Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?

[Paul Andrew]

I think you're reading way too much into it. This isn't art, it's disposable entertainment. When the show is over, the cast and crew just move on to something else.

I think you're devaluing the work that has to go into even "disposable" entertainment.

 

[Axlotl]

I think you're devaluing the work that has to go into even "disposable" entertainment.

And I think you're overvaluing it.
Just because 500 artists worked very hard to make Jurassic World 3 doesn't make it a work of art. It's still a big dumb soulless cash grab.

 

[Paul Andrew]

And I think you're overvaluing it.
Just because 500 artists worked very hard to make Jurassic World 3 doesn't make it a work of art. It's still a big dumb soulless cash grab.

I didn't see the film, but by all accounts the dinos look as good as they ever have, if not better. There is art that goes into that.

And again, because it was made to make money does not mean it isn't art. Whether you like it or not is a different topic. When I go to an art museum I don't dispute whether or not each piece is art based on whether or not it connects with me.

All of which is still to say, these things are made to elicit feelings. And using that as a basis to disparage a newer generation's interactions with them is antithetical to the whole process. Art is made to be felt. It's not all going to connect with everyone.

 

[Axlotl]

I didn't see the film, but by all accounts the dinos look as good as they ever have, if not better. There is art that goes into that.

And again, because it was made to make money does not mean it isn't art. Whether you like it or not is a different topic. When I go to an art museum I don't dispute whether or not each piece is art based on whether or not it connects with me.

It wasn't made to make art.
It was DESIGNED to make MONEY.
I thought I was clear in my delineation of art vs design. I guess not.

 

[Paul Andrew]

It wasn't made to make art.
It was DESIGNED to make MONEY.
I thought I was clear in my delineation of art vs design. I guess not.

There is no separation between the two. Art is not usually made simply to exist by itself for its own appreciation.

Art has always been made to make money.

The money part doesn't make it not art.

I thought I was clear about that.

 

[Cephus]

I think you're devaluing the work that has to go into even "disposable" entertainment.

Work goes into anything. That doesn't make everything art.

 

[Axlotl]

There is no separation between the two. Art is not usually made simply to exist by itself for its own appreciation.

Art has always been made to make money.

The money part doesn't make it not art.

I thought I was clear about that.

Are you an artist? Or a designer?
I'm both, and I make a distinction between the two. What makes you an expert?

And yes, art is usually made simply to exist by itself for its own appreciation.
You think every artist in the world is rich? Selling their doodles for millions?
Most artists work crap jobs so they can pay their bills while making art.

 

[Paul Andrew]

Are you an artist? Or a designer?
I'm both, and I make a distinction between the two. What makes you an expert?

And yes, art is usually made simply to exist by itself for its own appreciation.
You think every artist in the world is rich? Selling their doodles for millions?
Most artists work crap jobs so they can pay their bills while making art.

I am an artist by hobby, and I don't claim to be an expert in anything.

I don't have any illusions about how much money artists make, especially when they're not in a place where they sell their work regularly. However, so much art goes into a movie like Jurassic World that it frankly bewilders me that anyone on THIS board, of all places in the internet, would ever say that storyboarders, or writers, or modelers, or VFX guys, or any of a dozen other artists aren't making art when they work on a project like that.

Which is still all beside the point I was making, which was that it's ******** to tell people they don't have context to appreciate a piece of media because they interact with it emotionally, which is what it's supposed to do.

 

[Psab keel]

It astounds me that all this talk of moral superiority when board members make moral judgements about each other all the time, yet will defend corporations or YouTube channel creators who don't even know they exist, but will turn on their own peers at the drop of a hat.

I can make someone feel an emotion. I don't have to create a piece of art to do it either. If that's the only criteria you use to define art, then a swift kick to the nuts can be considered art. Or insulting some can be considered art. Though in that case, Don Rickles WAS an artist. Lol

Some art is created for consumption alone where the best art says something meaningful. There's a marked difference between the two. I never discount the work of the people involved in a movie or show, which is why I always assess the writing above all else, but art cannot be eliciting emotions alone. Lots of things can elicit emotion that have nothing to do with art. Its part of the function of it, but that's not all it's good for and frankly the vast bulk seems to be made with mass consumption in mind as opposed to having any meaning behind it. That's the crux of the thread.

Not this idea of moral positioning. In fact only two members here brought up ethics when discussing what is supposed to be a subjective topic. Either were discussing art or morals. Which is it?

 

[Cephus]

It's all just a bald rationalization because they realize that they have nothing intelligent to say about the show, therefore they just declare it art so they don't have to evaluate it at all.

 

[Master Boda]

I don't have any illusions about how much money artists make, especially when they're not in a place where they sell their work regularly. However, so much art goes into a movie like Jurassic World that it frankly bewilders me that anyone on THIS board, of all places in the internet, would ever say that storyboarders, or writers, or modelers, or VFX guys, or any of a dozen other artists aren't making art when they work on a project like that.

