Thus, satisfying one of the two criteria I specified. It entertained them. And had it turned a profit, I might have entertained even more people.
I guess I can't disagree with this. Yes, if it turned a profit, more people would have seen it. Still not understanding why this is what a movie needs to be. A movie with no more than ten fans is still just as much a movie as one with an entire industrial complex behind it. But okay, yeah, sure.
Money is not a mere inconvenience, it is a necessity. It doesn't just make easier; it makes it possible.
Yeah, everything needs money to at least some degree. But you are act like things don't happen in art without profit. And they do, all the time. This may surprise you, but people are creating art on their own, everywhere. Even movies. Camera's cost money, sure, but it doesn't cost anything to go out and film whatever the **** you want. Just because you haven't seen any of these movies doesn't mean they don't exist.
Why make a film for an audience if you hold them in contempt?
Where is contempt coming into the picture. Why are you letting your insecurity show so completely? This isn't about you and your taste. It's about other people making different movies for people who are not you. Get over yourself.
Whatever the intended audience is for a film (it need not be a majority of the general population), that film must serve that audience.
It doesn't have to serve a ****ing single soul. But people might still like it regardless. What is your obsession with artistic obedience? Things can still matter if they aren't subservient to your particular needs.
An artist with no regard for reception might as well not ever release the artwork.
Are you completely unaware of all of the artists who have felt they have created something too self indulgent for release, and only do under protest, only to find that it has an enormous audience?
Artists very frequently do not create with the notion of a reception in mind. It might blow your mind, but obsessing over those sorts of things is something that seems to frequently create the worst art. Yes, there are some out there who are masters at giving the audiences exactly what they want, while also remaining artistically potent (Billy Wilder for a quick example), but he is the exception to the rule.
Nonsense. Art which is only for the artist is not a cultural product, but private idiosyncratic product which need not be released, because it served no purpose outside the artist
And here is where you completely tip your hat to being staggeringly ignorant. I will never bumble like Inspector Clouseau into your theology discussion because I understand I'm not equipped. Be humble and listen for a second.
Jim Jarmusch has a great quote about this. I don't know if it his or him paraphrasing someone, but when he feels doubt about the very idiosyncratic (but also profitable enough for him to make a living off of them) movies he makes he reminds himself: "If this is something I want to see, I have to assume someone else wants to as well".
He creates out of belief. He creates out of hope that someone else, hopefully lots of someone elses, are looking for the kind of thing he's creating. He's not catering to an audience, because he is only theoretically hoping it even exits. He doesn't know until he puts it out there.
And lucky for him they do exist. And lucky for them that he is trusting his gut. Otherwise these movies that matter to these audience members wouldn't even exist. You don't get a Jarmusch film by reading the wind or conducting surveys. You take a chance. Hope someone gives a ****.
This is the vaccuum that most art is created out of. They create their own cultural product because it didn't exist before them.
It just makes me wonder exactly how many artists you've ever personally known. Or even, for the lack of anything else, how many books on art or biographies of artists you've read. Because that above comment it staggering in its ignorance. And it's one your repeat over and over again, no matter how many different posters try and correct you on. Stop embarrassing yourself with this. If you want to continue these conversations, at least try and grasp the process where creative people create.
No one really believes this romantic nonsense.
Do you really want to get into belief? Do you have no concept at all about the value of belief or faith? Give me a ****ing break.
Artists want to reach their audiences
Hey, a breakthrough. Yes. Being seen as an artist has a lot of value (not all the value, but it is certainly a good portion)
They offer up all the pretentious, contemptuous declarations of "not caring," precisely because they know that their is a good chance that they will fail, that they will not reach the audience.
Some probably do this. Artists are notoriously insecure, for very good reason. Because they take enormous chances with what they put out there, having no idea if anyone could possibly give a shit. At having people like you look down on them like they are some parasite that dared to express themselves in a way that they hoped would matter.
But also, stop talking for what artists think. You are a terrible ambassador.
Let's stop pretending that art is just for the artist. It isn't. It never was.
It's for both. And if they don't happen to find an audience, they missed and they didn't connect. Stop claiming that artists should stop doing what artists have always done. What the **** are you so upset by when someone you don't even know dares to express themselves they choose to. Honestly, what is wrong with you? Just don't watch what you don't like and move along.
That which is is just a hobby or habituation, or madness.
Yeah, it can be all three of these things. And those three things have probably supplied a good deal of everything even your milquetoast taste has enjoyed.
I disagree. I am all for art with integrity. However, the art must be adjusted to and for audience.
The audience isn't you. The audience isn't consensus. The audience is any person who may enjoy or find meaning in their work. Some people don't happen to find art other people respond strongly to to have any meaning. Are they just supposed to adhere to whatever dogshit principals you designate as being proper art so they at least have something? Honestly, **** off with this shit.
It's integrity lies in playing a part in a cultural dance, not in claiming mastery, control, and ownership of itself as a hermetically sealed process that holds the dance in contempt.
For someone who doesn't like masturbatory art, you sure love to felate yourself with this crap you write.
Given how much you protest, deflect, and even deny the necessity, I would say quite a bit.
Okay, whatever. Or maybe you just don't understand what I'm saying and so we have to go through this 'dance' over and over again (is this going to be the part where you claim we are at a stalemate and there is no reason to continue the conversation?)
I am fine with artists making a fair amount of money for a fair amount of time with the work then entering the public domain as a cultural product. However, corporations are now people and they never die. What matters most about art is that it belongs to us all. Its about the dance, circulation, and not the constipating restrictions of anyone's assertion of final ownership.
This is an extremely complicated matter that I certainly don't have an entire handle on...so I definitely know I shouldn't be trusting anything you have to say about it. Yes it belongs to the people. In some ways. But it also definitely belongs to the artist, certainly for as long as they live. But...it's complicated.
This cannot be the case by your own analysis. You grudgingly admit of its necessity (if only in the attempt to dismiss its significance as a consideration "Of course we all know this!"), but this admission means that it is a universal consideration. Your admission establishes that there is no world in which this interest does not intrude, thus it cannot be the uniquely corrupting feature of art.
Clearly I'm too dumb for this academia speak you continuously flop around in like pig shit, so I'll just say, sure, whatever you say. Now read a ****ing book about art and get back to me.