Thread: Hobbit in 3D
<<    >>
"Patrons of the Arts"??? Are you talking about the Few Gentry who built the Galleries, commissioned the Artwork, and patronized the Galleries that redefined Art, or are you talking about about the General Public who made Avatar the number one film in history, or Calvin and Hobbes one of the most popular comic strips ever.
Art is Art wherever it resides--a Cave Wall, a Sketch Book, a Comic Book, a Limoge China pattern, a mass produced Lady GaGa CD, a B movie, and yes--even a Gallery Wall. Some of it is "High" or Fine Art (THIS is what you find in Galleries), some of it is "Low" Art (also Crap definitions defined by Art snobs--but at least they acknowledge it's still Art), and some of it is Skillfully done and some of it Poorly done, but it's ALL Art. Until you're willing to admit that "Fine Art" is not the ONLY form of Art, your arguments lack credibility.
[quote:36q1mxb3] [b:36q1mxb3]Merriam Webster:[/b:36q1mxb3]
Main Entry: 2art
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
[b:36q1mxb3]4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the [u:36q1mxb3]production of aesthetic objects[/u:36q1mxb3]; also : [u:36q1mxb3]works so produced[/u:36q1mxb3] b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art[/b:36q1mxb3]
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
[b:36q1mxb3]6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter[/b:36q1mxb3]
[quote:36q1mxb3][b:36q1mxb3]Oxford English Dictionary (online):[/b:36q1mxb3]
• noun 1 [b:36q1mxb3]the expression of creative skill[/b:36q1mxb3] through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 [b:36q1mxb3]the product of such a process[/b:36q1mxb3]; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively. 3 (the arts) [b:36q1mxb3]the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, and drama[/b:36q1mxb3]. 4 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with human culture (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects). 5 a skill: the art of conversation.
— ORIGIN Latin ars.
You will note that the two biggest and most widely accepted dictionaries make no mention of Renaissance Art as defining Art, nor do they mention Art as ONLY residing in Galleries. Just for giggles, here's your offensive quote again:
According to him [b:36q1mxb3]art was only defined during the reanssaince[/b:36q1mxb3] and in the subsequent decades following it and was originally very narrowly defined as [b:36q1mxb3]works which had appeared in a select number of galleries[/b:36q1mxb3]. [u:36q1mxb3]If you hadn't got your work in one of those what you did was [b:36q1mxb3]not art[/b:36q1mxb3][/u:36q1mxb3].[/quote:36q1mxb3]
And I have already posted some of my Artwork on the Art thread. And NO, I don't think you can judge if it's Art or not. Apparently you can't even define the word Art properly. So whether you like my work or not, your judgment is suspect.
PS: It has occurred to me that you are confusing Philosophical Definitions of Art with the General Definition of Art. But Philosophical Definitions are merely the subjective opinions of Philosophers, NOT the OBJECTIVE Definition of the word Art.
PPS: The reason I am NOT engaged in the Oxymoron "Reverse Snobbery" is that I am engaged in the opposite of ANY form of Snobbery. The objective definition of Art which I employ INCLUDES Fine Art. Snobbery is all about EXCLUSION.
It was the, eventual, breakthroughs in getting works into galleries of the other, later art movements, which led to their success. By popular demand I might add. The "General People" liked what they saw so galleries commissioned more of it. (However if you were to ask such a member of the public they would have told you to find art you had to go to a gallery. Its where they thought you found art. What I am saying is this thinking, right or wrong, has permeated down to the present day) To deny it is foolish when examples (such as the Unmade Bed) can be seen. Something being regarded as art [i:2v3ok1ty]because[/i:2v3ok1ty] it is in a gallery.
The fact that a cartoon strip such as Calvin and Hobbes can poke fun at this very subject shows that it exists. You obviously would rather it did not happen this way and would prefer not to acknowledge it does. But it is still a large part of defining what is art today (granted not so much as in the renaissance where there were no other outlets for art). And few modern artists go through their career without ever trying to get shown in galleries and most would give their hind teeth to be shown in selected galleries because it gives them the position of recognised art and therefore makes their work worth more money.
"Just for giggles, here's your offensive quote again" - really GB I would have thought we could disagree like gentleman and not resort to this sort of tone. And you a mod too. You should be ashamed. This is the worst sort of snobbery you display here.
