 'a picture is worth a 1000 words'.
 

paradoxparadigm7

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 10:12 AM
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
695
-->
Location
Central Illinois
"Alejandro was a jew and Warhol might as well have been one considering all the praise he gets still from jews. Why jewish perversion of art? Because of how powerful it is, they must knock it down as much as possible."



What does being a Jew have to do with art?
Conspiracy theory much?
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 4:12 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
-->
Location
stockholm
The OP makes a far too sweeping a generalization. I don't know what you didn't get about the Holy Mountain, it's pretty obvious. You probably just got weirded out because you lacked reference points. Are you by any chance an SJ-type? I recommend you to adopt a mindset wherein if you decide to watch a movie you sit the fuck down and watch it til the end and then start critiquing it instead of doing so right in the beginning. No wonder you didn't like it you piece of shit.

In any case yeah lotsa art films suck dick, das cuz when people don't get shit they just assume its bad or good based on whether its cool to like or not. Most mainstream films also suck dick tho.
 

Ex-User (9062)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 4:12 PM
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
1,631
-->
[BIMG]http://anony.ws/i/2014/06/23/whiteart.png[/BIMG]

Yes!
The white man's ability to sculpt curvy human ti... ssue is unrivaled!
Scientific fact!
International Jew... ell... ery cartels have conspired against this!
We must liberate ourselves from the clutch of this scam!
I say, paint white vag... uely clothed women like there is no tomorrow!


No, seriously:
Some Jews are rich and rich people buy and sell art because it can preserve "value" better than paper money or a bank deposit.
Artists who are being hyped by speculators have to initially flood the market to get everyone else involved and interested in collecting every obtainable bit of the body of work.
The logical approach is then to manufacture large quantities of qualitatively inferior works.
As people can be fooled into thinking that the artwork is "worth" money (speculators artificially raising the value by selling to each other in circles), they are more likely to attribute beauty to it, because they want to justify spending ridiculous sums on junk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl0KGRGpvoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2vlS5PMwUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YxuKNmjsKk
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 5:12 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
i agree with much of your criticism directed toward art films and artsy shit in general. jodorowsky isn't a viable target though. sure, he may use an obscure symbolic structure but his films may be appreciated just for their fine-tuned aesthetics, brutal humor, overall mindfuckery, etc... they have plenty of content and are not lazy by any stretch.
 

76254

Saiyan Pride
Local time
Today 4:12 PM
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
27
-->
No, seriously:
Some Jews are rich and rich people buy and sell art because it can preserve "value" better than paper money or a bank deposit.
Artists who are being hyped by speculators have to initially flood the market to get everyone else involved and interested in collecting every obtainable bit of the body of work.
The logical approach is then to manufacture large quantities of qualitatively inferior works.
As people can be fooled into thinking that the artwork is "worth" money (speculators artificially raising the value by selling to each other in circles), they are more likely to attribute beauty to it, because they want to justify spending ridiculous sums on junk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl0KGRGpvoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2vlS5PMwUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YxuKNmjsKk

I've been educated.

The OP makes a far too sweeping a generalization. I don't know what you didn't get about the Holy Mountain, it's pretty obvious. ...

In any case yeah lotsa art films suck dick, das cuz when people don't get shit they just assume its bad or good based on whether its cool to like or not. Most mainstream films also suck dick tho.

Well, why not make a sweeping generalization for this? I'm not saying that all metaphorical art sucks, I'm just saying that whenever you make a point through artistic metaphor, it's no more valid than if you would have just stated the point you were trying to make. Do you not agree that something isn't above objective scrutiny just because it's art?

You probably just got weirded out because you lacked reference points.

So what reference points do you think I'm missing?

Are you by any chance an SJ-type?

So what if I was?

I recommend you to adopt a mindset wherein if you decide to watch a movie you sit the fuck down and watch it til the end and then start critiquing it instead of doing so right in the beginning.

Not talking about any movie in particular, but for a lot of them you can pretty much tell they suck from the beginning.

No wonder you didn't like it you piece of shit.

If we're talking about whether or not I personally liked the film, if I could barely sit through half an hour of what I saw as meaningless nonsense, I don't think I would have liked it any more if I would have spent three times as long watching it. You seem to think that if I was more enlightened, I'd be hailing Jodorowski as a genius, because his views are the enlightened views. All I'm saying is that if someone wants me to think they're a Messiah, they have to prove that through the validity of their views, not through their ability to dress their point up in some vague metaphor.

I know my way isn't for everyone, but I myself try to be straightforward with my views, because to me being refuted isn't as bad as being never being criticized and living in perpetual ignorance.

i agree with much of your criticism directed toward art films and artsy shit in general. jodorowsky isn't a viable target though. sure, he may use an obscure symbolic structure but his films may be appreciated just for their fine-tuned aesthetics, brutal humor, overall mindfuckery, etc... they have plenty of content and are not lazy by any stretch.

I'll keep that in mind. As I said, I'm not an art connoisseur. I guess I can't quite tell the difference between a genuine artist and a hipster taking a grainy, low-angle photo of a lawn chair. Art films aren't my cup of tea, but I'm not saying you shouldn't watch them if that's what you like.

I suppose a lot of my criticism of art comes from how people overestimate the validity of artist's viewpoints. For example, whenever people talk about how great Bob Marley was, they tend to forget that he was just a musician, and the only reason they like Rasta is the weed.
 
Top Bottom