Message Board | Rules

Thread: Hobbit in 3D

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Hobbit in 3D   [1] [2] [3] >>
The Hobbit in 3D? I think it would be great in 3D :shock:
What do you think? if you dont like 3D just watch the normal screen.
Avatar was great. ... versation/
I don't see the point of it being in 3D, Avatar was a bad movie just more advanced because of the age we live in and I doubt Tolkien would have wanted it that way.
Avatar KICKED ASS :P . But I'm not convinced 3D is necessary for The Hobbit.

Actually, Tolkien in his time didn't think Fantasy could be well done on film, but that was due to the limited technology of his day (if I recall correctly, I think he referred to it as something like "cheap pantomime"Wink Smilie. I think he would be very pleased if he could see how excellent his works were visualized with Modern Technology.


3D is still a gimmick, but it's now also caught studio's attention as an easy way to increase ticket prices (sometimes up to double! :shock: ). It's [b:116zljrd]not[/b:116zljrd] immersive: having things float in front of your face or look like they're going to hit you in the eye when you're watching a movie merely remind you that you're watching a 3D film. They're technological gimmicks so that you remember why you've paid extra and feel that you've gotten your money's worth, but at the end of the day, that's all it is. It's not art, and it's not realistic. Besides, 3D picture quality is fuzzier than 2D with current technology.

If they do this in 3D I really hope there will be a 2D option, but I'm worried. Even today, when not all theatres have 3D screens, the 2D Avatar has been pulled in favor of the 3D version in a lot of places. It makes sense from a business standpoint - you'll make more money if you force audiences to see a movie for 150-200% of the price - but for movie-goers (especially those who don't like 3D), it kind of sucks.
3D Rules. :P


PS: I didn't have any "blurriness" issues with the current 3D format. But I suppose that may vary from person to person.
It's not blurry compared to, say, an unenhanced pre-digital movie; but I did find a noticeable difference in the picture quality in Avatar between the 2D and 3D versions.

I guess I just don't want to pay twice as much money so I can see a few illusion-breaking technogimmicks while wearing uncomfortable glasses. :P
It really IS a subjective experience. I know many have the same issues as you.

Agreed. It may well have just been my eyes.
Sigh, living in Lyme Regis there's not really many venues close that show films in 3D, I didn't go to see Avatar (and regretted it) but many of my friends said they had and said they'd really enjoyed it, and they watched it in 2D. The cinema in Lyme Regis, The Regent- A [i:23kvi5rm]Scott Cinema[/i:23kvi5rm], Gandalf's Beard you might remember it <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> , is very good but it's not exactly the place you'd go to experience all the new tech. I'm sure it'd be fun seeing The Hobbit in 3D but it's not necessary, considering most people are prepared to put up with 2D.

[b:23kvi5rm]J Dwarf[/b:23kvi5rm]
Isn't Avatar still showing in the UK? It still is in America, or at any rate in Maryland; it's been less than three months since it was released. Kind of amazing when you think about how much money it's made, but that's the glory of 3D ticket prices. And, coming back to the thread topic, a major reason why I think that we'll be seeing The Hobbit in 3D (or at least, will have the option to).
I thought Avatar as a visual experience was at times amazing and wondrous- but Avatar the film was one of the worst pieces of crap Ive ever had to endure. Terrible plot, characters, settings, everything in fact besides the visuals was just appalling. No, no no to Hobbit in 3-d. It screws up the direction as they are always trying to find an excuse to have stuff 'come right at you" not good for the substance or quality of a film. And in 5 years time this current fad will have gone and be replaced with something else and we'll be left with a hobbit movie that's poorer for having been a part of it.

Great story, Great dialogue, Great characters, AND AWESOME CGI.

Avatar would have been a lot cooler as a faux-documentary. While I don't think the story or characters were the worst I've ever seen, I didn't find them that enthralling. The *real* Avatar (the TV show) is much better. :mrgreen:
The TV show is Avatar: The Last Airbender, is it not? Completely Different :roll: . Though I am certainly looking forward to Shyamalan's upcoming film version. Looks better than most of his films (he can't ruin it with a stupid twist ending).

