Zotis' Upcoming Top List

→ in
Tools    





Let the night air cool you off
To me it seems like a satiric piece of art that literally and figuratively takes the piss out of critics who are going to hail it as a masterpiece or discuss it as something brilliant just because of who presents it. So the piece itself is technically art, but the action of presenting the piece is almost performance art in itself. In that way it's brilliant. But I could be totally wrong.



Wasn't that a Dadaist piece?
It's Marcel Duchamp's 1916 work "Fountain". It was one of his readymade pieces. This, and these works, are pretty much the foundation of modern art and made the argument for what is art? The answer? Everything. It's all bollocks, though. Frankly, I see the art world as having the ability to stand po-faced in front of a gallery owner and convince them that whatever you've done is art and then have someone buy it. Preferably someone with a name in the art world. Give it a poncy name, that often works wonders.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



It's Marcel Duchamp's 1916 work "Fountain". It was one of his readymade pieces. This, and these works, are pretty much the foundation of modern art and made the argument for what is art? The answer? Everything. It's all bollocks, though. Frankly, I see the art world as having the ability to stand po-faced in front of a gallery owner and convince them that whatever you've done is art and then have someone buy it. Preferably someone with a name in the art world. Give it a poncy name, that often works wonders.
Yeah that was Dada. The whole anti art sort of thing. Art to destroy all other art stemming from post World War I. Crazy.



Artistic is the adjectif form of art, so that's a pretty silly question really. It's like asking: "Can something be music if it isn't even musical?"

Filmmaking in itself is an artform. Every work of nature that is imitated, supplemented, altered or counteracted because of human intervention is by definition art.
It may be a silly question if it's taken out of context. If someone calls their refrigerator humming "music," I may ask them that question to illustrate a point. Not every sound is music, just like not every painting is true art. I think I see what you guys are calling art. But that's not what I'm talking about when I talk about art. When I say not all movies are art, I don't mean art in the sense that you do when you say all movies are art.

If you're opinion is that all movies are by definition art. Then it would be absurd for me to say they aren't art in that sense. If it's so absurd, then shouldn't that lead to the conclusion that I mean something else? I make a distinction between two different types of art. There is art in the sense of taking an art class and learning how to paint. And there is "true art" in these sense that someone succeeds in creating something deep and meaningful. That's why I think all movies should be deep and meaningful, because the goal of art isn't just to paint or make something for the sake of it, but to create true beauty. To pour out your passion and soul.



Ironically, your complaints about Jurassic Park the other day were practically all about the content and less about the qualitative features of that film. I guess your complaints against films like Avatar and Terminator 2 (movies that are not at all favorites of mine) are of the same kind.

I'm not saying those aren't genuine criticisms, but it just seemed funny to me that you were kind of describing yourself there.
I do believe I was mostly criticising the lack of realism and implausible events. I also criticised the bad acting and the filler content.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to your list.
I recommend just starting the list and making another one in a few years to see the evolution you've made or you should at least set a deadline. There are always a whole bunch of films that you'll want to check out. Lists are time-bound anyway, so you could just as well make one now and another one in several years.
Yeah, I'll try not to delay it too long, but I am still compiling contenders.



No, they are. I'd argue that anything man made or altered by mankind can be called art and, therefore, be art. Whether it's good or not is a different question.
I actually think that the best definition of art is the following:

"Art is something artificial that has elements whose function is to be ends into themselves according to the mind of it's creator(s)." - Guaporense

For instance, take a standard Hollywood blockbuster film. If the whole film is made only with the objective to maximize profits and do not contain personal elements injected into the film by the creators of it without thinking about profit maximization, then it cannot be art because there is nothing artistic about it: it is a purely commercial product. However, it's hard to find films where there is absolutely nothing artistic. Take Transformers 3 by Michael Bay, it is technically art because Bay made the film not only with the purpose to maximize profits but because he likes movies with lots of explosions, bit giant monsters of metal fighting each other and beautiful girls in it. It's an auteur movie (though not a very good one ) just like Tarvkosky's The Mirror. The main difference is that Bay's preferences are common in the general population (most people like the same things: explosions, monsters fighting each other and beautiful girls) while Tarkovsky's are not.

I guess purely commercial films exist such as some very horrible Adam Sandler comedies and movies that are adaptations of best selling novels such as Twilight (even if the novel contains artistic elements the film does not because it does not share the same creators, the film only consumes the novel as raw material for it's profit maximizing scrip).