As for the dictionary definitions they are describing art in the broad sense and are therefore perfectly accurate and valid. I am talking about reality. How things actually work. You can do your own paintings and drawings all your life and call them art. But you will have a hard job getting large numbers of people to come round just to see them or selling them for large profits. However if you were to get them in a gallery, particularly a well renowned gallery, and got the right people to say it was art people would suddenly queue to see it and its worth would increase vastly. Your work will not be any different, it'll be the same stuff you did before you got it in the gallery, but now its recognised as art because its in a gallery and its subsequently worth more. You can be as blinkered as you wish about this but it's how the world actually works regardless of how a dictionary defines the word itself.
I even GAVE you an out--the correct appellation "Fine Art", and the distinction between SUBJECTIVE philosophical OPINIONS of Art versus the ACTUAL definition of the word Art. All you have to do is accept the OBJECTIVE (i.e. REAL) definition of the words.
And YES! I take offense and feel insulted when people use a circular argument and then won't cop to it . You made the statement and then you pretended it didn't mean that, except that it really did because you keep repeating the same argument . It's a dishonest debate tactic, along with the Straw Men you create with terms like "Reverse Snobbery". And it's insulting. You have to think people are really stupid to not catch it, and it is not snobbery to register my offense at being thought stupid.
Finally, you throw out a lot of rubbishy stuff about the General Public's "acceptance" of the Art Snobs definition of Art and their high demand for Gallery Art without providing any polls, Museum Attendance records etc. My Proof is in the WIDE distribution and HUGE sums of money Popular Art makes (Posters of pin-up girls often make far more money than prints of museum Art, as films like Star Wars and Avatar make far more money than so-called Art-films), and the FACT that DICTIONARIES record the CURRENT POPULAR USAGE of the words. The fact is most Galleries are still heavily subsidized by Wealthy Benefactors. A VERY few, such as the Louvre ALSO make a ton of money from Tourists who flock to see some of Histories most well known Fine Artists.
But the Fact remains, more people today recognize images like Mickey Mouse than the Mona Lisa. This is evidenced by the fact that Mickey Mouse is even recognized in third world countries the world over. Fine Art is a Niche that I never denied existing, and it pisses me off that you try to say I did.
PS: Calvin and Hobbes was being IRONIC, poking FUN at people who think that just because it's in a Museum it must be "Fine Art".
You've lost me here GB. I said during the Renaissance what was and what was not art was defined (by galleries, patrons and owners) and that to get considered to be art you had to be shown in one of the galleries. That was true then and is largely true now. I am not in anyway pretending otherwise.
Andy Warhol was arguably the founder of pop-art and he put his stuff on mugs, t-shirts, posters, anything he ccould. But he also fought to have it shown in galleries in order to have it officially recognised as an art movement. Why would he do this if everything and anything was considered art anyway? He would not have felt the need to if all it took was lots of people liking and buying his stuff (which they were doing anyway).
As to mickey mouse being recognised in third world countries, that is the power of branding not art. Coca-cola is also well known all over the world it does not make it art. It makes it a brand. Although I am sure you would argue coca-cola is art seeing as you seem to be saying that anything is art, thus making the word itself redundant.
It makes no odds if a million people know mickey mouse and ten the mona lisa or vice versa numbers are irrelevant. Art, you seem to be saying, is a popularity contest and I simply don't agree with you on that.
Why do they do this? Because it all goes back to the mindset established by all those Renaissance galleries and it's a lasting influence. Which is all I am saying. (Actually |I'm saying none of this at all, all I've being doing for far too long now is defending my poor uncle against your hostile- and in my view unwarranted- attack on him for informing me of how this defining of art began- something which is a matter of historical record not an opinion on his part). Artists seem to crave that seal of approval still and because of this they give a select few a great deal of power in deciding what is art. (I note its Turner Prize time again, a perfect example of this in practice). Because of this simply getting something into a gallery does make it art, even if its just a pile of old bricks or an unmade bed.
Incidentally I sent him the link for here to read to your comments and besides being slightly offended at the tone of some your comments he in fact broadly agrees with you in theory, but says that sadly it's not how it turns out in practice if you're an artist who makes their living by their work. Where getting into galleries is still the sole preoccupation if you want to be able to afford a nice life. Being officially recognised as art is good for the bank balance.
You are right to say the Renaissance artists and institutes did not change the definition of art, not in the dictionary sense, but they did change it in the minds of people which I would argue was a far more powerful thing to do.