Yep, A:TLA. A work of mythopoeic brilliance! :mrgreen: Along with a compelling story, set of characters, and developed world (even though it's not as visually fancy as Pandora).
Yes, it's TV Anime. It doesn't quite have the full and rich animation that makes most of Miyazaki's films so exquisite. I never really got into A:TLA, or a lot of any TV Anime for that matter. I prefer the feature length animes like Akira, Princess Mononoke etc., and...erm...Hentai :oops: .

Visually it's anime, though it has a number of non-anime aspects on the story side. In a lot of ways it's classic high fantasy: there's a prophesied hero, a dark lord, fantastic creatures, and the fate of the world in the balance. I'm not really an anime fan, but I do like A:TLA.
DEAR GOD, I've had enough of this 3D crap.

I often find 3D shows to have messed up colors, and give me headaches, for a few unneeded extra effects. I don't even see how they'd incorporate many 3D effects into The Hobbit, other than useless things like throwing a dagger at the screen. No, I think The Hobbit is best left as an original Fantasy movie made with normal CGI.

I find movies have been completely abusing the 3D effect. Avatar was a bit more responsible with it, but I saw it both 3D and normal, and the normal version had far more fantasy-like colors. I feel that 3D takes away from the overall experience because you constantly deal with the seizure-inducing red-on-blue.
What red on blue? Modern 3D doesn't use the red and blue specs. They use some sort of polarization process. The tech on Avatar is called Real D 3D. No colour alterations, no ghosting, just clean clear pictures.

i think that if they made the hobbit in 3d, they would put less time into the story, and more into how they were gonna make it being in 3d be worth while (like with avatar), lotr was better 2d than it would have been 3d, because they really focusd on how they were gonna make it as near to the books as possible, not just how many people they were trying to make flinch when the bits of rock were catapulted at the orcs (in rotk)
although is they did in 3d and [b:2faqp2ed]still[/b:2faqp2ed] managed to get the screenplay as close to the book as they did in lotr i would be really happy(if only they used it to make the action bits more exciting!! :lol: )
Everyone is scrambling at the moment to cash in on the Avatar craze. Avatar revolutionized 3D, and it is now the biggest film success of all time. (Personally, I think that the story was quite bland, but the visuals were spectacular.)
As a result, all 3D movies that come out after Avatar (I am most concerned about The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Hobbit), are just shameless efforts to get some of the cash that Avatar got. Especially VDT, which was filmed in 2D and is now going to be shown in 3D as well. That is just a mistake.
I think that, if GDT keeps his head on (perhaps gets some tips from Cameron :lol: ), he could pull it off. I'd still watch both (I'd watch 2D first), but I think that GDT is very committed to the story, and that he wouldn't ruin it for special effects. Plus, he has Peter Jackson as an advisor, and Peter Jackson KNOWS how to keep the effects in line. So, if they [i:5gqoczxd]start out[/i:5gqoczxd] planning for 3D, I'd be ok with it. If they "pulled a VDT" and filmed it in 2D and changed it to 3D afterwards, that'd be disgusting.
3D has proven its popularity, and it is finally here to stay for many special effects Blockbusters now that the tech for it has vastly improved. I don't really see the problem. 2D will still be available for some time to come, but immersion technologies are the wave of the Future.

There selling 3D tele's here in Auz, but theres nothing to watch on them yet :roll: :roll:
I don't see how 3D is an immersive technology. When you watch a play you don't feel like things are going to hit you in the face (hopefully), and so far that is the big difference between 3D films and 2D films. I think it's says something about the technology when its most praised film so far, [i:1zbb41wu]Avatar[/i:1zbb41wu], uses the technology the least, as it was restrained in face-hitting and eye-poking moments.

However, I do think that it's here to stay, since movie theatres can charge two to three times as much for 3D tickets. I'm not particularly happy to see prices rise so much just so I can have my experience of the story interrupted by unnatural and jarring technological gimmicks while wearing uncomfortable and picture-quality-decreasing glasses.
[quote:19vcreov]When you watch a play you don't feel like things are going to hit you in the face[/quote:19vcreov]
No, but EVERYONE remembers the chandelier falling in Phantom of the Opera. They still have it fall when they play it on stage today. That's 3D for you, and that's what makes you feel like you're part of the action. And that's the feeling filmmakers are trying to reproduce. James Cameron was determined to do it right (on a huge budget, haha), and, in reality, he didn't "use the technology the least." He pretty much invented new technology for [i:19vcreov]Avatar[/i:19vcreov]. He just knew how to use it, and how to tame it. It's an art form, and Cameron is a true artist.
How did Cameron invent new technology? He had been developing new techniques to create 3D films for years, sure, but it's still fundamentally the same as other 3D technology in that it gives more or less the same result. What I meant by him using the technology the least is that Cameron has fewer 3D effects, making Avatar look more like a 2D film than most.

