"mindless entertainment" vs "true art"

[Racket_Man]

One of my favourite bad movies ever is Kiss Meets The Phantom Of The Park. It's a truly awful movie, with terrible acting and bad dialogue... but it's so bad, it's funny. There are other bad movies that one can watch and enjoy.

However, there are also bad movies that are so bad it's bad. I'd put some arty movies into this category, too.

.

I remember actually watching that on TV (as in a made for TV movie on NBC (???) I think) in 1978. yeah it was so bad it was funny

but then again WHY do sooooo many people like Beaves and Butthead???? because as Patrick Steward once said (paraphrasing here) "IT is soo stupid and dumb it is funny". basically the whole show was dialogue like "assmunch" "bunghole (not really a dirty word)", "tweeter", etc comprising the "adventures" of two boys who should have been under phscyaitric care.

B&B is definately NOT high art

[Ladeeda]

To my opinion Art appeals to everyone crap appeals to a small demographic. The more people like something the more artistic it is.

I refuse to believe Twilight is anything of the kind.

[jackfaire]

What amuses me is that the "high art" now will be ignored by the scholars of the future and the "low brow" aka the popular stuff that most people actually like will be considered classics.

Don't believe me? Think about how often your teachers are describing a "classic" and they say, "People back then really knew good art from bad this was very popular with the people of the time proving that they had good taste" when really the critics of their time probably thought the popular stuff was low brow like our people tend to now.

To my opinion Art appeals to everyone crap appeals to a small demographic. The more people like something the more artistic it is.

[Ipecac Drano]

Kiss Meets The Phantom Of The Park.

One of my faves!

[Ladeeda]

I think Donnie Darko could go either way. I did enjoy it, but goddamn, was that confusing!

On the other hand, it was a supernatural horror film, which by definition cannot be "twue art".

But it's really all about perception, the ultimate drawback of all arts. In New York, there's a room filled with dirt.

Apparently, that's art.

Some don't think comics should count as art, except for certain ones, like Maus.

Either way, it doesn't have to be GOOD to be art. Look at the Jackson Pollack knockoffs. It's art, but it sucks.

I think Cadaverella was an interesting, creative, original horror version of Cinderella. Most reviews just say it was terrible.

Are snails expensive food or garden pests? Depends on if you're in France or not.

It's about quality, sure, but also about personal taste. Just get enough people with a similar positive opinion, and it will be dubbed True Art.

[Lace Neil Singer]

One of my favourite bad movies ever is Kiss Meets The Phantom Of The Park. It's a truly awful movie, with terrible acting and bad dialogue... but it's so bad, it's funny. There are other bad movies that one can watch and enjoy.

However, there are also bad movies that are so bad it's bad. I'd put some arty movies into this category, too.

I also hate it when people burble on about how wonderful and breathtaking a movie is, for example, Avatar... and then nearly burst a blood vessel when someone says that they didn't like it. "How can you hate it; it's a fantastic movie!" For the same reason that you hate Phantom Of The Park; cuz everyone has their own opinion.

[AdminAssistant]

Sure, they require suspension of disbelief, but where's the fun in boring old reality?

"I don't think that means what you think it means."

I don't feel as strongly about film as I do theatre, but the same principles apply. For me, a good play asks more questions than it gives answers. I don't want some overly contrived, deux ex machina-esque happy ending. While it's entertaining to watch "shit blows up" movies, and many of my favorite movies are of that variety (Lethal Weapon, anybody?), it doesn't make them "good." I think your problem is that a lot of artists and academics make a distinction between "good" and "entertaining," because, to them, art's ultimate purpose is not purely to entertain. You don't make that distinction, because you see film as pure entertainment.

I just watched a movie; a German film called, "The Lives of Others." Very beautiful, very dark, rather sad. It had one of those anti-climactic endings that you lament, but an all-wrapped-up happy denoument would not have been appropriate for that movie. At. All.

[Rageaholic]

Your film teacher was right, actually. A film can be entertaining without being good (and vice-versa). Whether or not a film is well-made can be judged by the quality of the screenplay, the directing, the acting, the editing, etc. As an example: Shoot 'Em Up. I thoroughly enjoyed that movie. It is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I've ever seen. But it was hilariously bad with lots of action. Enjoyable, but not "good."

Never seen that one, but I guess a movie can be so bad it's good. Batman and Robin, The Room, Battlefield Earth, and many other movies the Nostalgia Critic reviewed (who's hillarious imo) have fans because they are so bad. But I don't know how far you can go with that. I'm pretty sure most people believed those movies sucked the big one, but there are so called "bad" movies I like because I think they're good. Sure, they require suspension of disbelief, but where's the fun in boring old reality?

I haven't studied art as much as some others on the forum have, but I can see what you're saying. Some people really like to look down their noses at people who enjoy entertainment that they consider "low brow" or whatever. I really like horror movies, and occasionally, I enjoy one of the low budget horror movies made by an independent film maker.

