Shoutistics
242,834
Total Shouts
16
Last 24 Hours
Leaderboard
The Shoutbox
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
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. There’s 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 doesn’t always translate to the work itself, and it’s perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‘point’ to make. It’s up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I don’t think that ‘anything goes’ 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.
On a separate note, I think almost all films, from ‘The Sound of Music’ and ‘Cabaret’ to Star Wars’ are about a connection between human beings, loss, love and so forth. Virtually any film will touch on these common denominators. The question then is which films do it more effectively and why, in which case ‘Star Wars’ probably loses and ‘The Sound of Music’ probably wins, though even that is just an opinion. I’d be interested to hear your definition of what any film of your choosing is about, just so I could see what exactly you mean by ‘about’.
I remember reading a discussion about whether the Harry Potter books should be part of the school syllabus to encourage children to read. Luckily, the majority of the participants said ‘no’. But then those that said ‘yes’ made a creepily convincing argument about how Harry Potter touches on friendship, love and loss in ways that are probably more accessible to children than Shakespeare. I know it’s not exactly relevant, but it just shows that all art is about the same things in some sense.
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
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. There’s 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 doesn’t always translate to the work itself, and it’s perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‘point’ to make. It’s up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I don’t think that ‘anything goes’ 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.
On a separate note, I think almost all films, from ‘The Sound of Music’ and ‘Cabaret’ to Star Wars’ are about a connection between human beings, loss, love and so forth. Virtually any film will touch on these common denominators. The question then is which films do it more effectively and why, in which case ‘Star Wars’ probably loses and ‘The Sound of Music’ probably wins, though even that is just an opinion. I’d be interested to hear your definition of what any film of your choosing is about, just so I could see what exactly you mean by ‘about’.
I remember reading a discussion about whether the Harry Potter books should be part of the school syllabus to encourage children to read. Luckily, the majority of the participants said ‘no’. But then those that said ‘yes’ made a creepily convincing argument about how Harry Potter touches on friendship, love and loss in ways that are probably more accessible to children than Shakespeare. I know it’s not exactly relevant, but it just shows that all art is about the same things in some sense.
Originally Posted by AgrippinaX
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. There’s 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 doesn’t always translate to the work itself, and it’s perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‘point’ to make. It’s up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I don’t think that ‘anything goes’ 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 AgrippinaX
Lol, it’s my fault, now that I’ve read it back... apologies for disturbing the peace...
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. There’s 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 doesn’t always translate to the work itself, and it’s perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‘point’ to make. It’s up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I don’t think that ‘anything goes’ 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 Chypmunk
Dear Lord, where's all the usual silliness gone????
Welcome to the Sensiblebox
Welcome to the Sensiblebox
Originally Posted by Chypmunk
Dear Lord, where's all the usual silliness gone????
Welcome to the Sensiblebox
Welcome to the Sensiblebox
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. There’s 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 doesn’t always translate to the work itself, and it’s perfectly possible to create a narrative that is just a narrative, with little or no moral compass or a ‘point’ to make. It’s up to anyone to like or dislike such a work, but art itself does not inherently carry a message. I don’t think that ‘anything goes’ 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.