The Shoutbox
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Lol, itís my fault, now that Iíve read it back... apologies for disturbing the peace...
Lol, it's perfectly ok .... I'll dumb it down to normal standards again in time
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Yes, but not every work has an inherent sense of meaning beyond being a story where a sequence of events leads to a thematic conclusion. Thereís a lot to be said for the aesthetic approach. Beauty in architecture and even human proportions has objective parameters, such as the golden ratio. No such objective measures exist to determine whether a film or a novel possess the quality of beauty. But I would say that while every work of art has an ideology, that comes from the author and his beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices. It doesnít always translate to the work itself, and itís perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‚Äėpointí to make. Itís up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I donít think that ‚Äėanything goesí in interpreting a given work of art, as some interpretations can be plain wrong, but some works of art do not exist to be interpreted at all and constitute pure entertainment. That should not, in my view, take away from their validity and right to exist, though to engage or not engage with them is a personal choice. I would say that approaching a film or a novel at face value and analysing how it works in terms of storytelling, without taking into account its message if such exists, is viewing it in an abstract manner.
A fair point, though I would think that also calls into question at what point you delineate between art and entertainment - depending on the piece in question, it can have as much (or as little) of a point as possible. Even films that do aim to be pure entertainment without intending any deeper message can end up compromised not just by ideology but by their aesthetics (whether related to ideology or not).
Yes, it is certainly not a given that a work of art that aims to be pure entertainment does not also make a point of carry a message. But some films clearly appear to have none beyond telling a story (unless you delve deep into dubious sacral interpretations). Off the top of my head, a film Iíd be hard pressed to find a message in is ĎOceanís Elevení, beyond the usual heist film logic whereby several skilled guys outsmart a smug guy and live happily ever after. I think itís ultimately a personal choice to look or not look for a message in art.
Originally Posted by Chypmunk
Dear Lord, where's all the usual silliness gone????

Welcome to the Sensiblebox
Lol, itís my fault, now that Iíve read it back... apologies for disturbing the peace...
Originally Posted by Chypmunk
Dear Lord, where's all the usual silliness gone????

Welcome to the Sensiblebox
"Smartbox" was right there.
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Yes, but not every work has an inherent sense of meaning beyond being a story where a sequence of events leads to a thematic conclusion. Thereís a lot to be said for the aesthetic approach. Beauty in architecture and even human proportions has objective parameters, such as the golden ratio. No such objective measures exist to determine whether a film or a novel possess the quality of beauty. But I would say that while every work of art has an ideology, that comes from the author and his beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices. It doesnít always translate to the work itself, and itís perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‚Äėpointí to make. Itís up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I donít think that ‚Äėanything goesí in interpreting a given work of art, as some interpretations can be plain wrong, but some works of art do not exist to be interpreted at all and constitute pure entertainment. That should not, in my view, take away from their validity and right to exist, though to engage or not engage with them is a personal choice. I would say that approaching a film or a novel at face value and analysing how it works in terms of storytelling, without taking into account its message if such exists, is viewing it in an abstract manner.
A fair point, though I would think that also calls into question at what point you delineate between art and entertainment - depending on the piece in question, it can have as much (or as little) of a point as possible. Even films that do aim to be pure entertainment without intending any deeper message can end up compromised not just by ideology but by their aesthetics (whether related to ideology or not).
Dear Lord, where's all the usual silliness gone????

Welcome to the Sensiblebox
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Fair enough. It felt like a bit of a rant, although I agree politics should probably be left alone in art-related forums.
I never said that politics should be left alone in regards to the discussion of art, though - if anything, art is inherently political (even if a given piece is lacking in overtly political content) and engaging with that is a necessary part of gaining a deeper appreciation for the form. Otherwise, it's just surface-level aesthetics.
It is true that most works of art espouse or put forward at least some form of ideology or worldview, but I donít think that makes art inherently political. The moment we are no longer able to view a work of art in an abstract manner, we lose the ability to enjoy it. It seems like a waste to me to lose a chance to appreciate something if you disagree with the ideology behind it.
I suppose it depends on how you define an abstract manner, then. The flip-side of getting too wrapped up in viewing everything through a narrow ideological lens is abstracting to the point where a given work loses any inherent sense of meaning and any sufficiently convenient interpretation can fill the void.
Yes, but not every work has an inherent sense of meaning beyond being a story where a sequence of events leads to a thematic conclusion. Thereís a lot to be said for the aesthetic approach. Beauty in architecture and even human proportions has objective parameters, such as the golden ratio. No such objective measures exist to determine whether a film or a novel possess the quality of beauty. But I would say that while every work of art has an ideology, that comes from the author and his beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices. It doesnít always translate to the work itself, and itís perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a Ďpointí to make. Itís up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I donít think that Ďanything goesí in interpreting a given work of art, as some interpretations can be plain wrong, but some works of art do not exist to be interpreted at all and constitute pure entertainment. That should not, in my view, take away from their validity and right to exist, though to engage or not engage with them is a personal choice. I would say that approaching a film or a novel at face value and analysing how it works in terms of storytelling, without taking into account its message if such exists, is viewing it in an abstract manner.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Keep saying thoughtful and nuanced things, people, and I'll be forced to move this into a thread.
Damn, I'm never going to overtake Rodent on the leaderboard if that keeps happening. Time to start posting "Good morning" over and over again.
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Fair enough. It felt like a bit of a rant, although I agree politics should probably be left alone in art-related forums.
I never said that politics should be left alone in regards to the discussion of art, though - if anything, art is inherently political (even if a given piece is lacking in overtly political content) and engaging with that is a necessary part of gaining a deeper appreciation for the form. Otherwise, it's just surface-level aesthetics.
It is true that most works of art espouse or put forward at least some form of ideology or worldview, but I donít think that makes art inherently political. The moment we are no longer able to view a work of art in an abstract manner, we lose the ability to enjoy it. It seems like a waste to me to lose a chance to appreciate something if you disagree with the ideology behind it.
I suppose it depends on how you define an abstract manner, then. The flip-side of getting too wrapped up in viewing everything through a narrow ideological lens is abstracting to the point where a given work loses any inherent sense of meaning and any sufficiently convenient interpretation can fill the void.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Agripp makes an interesting point just now that I hadn't considered before: that even if art is political, it doesn't obligate us to engage with it primarily on that level.
Yet you always summarise it better than my long-winded posts ever could. Yes, thatís what I was getting at.
Keep saying thoughtful and nuanced things, people, and I'll be forced to move this into a thread.