Sometimes, I think people overthink art. For example, they'll spend up to an hour (or longer) staring at a painting of a tree debating about what it's supposed to mean.

Person 1: Obviously, this conveys our ability to rise to our full potential in life.
Person 2: No, no. Can't you see that the leaves on this tree are in their autumn colors. It's obviously meant to represent accomplishment and the act of retiring from the tasks of life.
Person 3: How can either of you think these things? The fact that it's a tree in autumn obviously means this painting symbolizes death!

Of course, I would chime in and say that maybe the artist just sat down one day and felt like painting a picture of a tree. This would probably not put me in very high esteem with these three people.

This is the problem I have with my lit class. People overthink things, trying to find meaning where there isn't. Granted, a lot of these stories are parables, but the meaning isn't as hidden as students make it out to be. If it was like that, then no one would get it!

I've watched some of these "true art" movies from time to time.

...

Wait, let me rephrase that. I've TRIED to watch some some of those "true art" movies from time to time.

I will say this, it's a great cure for bouts of insomnia.

I think the worst part about those movies is that they have a plot that makes you cock your head like a dog throughout the movie it's so pathetic, characters that should belong on a canvas they're so 2 dimensional, and settings that make absolutely no sense (One I recall from flashes had a plot dealing about a Victorian city life and they're out in the middle of a bloody forest). But these movies get praised and showered with accolades because the "camerawork and post editing work are true works of art." Never mind the fact that 90% of the movie is the two main characters talking about something that requires a goddam doctorate in literature to understand, It's art!

[sarcasm] Yeah, but that's the brilliance of it! It's not susposed to make sense! Oh and that abrupt, anti climactic ending, it was meant to be that way! It was to display how in reality things aren't always concluded in a satisfactory way. Other movies don't have the guts to have no plot and no ending, but this goes all out! I mean who wants to watch a movie that will actually satisfy audiances with a consistent plot and an entertaining story? That's been so overdone! Who wants to be entertained anyway?[/sarcasm]

Okay, that's a little bit of an exageration, but it does describe the art extremests pretty well. The sad thing is, I almost feel into this stuff. It's like these people can find brilliance in anything. Well, if that's true, why can't they see the brilliance in "mindless entertainment"?

[lordlundar]

I've watched some of these "true art" movies from time to time.

...

Wait, let me rephrase that. I've TRIED to watch some some of those "true art" movies from time to time.

I will say this, it's a great cure for bouts of insomnia.

I think the worst part about those movies is that they have a plot that makes you cock your head like a dog throughout the movie it's so pathetic, characters that should belong on a canvas they're so 2 dimensional, and settings that make absolutely no sense (One I recall from flashes had a plot dealing about a Victorian city life and they're out in the middle of a bloody forest). But these movies get praised and showered with accolades because the "camerawork and post editing work are true works of art." Never mind the fact that 90% of the movie is the two main characters talking about something that requires a goddam doctorate in literature to understand, It's art!

[guywithashovel]

I haven't studied art as much as some others on the forum have, but I can see what you're saying. Some people really like to look down their noses at people who enjoy entertainment that they consider "low brow" or whatever. I really like horror movies, and occasionally, I enjoy one of the low budget horror movies made by an independent film maker.

Sometimes, I think people overthink art. For example, they'll spend up to an hour (or longer) staring at a painting of a tree debating about what it's supposed to mean.

Person 1: Obviously, this conveys our ability to rise to our full potential in life.
Person 2: No, no. Can't you see that the leaves on this tree are in their autumn colors. It's obviously meant to represent accomplishment and the act of retiring from the tasks of life.
Person 3: How can either of you think these things? The fact that it's a tree in autumn obviously means this painting symbolizes death!

Of course, I would chime in and say that maybe the artist just sat down one day and felt like painting a picture of a tree. This would probably not put me in very high esteem with these three people.

[AdminAssistant]

Team America: World Police?
South Park?

Exactly. I actually loved South Park the movie (I can't stand the TV show). But it's not a high quality work of art. It's just damned funny, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Greenday]

Your film teacher was right, actually. A film can be entertaining without being good (and vice-versa).

Team America: World Police?
South Park?

[Ipecac Drano]

My taste in cinema is like that of my food: I can recognize and appreciate the finest cuisine, but, dammit, I gotta have some Hormel canned chili, too.

[AdminAssistant]

Your film teacher was right, actually. A film can be entertaining without being good (and vice-versa). Whether or not a film is well-made can be judged by the quality of the screenplay, the directing, the acting, the editing, etc. As an example: Shoot 'Em Up. I thoroughly enjoyed that movie. It is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I've ever seen. But it was hilariously bad with lots of action. Enjoyable, but not "good."

[Sleepwalker]

True art is like, to take something from the other forum, a 'real job'.

It's whatever the sayer wants it to be.