Also, I've never seen The Phantom of the Opera, so I don't really understand your analogy. In any event, I find 2D films far more immersive since they lack the jarring technological gimmicks of 3D. When you watch a 3D film you're continually being reminded of the fact that [i:1sq7b7dy]you're watching a 3D film made with cool new technology[/i:1sq7b7dy], whereas with a 2D film you can simply sit back and enjoy the story, the characters, and the world.
Cameron DID develop new [url=]3D technology for Avatar.[/url:26bvbbuy]

In any case Eldo I get your point that 3D seems like a "Distraction" from the story for YOU and people that share your views. But it isn't a distraction to ME and many others that share my views. And no matter what you say, 3D [b:26bvbbuy]IS[/b:26bvbbuy] an "Immersion Technology". It is a step towards the Ultimate Virtual reality goal: The Holodeck. A Virtual Environment that we can fully interact with and IMMERSE ourselves in. With 3D screens coming to home systems, we will be another step closer when we are playing our video games in 3D.

This complete Immersion Technology has been a dream of mine ever since reading Ray Bradbury's The Veldt as a child. And this 3D tech is a leap forward towards the Holodeck.

And here's the link to ray Bradbury's [url=]The Veldt[/url:6nq69r1b], originally written in 1950.

My point about the technology is that, regardless of Cameron's developments, it's still 3D and doesn't look that different from the other 3D films I've seen. We may have to simply 'agree to disagree', as they say, on that as well, though. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
I think that you are mainly suffering from the lack of technological perfection, Eldo. 3D is far from being perfect, but it is steadily moving forward, and the technology is advancing. Look at LOTR. The CG is starting to look outdated. That's because the CG has moved forward so much in the past decade. And so will 3D <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />.
Afraid I can't agree with Beren that Cameron is an artist- he's a bums on seats director (and nothing wrong with that) but its not art. Titanic is not art, its a popularist, not very well written, spectacle. 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. Not subtle and not meaningful, just entertaining 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. 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. 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!
There is nothing wrong with pure entertaining nonsense but lets not go around calling it art. A spades a spade.
I was saying that 3D is an art form. The technology itself is art. And I think my personal definition of art is more broad than yours. I think that each of us has a calling, and we are given certain gifts to fulfill that calling. And (since I'm as Christian), I believe that when you use those gifts to reflect God, that is art. When you are able to communicate a small portion of what God is, that is art. And many non-Christians can communicate this as well. I believe that highly-developed technology is a reflection on God, because he made immensely complicated beings called humans. But I don't want to turn this thread into a theological debate. I just wanted to clear up where I'm coming from <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />.
Beren - I'm afraid I'm not seeing much in the way of progression with 3D [i:xpcd1nwi]towards immersion[/i:xpcd1nwi], though i agree that the technology is improving. I don't expect to convince you of anything, though. :lol:
I don't want to enter a theolical debate here either Beren but I am (genuinely) curious about the idea highly developed technology reflects God- would that include the sort of technology Saruman favours- the sort for torture and pain? What about nuclear weapons? Guns? Bombs? Just wondering.
Many people sneered at Shakespeare in his day because his art was "populist" entertainment. I hold NO truck with the point of view that popular art-forms are not art. It is Intellectual Snobbery of the worst sort. :x

Art is Art, no matter what form, or how popular (or not). That which connects with more people is arguably more effective. Those that aren't popular jealously declare an "elite" status. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

As to the theological point, not being a Christian I can't speak for Beren. But in Hinduism and other Eastern philosophies, The Primal Life Force embodies both Creative and Destructive Energies. Indeed, the act of Creation also involves the act of Destruction as one form is destroyed when another is imposed. There is some precedent for recognizing this principle in the Abrahamic religions also, but it is not accepted by most Monotheists.

Technology and the advancement of Knowledge in Western Theology is often portrayed as having been "stolen" from God or the Gods, whether Prometheus who stole fire or Eve who stole the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Regardless, there is theological precedence for Knowledge coming from the Gods, and Knowledge has always been a two edged sword.