I have used no dubious debating tactics and only one of us has reduced themselves to being patronizing and using thinly veiled insults. There is such a thing as intellectual snobbery GB be wary of it.
Afraid I can't agree with Beren that Cameron is an artist- he's a bums on seats director (and nothing wrong with that) [b:lpsv92wm]but its not art.[/b:lpsv92wm] Titanic is not art,[b:lpsv92wm] its a popularist, not very well written, spectacle.[/b:lpsv92wm] Alien was arguably art (especially given the genius of Gieger on the art direction amongst other real artists) Aliens however is not, its bums on seats stuff again. [b:lpsv92wm]Not subtle and not meaningful, just entertaining[/b:lpsv92wm] That's what Cameron does.
Art is a means to reflect back aspects of existence and society in a new light that leads the viewer to a new understanding. Cameron does not do this. [b:lpsv92wm]The social commentary in Avator is almost childish in the way it is portrayed and about as deep as a shallow puddle on a hot day.[/b:lpsv92wm] Frankly if your the sort of person whose social or political views would be influenced or altered by a Cameron film then you should probarbly not be allowed to vote!
That Cameron would be at the forefront of new 3d technology is no surpise, its a tool for even greater spectacle, which is fine, but you could have given someone like picasso a couple of rocks and he'd have scrapped you out a masterpiece without the need for the latest technological breakthrough in brushes and paints!
[b:lpsv92wm]There is nothing wrong with pure entertaining nonsense but[u:lpsv92wm] lets not go around calling it art.[/u:lpsv92wm] A spades a spade[/b:lpsv92wm].[/quote:lpsv92wm]
This is the last post I'm making on this subject.
This I feel gets to the heart of the matter GB. I do not consider Avatar art. And that ones my opinion now no longer defending a statement. I stand by all my earlier comments about Avatar. However I have shelves of dvd, comics and books and very few of them I would consider to be art. But to suggest because I don't think of them as art that I am somehow a snob insulting everyone who enjoys them is frankly stupid. I would be insulting myself or why else would I have purchased them? You can enjoy something without having to demand it be called art.
You're argument boils down to "I say its art and if you don't agree your insulting everyone who likes it!" That sort of thinking is a step towards totalitarianism and uniformity of thought. And I don't like that.
Talk about semantic Word Games and Sophistry!!!! You really take the cake on this one Petty
Petty: It's only Art if its in a Gallery approved by the Art Approval Squad, and I'm one of the Squad judges (sounds suspiciously like "demanding uniformity of thought" )
GB: Anything Expressively Created with Aesthetic Purposes is Art--whether its High or Low, Fine or Common, Genius or Crap, in a Gallery or Not (Not just according to me, but the ACTUAL OBJECTIVE definition of the word Art, and quite an EGALITARIAN view in fact).
Uhhhh....really? Who's the Totalitarian again???
PS: Hmmm...could it be...Petty [b:36fwqgha]Tyrant[/b:36fwqgha]?
PPS: I'll give you this much Petty, I had chilled out a bit and was going to drop it, but that piece of sophistry got my blood boiling enough to post again .
As to my user name, well the clue is in there.
And to insist whether someone agrees with you or not that you are definitively right and what you say is art is art is a narrowing of freedom of thought in my opinion. I prefer the freedom to decide for myself what I consider to be art. And for me Avatar ain't it.
Anyway, you kept parroting your "Uncle's" phrase so often, it seemed to form the basis for your argument. You haven't come up with anything else to support your view.
And your previous post doesn't really say anything different, you still posit a view that is entirely subjective, which you seem to portray as objective. You still can't distinguish between the Subjective Philosophical definitions of Art (Opinions) and the Actual Objective definition of the WORD Art (Facts).
I don't have a problem with you saying Avatar is crappy Art. That's just an opinion (which I happen to disagree with--but to each his own). But to say it's NOT Art is factually and objectively incorrect. Unless of course you are willing to concede that your view is merely an Opinion based on an esoteric and highly subjective standard. In which case, have at it.