I agree with you on this statement,a lot of actors/actresses give blood,sweat,tears and other bodily fluids to make sure a porn movie is a great work of art.

 

[Master Boda]

It's all just a bald rationalization because they realize that they have nothing intelligent to say about the show, therefore they just declare it art so they don't have to evaluate it at all.

Slow down man,that’s like saying there can be more than one opposing opinion existing at once...

 

[Master Boda]

Yes today’s generation sees movies very different than that of their elders as they have grownup in a different reality.Time only travels forward so the older folks can see with 2 sets of eyes whereas youth only has the one set.

 

[pengbuzz]

Are you an artist? Or a designer?
I'm both, and I make a distinction between the two. What makes you an expert?

And yes, art is usually made simply to exist by itself for its own appreciation.
You think every artist in the world is rich? Selling their doodles for millions?
Most artists work crap jobs so they can pay their bills while making art.

As am I (artist); and yes, it is a rare thing indeed when art pays the bills (mostly it doesn't).

To the point: not everything put to media (canvas, paper, screen, etc.) is art. Otherwise, someone sneezing into a tissue would then have that framed and with a few other "pieces", go have an art show at their local gallery.

It's all just a bald rationalization because they realize that they have nothing intelligent to say about the show, therefore they just declare it art so they don't have to evaluate it at all.

In order to evaluate, you have to have a thought process and have clear means and methods of discerning what appeals to you, what doesn't, why each of these do so, what conventions you embrace, which you don't, and your rationale for those choices.

The younger set are no longer taught how to think, but rather what to think by vapid sources that seek to hold minds in an ignorant embrace. The mechanics are replaced with the desired end result, which is akin to a truly conscious person being able to reply as opposed to a pre-programmed animation like the ones at Disneyland. All they can do is to proclaim what they believe; articulating why they believe it is simply out of their range/ ability.

All of that said: emotion has its' place, but if used as a reason why someone likes something, it falters. Why, some may ask? Because it is merely a reaction to an item, not the core of the matter. Preference is one thing, while emotional reaction is another.

 

[Master Boda]

As am I (artist); and yes, it is a rare thing indeed when art pays the bills (mostly it doesn't).

To the point: not everything put to media (canvas, paper, screen, etc.) is art. Otherwise, someone sneezing into a tissue would then have that framed and with a few other "pieces", go have an art show at their local gallery.


In order to evaluate, you have to have a thought process and have clear means and methods of discerning what appeals to you, what doesn't, why each of these do so, what conventions you embrace, which you don't, and your rationale for those choices.

The younger set are no longer taught how to think, but rather what to think by vapid sources that seek to hold minds in an ignorant embrace. The mechanics are replaced with the desired end result, which is akin to a truly conscious person being able to reply as opposed to a pre-programmed animation like the ones at Disneyland. All they can do is to proclaim what they believe; articulating why they believe it is simply out of their range/ ability.

All of that said: emotion has its' place, but if used as a reason why someone likes something, it falters. Why, some may ask? Because it is merely a reaction to an item, not the core of the matter. Preference is one thign, while emotional reaction is another.

You speak the truth and use logic over emotion,you sir must be an extremist!

 

[Psab keel]

Which is why "getting feels" from fiction alone isn't enough to consider something art, much less define it as quality art. Which is why I said a kick to the groin can also elicit emotion.

 

[pengbuzz]

Which is why "getting feels" from fiction alone isn't enough to consider something art, much less define it as quality art. Which is why I said a kick to the groin can also elicit emotion.

Precisely. And that is another tactic many of the younger set use in their diatribes: emotional manipulation. It's a cheap way to try to make a point without having to describe in clear, rational terms the merits/ demerits of a work, piece or anything else for that matter.

 

[Master Boda]

Precisely. And that is another tactic many of the younger set use in their diatribes: emotional manipulation. It's a cheap way to try to make a point without having to describe in clear, rational terms the merits/ demerits of a work, piece or anything else for that matter.

To me that’s the irony, they don’t know they have been manipulated.Hive mentality is a scary thing.

 

[pengbuzz]

You speak the truth and use logic over emotion,you sir must be an extremist!

yeah, right? In that case, Albert Einstein must be Captain Blackbeard to them!!

To me that’s the irony, they don’t know they have been manipulated.Hive mentality is a scary thing.

It reminds me of this quote from Mark Twain's comment in Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 2 (University of California Press, 2013)

“The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. … How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!”

 

[Psab keel]

I also consider so much of our culture is disposable too. Nothing is built to last. Beliefs, institutions, relationships, why wouldn't art be subject to the same attitude? Everything is based on the immediacy of the moment rather than anything that requires endurance. It's easy to have convictions if they don't cost you anything. That's the reason why a lot of modern fictional heroes feel hollow, because their victory came without any personal sacrifice.