[b:2fv2iq1w]GB[/b:2fv2iq1w] :mrgreen:
I never argued GB that you can't be popular and still art. I argued that art is something which causes the viewer or observer to reflect on some aspect of the universe and come to a new understanding, or new questioning upon it. This can be done popularly (as Shakespeare did) or obscurly as picasso did. But Titanic, Aliens and Avator are just populist, they offer no insights or reflections of any significance. They are pure entertainment not art. Shakespeare is considered a genius partly because he is one of the few capable of combining art with popularism. American Idol is popular, doesn't make it an art show. This is not snobbery its about meaning and substance set against entertainment. All the better if you can combine the two but this is so difficult and rare we still revere Shakespeare for it several centries after his death.
In the Christian point of view, the technology we have is all created by man, and since man is fallen, the technology is fallen. The technology is a tool, and men can use it for good or for evil. Technology, as well as music and movies (and a billion other things), are not inherently good or evil. It's the motive of the creator and also the motive of the consumer.
So, with that said, the Christian God is an extremely complex God, and since men are made in His image, we can create complexity too. Humans are made in His image, so humans are art. What humans create is a reflection on God (because God enables us to see beauty and express beauty), and thus is art too. Sadly, too many people take their ability for complexity and use it for selfish reasons. This is a reflection on our fallen state and Satan's influence on us.
Did I answer the question? haha <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Art is certainly NOT narrowly defined as "something which causes the viewer or observer to reflect on some aspect of the universe and come to a [b:igy0yhe0]new understanding, or new questioning[/b:igy0yhe0] upon it." (this is a passable definition of philosophy though <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ). Art in it's simplest definition is [b:igy0yhe0]the product of an act of Expressive Creation.[/b:igy0yhe0] All forms of entertainment fall directly under this category. It makes no difference how "deep" or "reflective" it is.

One can debate endlessly what constitutes Great Art vs Poor Art (and it's relatively subjective), but it's ALL Art. Art Snobs always trot out the "lack of significance" in popular artistic expressions because it either makes them feel superior, and/or because they secretly wish they could produce art that resonated with the "unwashed masses".

Sometimes Poor Art receives more attention than it deserves because of Commercial Hype, and believe me, when it comes to a lot of Pop Music I can be just as "Snobby" as the next guy :roll: . But I would NEVER say it wasn't Art. And in the end, one definition of Effective Art is Art which resonates with the Majority (whether I think it's any good or not).

petty: Art museums are full of paintings and sculptures that, while sometimes pleasant to look at, do not provide a consideration of the universe or offered insights. Many of them were painted for wealthy patrons who wanted them as either entertainment or show-pieces for bragging, even though the artists were incredibly creative and skilled.

Are they not art?
You hit it on the head, GB <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />.
"Art in it's simplest definition is the product of an act of Expressive Creation"- GB.
I decided simplest way to find out was to ask an actual artist. Fortunately I have one in the family, an uncle. He s officialy an artist (it says so on his passport!).
His name is Ronnie Ford, you can look his work up on google.
According to him art was only defined during the reanssaince and in the subsequent decades following it and was originally very narrowly defined as works which had appeared in a select number of galleries. If you hadn't got your work in one of those what you did was not art.
Modern artists have a broader view but the general tenant for what is called 'art' remains- the showing of work in particular gallerries around the world. As well as the recognition of your peers (established artists in this case).
Now even I find this a very narrow view of art. The other definition he offered was that art is something which is produced for reasons besides commercial gain (although obviously it can be commercial as well, that just should not be the reason for it) hence a spoon, which is created, is not art.
On the point of snobbery perhaps it is reverse snobbery to claim everything is art, thereby making whatever film etc you hapen to like art and making yourself feel good about it. If we accept that art is the product of an act of expressive creation as you say GB then we have no need for a word such as art, as almost everything falls into the category. We'd be better off just calling it stuff people do.
On your point Eldo, see above for how early art was classified, apprently the fact its in an art gallery makes it art!

