Defining Art Cinema

But who's to say King Kong isn't art? It is the work of artistic types, is it not? Every shot was carefully considered and every costume, line of dialogue, every effect was an artistic decision by the filmmakers. Film itself is an artform. Thus, all films, be they The Seventh Seal or King Kong, are works of art.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

I didn't say it wasn't art. I was ranting about why I don't like King Kong. I think my point was clear. Art can be anything, even a urinal, even King Kong.

Here's a question that doesn't have anything to do with King Kong:
If a director specifically said, "This movie that I made, it's not art." Would you be able to argue with that?

Well, yes, because making a film is an artistic endeavor, even if it's White Chicks. lol.

No, no, no. What I'm asking you about is ownership. If an artist paints a painting, hangs it in a museum, attracts a crowd of people, and then says "This painting is not art." Do the people in the audience have a right to say, "No, it's art." Or, does the object and interpretation belong to the creator?

I think it's up to the creator. If someone hangs a urinal on the wall and says, "It's art." then for cripe's sake, it's art. It doesn't matter if I like it or understand it, it's art. If they say it isn't art, well, if I start to attach some bullsh_t meaning to it, that means I'm crazy.

For some reason this topic is making me agitated.

See I don't think the definition belongs to the creator. Art belongs to the individual who is experiencing the art, not the person creating the art. Hanging a urinal on a wall and calling it art does not make it art, what makes that particular thing art is the extraordinary insult to the senses and common sense of the viewers. I have actually seen that exhibit, and I thought it was brilliant. (Of course, someone purchased it for a substantial sum. I didn't understand this because having a urinal in your home is nothing special, hanging it in an art gallery is.)

__________________
"What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present." - T.S. Eliot

I'd say the audience. With film, once it is released into the public, the filmmaker really cant control it anymore, because it isnt theirs. Though some try, *coughcough*George Lucas*coughcough*, once it hits the people viewing it they have the right to view it as they will.


And back to the King Kong thing; my friend justified it as being an art film because it was about art. It was content and meaning that did it for him; he wasnt talking about CGI or art direction or anything like that.

Yeah, I finally got around to liking that urinal too, but it wasn't without me hating it at first. I'm still going to disagree and say that art belongs to the creator because until M. Duchamp (R. Mutt) declared that that particular urinal was art it was just another urinal. Just like M. Duchamp needed to call that urinal art to make it art, paintings and poetry probably had to be labeled as art too, until people started to automatically approach specific mediums as if they were art. Therefor, art has to be labeled as art to be art, otherwise everything is art, and I think the creator has the final say as to whether or not what they've made is art. The only exception to that would be if someone came across an object and was unaware of what the creator's intention was, then they'd be free to either call it art or call it some random object.

This is mainly why I came around to liking that urinal. It raises a lot of interesting questions.

Just because a filmmaker can't "control" a film they've made doesn't automatically mean everyone can do whatever they want with it. Not every film is made for every single person to be able to understand and appreciate. Just because you don't like a particular film doesn't mean anything. Maybe it wasn't for you to see in the first place. If a filmmaker makes a film and says, "I made this for my friends and family." and then you see it and say it sucks really bad doesn't mean anything about the film, because it's the creator's decision as to who should understand and appreciate what they've made. The film belongs to the creator.

As for King Kong, I just hate the recent one, a lot. If your friend wants to call it Art, go ahead, it doesn't mean that it is though. Until P. Jackson says it is or isn't art, you can call it whatever you want. I call it garbage.