You say I have offered no evidence for this yet you have ignored the unmade bed and the bricks which are only considered art because they are in an art gallery. Or Warhol's exhibits which (as I already said) I do not think were necessary for his work to be important and influential, yet he wanted that seal of approval that it was indeed art so he fought to get his work in galleries. These are evidence of how art works in the real world not in books or in mere theory. You have run into the same problem science did for a log time- just because you could prove something was true on paper it did not actually make it true in the real world. And that's the problem with relying on book knowledge. I'm old enough and cynical enough to have seen how things actually work maybe. I consider your stance to be a noble ideal, but wishful thinking. Its a view of art that exists only in thought and theory not in actuality.
What I fear is that you two are softening up (or perhaps you've softened each other up? )
anyhow... I preferred your brawling when it seemed unabashed and spiralling into a flaming session. Now your attitude to each other would barely roast marshmellows!
What happened to your earlier unadulterated bitchiness?!
Btw Art is not a comic book or a Mona Lisa - Art is the fearless articulation of the will... or, to simplify, the deliberate flight into the heart darkness, or into the bowels of the sun! (What [i:2oz6fzpa]do [/i:2oz6fzpa]they teach people in schools nowadays?)
In the real world what is art and what is not is still decided by institutes and the select few. That's just how it is. Regardless of definitions of the word itself.[/quote:2kp3jc0w]
Unbelievable! YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN!!! This your refrain, your only back-up to "support" your opinion as if it were fact (and after you just got done accusing me of speciously suggesting your Uncle's views were your own [wonder how I got THAT idea?], that unmitigated gall my friend is sheer sophistry). And yet this view is entirely UNSUPPORTED by fact. Art is Art the instant it is created.
There are many kinds of institutes, museums, schools, movements, philosophies of Art etc that display and enshrine all kinds of Art-forms. Some even make a point of displaying Popular Art, Underground Art, Graffiti Art etc. But the fact they display it is NOT the deciding factor in calling it Art. They display it because they ACKNOWLEDGE it as Art. How could they not? They simply choose the works they like best.
And to sneer at the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of Art as "Book-Learning" just shows to what depths you will crawl to justify your weak argument. I suppose ALL those Gallery owners and Artists, and Art Benefactors, and Art Critics, and Art "Patrons" just gleaned their Art Knowledge through Osmosis .
Of course they didn't. They went to Universities and studied. They started with dictionaries and encyclopedias. Then moved on to study Greek Platonic ideals of Art, then the Latin, then up through the ages. And...GASP ...some even study Art of other cultures. Years of BOOK LEARNIN' ...Oh my God...NO NOT THAT! But for all the Movements and Philosophies, the basis for Art is THE AESTHETIC CREATIVE PROCESS.
In other words The ART COMES FIRST. THAT is the REALITY.
Anyone can spout Subjective nonsense that Art is only this or that. But again that's purely an OPINION as opposed to a FACT.
When I doodle on a scrap of paper I have Instant Art. THAT is REALITY unmediated and UNJUDGED by overeducated "book-learners" who have decided which movement should be currently displayed in their institutions based on "MERE THEORY" and "a view of art that exists only in thought and theory not in actuality". Seal of Approval? Doesn't make it Art. Noble Ideal my Ass! (we need a mooning smilie )
PS: I ignored the Unmade Bed and the Bricks because somebody obviously had to think they were Artful enough to put in a Gallery to begin with. I.E. someone decided they were Art BEFORE it even got to the Gallery.
PS: I forgive you .
As far as I'm concerned the war is over. I hope you like the kitty.
PS: As far as Flame Wars go this one was pretty tame . No-one resorted to foul language or ad-hominem attacks; any frustrations were largely vented rhetorically. We pretty much stuck to the issues.
Some of our FAKE Flame Wars have seemed more scurrilous .
Now Eldo, we don't need you coming here rabble rousing! (And btw I'm NOT suggesting GB and Mr Tyrant are rabble, for one must draw one's own conclusions in these things. )
(Btw GB, I fear Mr Tyrant is actually somewhat like a barnacle - crabbity* on the outside and soft and gooey on the inside! I'm merely making an observation here - not trying to cause further trouble. ... it's just between you and me, GB. )
(* The [i:2hjlpxf4]crabbity-shelled [/i:2hjlpxf4]barnacle, of course!)
Now we can get back to dueling with Tolkien Quotes.
PS: I tried finding a sighing smilie for you Odo, but the only image I've found so far is a Japanese Anime dude. I'll keep searching though.
