Are Films Art or Entertainment?

Live action is photography applied to film?

__________________
Mubi

I ain't love Sinister because of some sort of art even though I don't consider any movie Art... Art and Entertainment are subjective to each peoples...

__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif

This makes complete sense. You beat me.

All films are art. Sadly, not all films are entertaining.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I would agree, but I wouldn't call it sad - some films are intended to be enlightening or informative, not entertaining.

All films are art, but some are good art, some are bad. As is the case with any human creation, there's good, and there's bad.

Both

Would you call Schindler's List entertainment? What about a documentary about the holocaust, or other such serious topics?

Your blind worship of animation is nauseous.

This is a false dilemma or at least argument to moderation. I treat the medium as both as I suspect most here do.

Well, you just don't understand what I meant. Your aggression shows that you are also not willing to understand, "your eyes are clouded by hate", quoting a Miyazaki film.

Let make it clear: photography and drawing are art, however, not all photos people post on facebook are art but all drawings are art. Animation is drawing applied to film while live action is photography applied to film, hence, all animation is art but not all live action is art. All animation has it's "art style" but not all live action films are artistic.

For instance, some Adam Sandler's films are completely devoid of artistic qualities (or better, take anything on TV like a typical news report which is a piece of live action film which is obviously devoid of artistic qualities). While it's impossible to make animation completely devoid of any artistic qualities because you always have do actually drawn the frames and hence incorporate a certain degree of conscious stylization in it.

Even the most limited animation like Walking Life (which is rotoscoped over live action, which severely restricts it's degree of freedom in artistic expression) still contains inherent artistic expression in the way the lines are shown and in the distribution of color inside the lines drawn over the live action footage or the stick figures of a Beautiful Day also show a conscious decision for a particular artistic style.

You don't need to feel personally insulted just because you are a live action fan. I am a fan of live action as well, although there are also other art forms that I can appreciate and understand. Why you should feel insulted by my observation? I did not said live action is "inferior" to animation although I guess you perceived it in that way. And why do you feel the need to insult me? You should consult a psychiatrist.

At the moment I don't feel like a particular fan of animation or live action really but mostly a fan of manga and music (I guess I should quit the forum then, right?).

Finally, notice that the inherent lack of artistic merit in just filming something (like a sports even) explains why live action stuff is so obsessed with direction: since the degree of freedom in expression lies in the way you take the live action shoots there it is where the artistic focus is. In animation there is less focus on direction and more focus on the art style itself, although in some animation (specially Japanese animation in general) direction takes a more central role, with the use of a imaginary camera. In that case it's due to the influence of live action film on the composition of manga panels in the 1970's.

My eyes are clouded with reason. I really understand that animation can be art and sometimes a bigger art than live action films, but saying it's always art whereas live action films are not always art is a little bit too much.

Look! I made art.

KIno-eye!


It only took me 5 minutes to make an animation that is fully-fledged art. Take that, Miyazaki!
I think we both should. I'm already being treated, though.

This, films are art, and art, like anything, can be entertaining.

__________________

I had no idea Minio did Herzfeldt's animation. Nice!

__________________
Letterboxd

I'm not even sure all films are art. What about the cashgrabs that are made purely for bank?

I don't think we are debating art vs not art, we are debating good art vs bad art. Surprisingly the opinions seem to be varied due to subjectivity.

This! Don't tell me that all films are art, as well not all the paintings, plays, music or literature are art!
Some films are purely done to entertain and make money and that's not art! Art doesn't need a practical reason to happen (except perhaps architecture and even that has been debated for decades).
Not saying that only the arthouse films are art but don't tell me that what Adam Sandler does is art, even if bad one. It's not!

I think we are on the same page, neiba. I don't think it can be art if it has no artistic intent.

Why can't something that is meant to appeal to masses still be art. Was Sandler making art when a whole lot of people my age found him funny? Is Thomas Kincaid no longer an artist because his paintings enjoy mass appeal now and have spawned all kinds of rip-offs?

My kid's art teachers are always trying to push them a bit and teach them how to think more creatively and to improve their drawing and painting skills. Is she making them better "artists", or is she supressing their actual artistic side?

My point is we don't get to decide because of preference. Art doesn't have to be great or even evoke any sort of emotion from us to be art. It is just the best feeling in the world when it does do those things.

Like I said, it's artistic intent. A film can have mass appeal and still have artistic intent. But, if it has no artistic intent, then it's not art, in my opinion.