Beren, yes that does help clear things up, as a believer in 'there's more going on than I know about' but not a follower (I find it hard to accept any group of humans posess anything called Truth) I'm always interested in how religion works in practice and philosophy.
Oh please Petty :roll: , I'm an artist too. I've had cartoons published in local college papers and a couple of illustrations recently in a magazine. Don't insult my intelligence. :P :x

The fact is Art has existed since humans began cave-painting, banging on stretched skins with sticks, telling stories and singing around the campfire. Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others." By this definition of the word, artistic works have existed for almost as long as humankind: from early pre-historic art to contemporary art. Not to mention that the original LATIN (you know, the language that ROMANS spoke back in [b:2xwjs0gq]ancient[/b:2xwjs0gq] times :P ) term for Art referred to SKILL or CRAFT. Hence any act of Expressive Creation can be said to be an Art. You might have heard of Martial Arts.

Renaissance Artists didn't invent Art, nor the word "Art" they just got better at it. What a surprise that some of them would try to reinvent the definition of Art to their advantage :o . I think your Uncle should ask a Linguist or a Historian before spouting rubbish like that. Art has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "being shown in galleries". Yes some things are created simply for utilitarian purposes, but to the extent that expressive design is put into a utility product, such an item also becomes a work of Art. Having dealt in some highly decorative antiques, I can attest that even SPOONS can be a work of Art.

And yes, Gangsta Rap and Cheap Formula Films are Art too, even if I think some of it is rubbish.

And finally, "reverse snobbery" is an utter oxymoron, a impossible phrase that is devoid of all meaning in the context in which you are using it. "Reverse snobbery" can only be applied from one group of Art Snobs to another, say in a feud between Expressionists and Cubo-Futurists, or between Neo-Classicists and Dada-Surrealists.

Mmm GB you seem not to have actually read what was said. I never (nor my uncle) claimed that art was invented or that the word had no existence before hand- only that it was 'defined' during the renaissance and our modern idea of art comes from this definition when applied to paintings, sculpture or even film. So going on about latin and martial art is entirely irrelevant to the point mentioned. And if you look at the classic period of art you will find that being shown in a gallery (particularly a french one) was indeed considered the way to be recognised as an artist. As was belonging to an art school, most of which were closely associated with or directly funded from the galleries and their patrons.
As to reverse snobbery "the lady doth protest to much methinks" I seem to have struck a nerve! The point was if everything anyone does is 'art' the word itself is meaningless. Fish have no need for a word for water. We would have no need for the word art in this context if it was all art.
[i:36wjqiq3]Greatly hate 3D[/i:36wjqiq3]
[i:36wjqiq3]No 3D for hobbit flick[/i:36wjqiq3]
[i:36wjqiq3]Please GDT no[/i:36wjqiq3]
How do you know fish don't need a word for [i:10mfeff1]water[/i:10mfeff1], Mr Tyrant? What an offensive suggestion! Do you think they swim around in a void? I guess you'll be saying next that [i:10mfeff1]fish[/i:10mfeff1] don't [i:10mfeff1]need[/i:10mfeff1] a word for [i:10mfeff1]void[/i:10mfeff1] either! Well, do we in fact [i:10mfeff1]need [/i:10mfeff1]a word for [i:10mfeff1]anythin[/i:10mfeff1]g? What if humans didn't have a word for [i:10mfeff1]fish[/i:10mfeff1]? Hey! What about that?! :x :x :x We could call fish [i:10mfeff1]moobils[/i:10mfeff1] I s'pose - but it's the [i:10mfeff1]principle[/i:10mfeff1] I'm on about here, Mr Tyrant. And we still need at least one [i:10mfeff1]principle[/i:10mfeff1], I think, even if [i:10mfeff1]fish [/i:10mfeff1]is a nicer word than [i:10mfeff1]principle[/i:10mfeff1].... [i:10mfeff1]Fissshhh[/i:10mfeff1] Lovely sound what! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> Anyway, Mr Tyrant, I think you should apologize to GB - and also GB's fish.
I tried asking some fish but would you believe it they appear to have no need for any words at all! Shocking! Does explain why fish hardly ever post anything on forums though.
No fish hey? Sounds a bit fishy... Next thing you'll be banning Badgers too. What next? No Beards? I'm reading your subtext, Mr Tyrant, I'm READING your SUBTEXT!! :x

Robbie Burns:

[i:2c3fz056]"Once upon a time there was a Haggis,
Among Haggises he was a Magus,
He tricked his tribe with clever diatribes and hefty bribes,
To think Gandalf's Beard did sadly saggus;

But it weren't true I'm telling you,
Gandalf's Beard was was stiffly prickled,
On Friday nights, yes somewhat pickled,
His girlfriend said his every part tickled.

