Axlotl
Master Member
Pepsi? May as well put pineapple on your Sicilian, you knuckle dragging troglodyte.
Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?
- Thread starter blewis17
- Start date
- Status
As opposed to what; that battery acid you call Cocca-Cola you neanderthal? lol
Same..
But substitute Pepsi for Peroni, Yeah I fall over a lot.
Don't even get me started on Coke.
Axlotl
Master Member
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
joberg
Legendary Member
Humans are walking backward toward the Future (which they will never see!) Since our understanding of time is cut into slices of Presents (and then it becomes the Past in the next second), we only have the Past for model and marker...model/marker onto which we base our "Future"...
The new Gen does exactly the same...it's just that their Past is less wide than ours (older Gen).
I saw that movie because it wasn't the Chaplin we had seen before...The same with the French actor Fernandel when he played a bad husband (I don't recall the title of the movie...sorryI watched Monsieur Verdoux yesterday for the first time. The movie took a great risk, and the rest is as they say, history.
I can imagine Hedda Hopper in this era giving her readers and interested parties the full treatment on this movie beyond print, since we all know print is no longer a thing.
That said, some would also say the movie is ‘old’ - and by some miracle, so am I
Time has a way of showing us things through a different lens. In the end, my interests are simple, so I watch and read what interests me, and try with the few hours I have away from a computer console, to learn how to garden as a hobby, since I realize there is more to growing flowers than just adding water.
View attachment 1598631
All the content going out now is truly a window of this time, so I take it as it comes. One persons like is another persons dislike, as with Charlie Chaplin’s movies.
) The public didn't like the fact that, instead of his comedy and the lovable character he was known for, he was now playing a very nasty person. I'm sure it was the same gamble Chaplin took with Mr. Verdoux.Sometimes the movie/story is well written but it takes the "liking" of the audience to make it work in the end.
joberg
Legendary Member
I would say, as an artist, that part of your argument is valid: i.e. Art elicits emotions and Truth...your Truth into discovering/viewing a painting, sculpture, movie, etc, etc...But when Art is used to sell/promote something (product, idea...) it becomes either marketing or propaganda.
To be sure; an artist was behind those two different contexts. And yes again; marketing or propaganda has to elicit an emotion...but is it Truth?
joberg
Legendary Member
If I go to McDonald's; I don't expect "Haute Cuisine"...it's not going to be a 3 Star Michelin affair Can it be called "cooking?"
Yep, someone experimented the different types of selections you can eat at McDonald and launch them into the World.
If I go to a high-end restaurant where one entire meal will cost me $200...then I'll expect Quality!
To know those two extremes and all of the "in-between" is part of your education into distinguishing Quality vs. Mediocrity.
Art: Truth & Beauty in the eyes of the viewers. Same with anything in life that elicit some kind of feelings or emotions.
Can it be called "cooking?"Yep, someone experimented the different types of selections you can eat at McDonald and launch them into the World.
If I go to a high-end restaurant where one entire meal will cost me $200...then I'll expect Quality!
To know those two extremes and all of the "in-between" is part of your education into distinguishing Quality vs. Mediocrity.
Art: Truth & Beauty in the eyes of the viewers. Same with anything in life that elicit some kind of feelings or emotions.
Picard102
Sr Member
A lot of famous art was commissioned. Are we saying the Mona Lisa isn't art because he was paid to paint it?
jkno
Legendary Member
This is a masterpiece compared to The Last Jedi!
The intention of the artist/ creator plays a factor too. You ever notice how every legitimate film criticism is trying to explain how well the artist expresses their idea? The final execution is just as important as the idea itself, which an audience may or may not respond well to. Otherwise we would have no barometer by which to define a good or bad movie. Granted everyone has their own bias towards what speaks to them, and that plays a part, but if execution isn't important then why would we bother even talking about art at all? This is reason why when a person refers to a serious piece of artwork as "doodling" it's an insult. Doodles by definition are absent minded and done when a person is bored. An artist is someone who creates something with intention and purpose. So much of the content available is without purpose but for consumption alone. That's not art. That's doodling.
If the primary motivation is for financial gain and thoughtless consumption, it's not really art, it's marketing. Art is ideally the inspiration of an artist who has an idea they want to convey to the world. It's evident that the business or enterprise of art has far overtaken artistic expression, otherwise everything could be considered artistic and we know that's not true. It's also evident that so much of the content available doesn't have a clear idea that it's trying to convey as if writers are creating content with no intention other than consumption, rather than expressing a theme.