I did note with some amusement a picasso painintg being sold for the sort of money that usually keeps small countries running for a year and I realised that if your right GB then your doodle is equaly art- so I'd get it to auction quick smart if I were you where they are sure to immediately recognize it as art of equal value and you'll be instantly rich! No worries for you about not being recognised as an artist by crummy institutes, I'm sure if you take your dictionary with you and point out them what art is they will immediatley see the error of their ways.
I sent you an email Odo, with a direct link and instructions on how to insert the image.
Incidentally GB where did you find the cat-tongue pic? Made me laugh regardless of wether we disagree on some matters. I missed it when I posted the last message, my connection is playing silly buggers and didnt load it.
Indeed Odo crabbity on the outside nice on the inside, this post is from the inside, the outside is working out where GB lives. Be afraid, be very afraid!
I did a google image search and found that. If you want it, I can send you the link in a PM. I really laughed my butt off when I found those images . I've got a few more saved for use as needed.
I will love the hobbit script if its even 80% like the book (a far higher percentage than they achieved with LoTR). That leaves them 20% squirming room to put in the White Council and no doubt Legolas saving the day by single handly skate boarding down Smaugs neck and stabbing him in the eyes!
I havn't seen clash, heard it was failry awful and I loved those old ray harryhausen (think thats wrong spelling!) films. But from what I understand the 3d after thought is particularly poor and one review I read said it was so bad at one point pegasus appeared to have 6 legs!! If that problem happens in the hobbit with 13 dwarfs and 1 hobbit thats a lot of extra legs!
Indeed pm me the cat- sure I can find someone to use it on somewhere.
If you try to watch any of the films from the last time this happened (Jaws 3d is a good example) they are awful. Everything designed to come at the camera, ok avatar wasn't quite so blatant (most of the time) but the temptation is there for film makers with little self control (that'd be you I'm looking at PJ) at least del boy is on the directing which might save it from being one long gimmick.
[list:2pqmd5to][*:2pqmd5to]There's still a global recession.[/*:m:2pqmd5to]
[*:2pqmd5to]A lot of people have recently upgraded to HDTV and want to get their money's worth of that.[/*:m:2pqmd5to]
[*:2pqmd5to]They also have to buy expensive glasses, and the glasses are synced to a specific TV and can't be used with any other screen.[/*:m:2pqmd5to][/list:u:2pqmd5to]
And I agree with Eldo's points too. I'm in no rush to trade my expensive enough HDTV for an untried new system that might or might not last. And if enough people are as wary as me it'll fall flat on its face.
3D in decades past always was basically a gimmick with a niche audience due to it's drawbacks (poor colour and picture quality). Once the novelty wore off, most people did indeed desert the format. This is different. The glasses are cheap, and the picture quality is generally excellent. And the current format is a proven money maker with a large target audience for repeat business. Once the screens go into mass production, expect prices to drop dramatically. And if industry spokespeople are correct, this will be happening by next summer, with prices on the current systems dropping in time for this upcoming holiday season.
Now that Digital TV is the standard, the process is simple enough that the biggest TV manufacturers are already modifying the production process so that most of the major models will be Real D capable.
What are you exactly saying to Mr Tyrant, GB?
(This teaches me for ever visiting the Vulgar Threads! Things seem a bit Gayer than I remember... )
I'm loathe to agree with Wise Odo on anything, GB, but there is really something not at all respectable in your behaviour on this occasion. Is this some kind of mating ritual? Perhaps, you might leave this stuff in future for PM's. What you and Mr Tyrant do there is your own business. Remember, children visit this forum!
(Old Fashioned Gentleman)
In the end though, these trends merely confirm my point that this time 3D is here to stay.
As for trends: [b:394jihc5]my[/b:394jihc5] point was there aren't any trends yet. All of the growth on that chart is in forecast: so far the 3D industry is more or less flatlining. I'm not saying it won't grow, but we don't know how much or how fast it will yet. All we have is guesses, albeit (presumably) educated ones.
The trends in 3D popularity have been established in the medium of film. The forecast for TV trends is based on the fact that manufacturing agreements have been established, and that Supply often dictates Demand in a consumer based society. It's possible that the trends will reverse, but very improbable.
There is a process called Lenticular Display which requires no glasses, but quality is apparently inconsistent and the technology is extremely expensive.
There is a cheap way for people to experience pseudo-3D from 2D colour images by purchasing Chromadepth glasses. It's my favourite "fake" 3D format currently, and works best with colourful images which have blues in the background and reds in the foreground.