His folicles stiff like icicles riding bicycles,
That's how I think of Gandalf's Beard -
That Haggis was Trouble - as I feared.
(This line is added for a sense of balance).[/i:2c3fz056]

See Mr Tyrant, even Robbie predicted the likes of you. GB may be a damn Liberal, but as Beards go... he's okay.... I guess...

Wise Odo
Mmm GB you seem not to have actually read what was said. I never (nor my uncle) claimed that art was invented or that the word had no existence before hand- only that it was 'defined' during the renaissance and our modern idea of art comes from this definition when applied to paintings, sculpture or even film.[/quote:2m8uiu75]

Actually, I did read your words VERY carefully Petty. And you claimed your Uncle stated that Renaissance Artists defined (REDEFINED is more accurate) Art to mean works that ONLY THEY put in Art Galleries. Quite Self-Serving, and indeed a de facto claim that Renaissance Artists invented Art.

According to him [b:2m8uiu75]art was only defined during the reanssaince[/b:2m8uiu75] and in the subsequent decades following it and was originally very narrowly defined as [b:2m8uiu75]works which had appeared in a select number of galleries[/b:2m8uiu75]. [u:2m8uiu75]If you hadn't got your work in one of those what you did was [b:2m8uiu75]not art.[/b:2m8uiu75][/u:2m8uiu75][/quote:2m8uiu75]

Frankly, I'm disappointed you would resort to such a disingenuous tactic to weasel out of what was a circular argument to begin with (Artists in Galleries say only their work is Art; therefore only Art displayed in Galleries is Art), and THAT is what strikes a nerve.

"Artists in Galleries say only their work is Art; therefore only Art displayed in Galleries is Art" -not quite right- it was actually worse than that I'm afraid GB. It wasn't even artists claiming it made their work art it was largely patrons of the arts deciding what was art. And this is how it worked, so don't shoot the messenger, I wasn't actually there (I'm not quite that old!). For the record I have qualifications in Graphic Design and studied Art History so it's not like I'm just making this up.
Most of the later great art movements, from cubists to da-daism were in fact a response to this by people such as yourself who thought art was much broader and fought to have new ideas accepted. The irony of their situation was that whilst they were fighting the very definition you have taken such umbrage to they judged their success on getting their work shown in galleries! (In fairness to them without the modern media outlets or mass printing they didn't have a lot of choice).
And it is wilful on your part to continue to insist I claimed art was invented in the renaissance when I did not, and have clearly stated so at least twice now, I said it was defined (or even standardized if you like) during the renaissance and for better or worse (and it is probably for worse) we are still largely stuck with this model. At best you could say they 'invented' a new definition of art.
Tracy Ermine (I think that's her second name!) is a good example of this with her unmade bed. In her bedroom where it belongs its just her bed, but when she displayed it in the Modern Art Gallery it [i:37es10mz]became[/i:37es10mz] officially art. And the same could be said for the pile of bricks, which you can see in building sites around the world and where they are just a pile of bricks, but when put in the gallery it also [i:37es10mz]became[/i:37es10mz] art. So it is still happening today like it or not.
This is not a circular argument it is simply what happened historically and how the notion of 'art' in the modern sense and art galleries arose. You don't have to agree or like it but it doesn't make it any less true.

On a less argumentive note congratulations on getting some of your own work published. Any chance you could post a bit so we can have a look? (I can judge if it's art!!! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> ).
Do you like Calvin and Hobbes GB? There is an excellent bit it in where Calvin points out that his comic book is low brow, mass commercialism and therefore [i:37es10mz]not[/i:37es10mz] art, but a panel from a comic displayed in a gallery is post-modern and ironic and therefore [i:37es10mz]is[/i:37es10mz] art. Highlighting the absurdities of the very system I have been trying to point out to you.
Indeed Beren, I would agree with that point. But the fact remains that whether she considered it art in her own home or not in order to get others to see it as art she had to get it into an art gallery. rightly or wrongly this is still how art works to this day. Your own unmade bed may well be artistic to your eye but unless you can get some institute to recognize it as such it will not be considered art. And more importantly you won't get an arts funding grant for it without official sanction!
  [1] [2] [3] >>