Even if you can't always define it, you can register subconsciously when a piece of content has an artist's soul poured into its creation and when something is thrown together to make money. Sure art can be lucrative and no one is honestly opposed to the business of film, but far too often the artistry is lost. Which is why the failure of Hollywood to honor the efforts of production crews, in my estimation the REAL heroes of the film industry, is a travesty, and makes award shows like the Oscars a laughing stock when those people are lucky to ever get mentioned.
If the primary motivation is for financial gain and thoughtless consumption, it's not really art, it's marketing. Art is ideally the inspiration of an artist who has an idea they want to convey to the world. It's evident that the business or enterprise of art has far overtaken artistic expression, otherwise everything could be considered artistic and we know that's not true. It's also evident that so much of the content available doesn't have a clear idea that it's trying to convey as if writers are creating content with no intention other than consumption, rather than expressing a theme.
Even if you can't always define it, you can register subconsciously when a piece of content has an artist's soul poured into its creation and when something is thrown together to make money. Sure art can be lucrative and no one is honestly opposed to the business of film, but far too often the artistry is lost. Which is why the failure of Hollywood to honor the efforts of production crews, in my estimation the REAL heroes of the film industry, is a travesty, and makes award shows like the Oscars a laughing stock when those people are lucky to ever get mentioned.
Last edited:
Cephus
Master Member
That's really the problem though. The younger generation, often, wants to do away with legitimate criticism. They see everything as fluid. There are no standards so there can't be right or wrong, good or bad, good or evil. It's all individual, personal subjectivity and if you like something, it's got to be good "for you". They act like everyone carries around their own personal reality where they get to define things however they like and nobody can tell them that they're wrong.
Sorry, that's not how reality actually works.
Which is exactly why believing everything is subjective is so dangerous and the reason why I openly mock the idea of people saying "their truth." Truth is objective. Either something is true, or it's false. Saying otherwise is arrogant because no one has ownership over it. It's a tribal way of thinking which on it's face seems innoucous, but actually does nothing but breed disrespect towards others. It's the same issue I have when people try to redefine language. Could you imagine playing Trivial Pursuit with someone like that? lol
Last edited:
Picard102
Sr Member
So the notable art of the renaissance period is not art, but marketing?
More emotional derision of the "younger generation" masked as truth. Care to define what age is the "younger generation" here?
Cephus
Master Member
There is no "their truth". There is "the truth" and anything else is wrong. That's why it's so frustrating trying to talk to people who are incapable of stepping beyond their own head. They can't just look at things objectively because they've been trained that there is no objectivity. It's why, when we ask why they like a thing, they're incapable of coming up with a coherent answer. It doesn't matter, so long as they get that dopamine shot in the noggin and feel happy. These are people who, if they fell out of an airplane without a parachute, they'd be convinced all the way down that there is no gravity, because that's "their truth".
No, they're going to splat because reality's a bitch, isn't it?
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
Exactly. I'm 100% with you on their being absolute truths in the world and universe I just know that there are many instances when some who claim to know said truths in reality don't. Defining what is truth and what is not is always going to be a matter of debate but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and can't be realized.
Paul Andrew
Master Member
I don't know that it's comparing as much as lumping it all into the same vast bucket. It's like the difference between cinema, films, and movies. At a base level, they're all the same thing.
At a base level, media is made by artists, therefore, regardless of the purpose for which they are hired to make their art, they are making art. (Back to money doesn't make art not art). The people doing the hiring may only be willing to pay for a certain level of quality, which may limit how it comes out in the end, but that doesn't make it not art.
Do you think a writer who churns out by the numbers plots for broadcast tv would call his art anything but?
All of this nonsense about whether a thing is or isn't art is just a strawman anyway. Calling these things not art is just an excuse to say that a certain group of people aren't correctly interfacing with media, so their opinions don't matter.
Last edited:
We are speaking in generalities here. Obviously not all people under 40 think in this manner. The only reason it has to be overstated is because it's obvious some here think they have some moral duty to defend people they don't know, when they'll happily dismiss their own peers in favor of strangers.
Everything is
Paul Andrew
Master Member
I come at it from the direction of thinking maybe we shouldn't be putting people in a place where they need to be defended for how they watch things. There's a lot of room for disagreement without making one group out to deficient.
- Status
Similar threads
