Does art need to be original?

[Philosophy Explorer]

White Sky 5, Hobbes' Choice 0

PhilX

[Pluto]

I think it important to keep art, at its core, away from the bitch that is capital. If art can transcend money, not be harnessed or perverted by it, then perhaps it can achieve its true function, or at least, create openings where none have before existed. Art is no slave to economic systems.

Then you're against artists making money and great art works like films which depend on capital and capitalist production. Even Michelangelo and Raphael submitted to economic systems in making their Art. So, the notion of a pure Art outside of economic systems only works for Artists who stay at home and never sell their work.

No I'm for artists making money from their work. You've gone to the binary opposite of what I wrote, but my position is somewhere in the middle. I think today with some contemporary art being seen as a safer, better, investment than gold (david joselit), that that makes today's art bend and bow to capital. It's like having a new fighter jet and only drive it around the streets where you live, never taking off.

I usually don't think film an art, when I say art I don't really think of film. Though some films are art I guess, mostly older black and white ones. I did see the new Jean-luc-Godard film 'Goodbye to language', that was maybe close to art but then again it is really always film. Maybe art is when you don't have much distance between the artist and the canvas.

[White Sky]

I think it important to keep art, at its core, away from the bitch that is capital. If art can transcend money, not be harnessed or perverted by it, then perhaps it can achieve its true function, or at least, create openings where none have before existed. Art is no slave to economic systems.

Then you're against artists making money and great art works like films which depend on capital and capitalist production. Even Michelangelo and Raphael submitted to economic systems in making their Art. So, the notion of a pure Art outside of economic systems only works for Artists who stay at home and never sell their work.

No I'm for artists making money from their work. You've gone to the binary opposite of what I wrote, but my position is somewhere in the middle. I think today with some contemporary art being seen as a safer, better, investment than gold (david joselit), that that makes today's art bend and bow to capital.

You need to re-think "binary opposite," because I accurately interpreted, addressed, and countered what you wrote without coming close to presenting its "binary opposite." And art doesn't "bow to capital" just because it becomes a "better, safer, investment than gold." You're completely mistaking the state of the market for Art with the artwork itself.

I usually don't think film an art, when I say art I don't really think of film. Though some films are art I guess, mostly older black and white ones. I did see the new Jean-luc-Godard film 'Goodbye to language', that was maybe close to art but then again it is really always film. Maybe art is when you don't have much distance between the artist and the canvas.

And I'm sorry, but your personal opinion doesn't get to dictate whether film is Art or not. Considering many people, artists, and art/film critics do consider film to be art, you have to make a much stronger argument than "I usually don't think of film as art." And the distance between the art and the canvas isn't the determinant either, particularly since most art forms don't involve canvas at all. So, again, you have to make a better argument than that--which you didn't even support--if you're going to show film isn't art.

[Pluto]

No, I am saying that when I say art I don't think of film. And that is okay. There's no argument being made, that is my position, you believe what you want.

[White Sky]

No, you said it to support a flawed argument--about film and Art--you were trying to make. However, if you concede you can't support that argument, and it is just a personal opinion, that is OK.

[Pluto]

There is no argument, flawed thinking or conceding. These are all happening in your mind.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think there is a thin line between making money as an artist and having capital pervert artistic endeavour.
But the distinction is an important one.

Then, if you're so sure of that distinction, explain what it its. Almost every movie the genius Steven Spielberg made was for big corporations and/or big studios entrenched in the capitalist system. If capitalist taint negated art, none of his films would be Art.

So, I look forward to your explanation.

I did not say anything about 'capitalism'. So if you want a discussion then stay in the bounds of what is being discussed.

You don't even read any of your own posts well. You absolutely referred to capitalism when you said:
"I think there is a thin line between making money as an artist and having capital pervert artistic endeavour."
Capital only perverts in a capitalist system of exchange, so try to keep track of the bounds being discussed, and go look up "capitalism."...

Fucking hell. I'm beginning to think that you are just too ignorant to bother with. Capitalism is a system of exchange that emerged out of the early-mid Medieval system. "Making Money" (the phrase you quote me as using) is a phenomenon that dates easily as far back as the invention of coinage by the Greeks in the early 5thC BC. But the thought that I am expressing - the idea that the artistic value can be compromised by "making money" goes far beyond the existence of "money" per se.

I don't regard any of his films 'art'. They are just entertainment. This is a prime example of an "artist" being on the wrong side of the line.
They do contain elements of art. Many who work in those projects have good design and artistic skills, but in the main they are just money making projects. Such projects do gather to themselves great artists - most of whom can do much better than the job at hand.

You're not regarding his films as Art doesn't matter, particularly since many--including most film scholars--do. You have to actually explain/argue why they are not Art, and you have failed to do so so far. The same goes for your nebulous condemnation of those just infolved in money making projects.
Well if my opinion does not count, why the fuck are you wasting my time and yours by asking your stupid questions, and making your dumb points? Why not fuck off and talk to "most film Scholars"?
So, I assume you have a college degree. if you do, you know you need to explain the difference between entertainment and Art, show why Spielberg's films aren't Art, and explain what you mean by "money making projects." You haven't come close to doing so so far.

As I said the line is thin, and I doubt that your definition of the line is the same as mine, but "you" can tell when a film has been done with more interest in money than in artistic merit. We can brake it down into specifics if you like, but stuff such as predictable plot line; cliches; formulaic; schmaltziness. If you like we can examine one of his films so that I can show you what I mean.

Whether or not the line is thin, as you claim, if it exists (as you claim) you should be able to explain what it is and how it separates Art and "capital perverted artistic endeavor." And no, you can't just say "you can tell" when a film has been done with more financial interest than artistic merit, particularly when people can err in that judgment. If that line exists and is clear, you need to explain what it is. If you can't, you've helped prove it's not clear.

As to those elements you named, those exist even in works not made for capital/financial gain. So, they can't be the determinant. And now, you have to establish those things exist in Spielberg's best films like Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Minority Report, and Schindler's List. i look forward to your trying to do so.

I'm not really bothered with you if you are not interested in what I have to say.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No, you said it to support a flawed argument--about film and Art--you were trying to make. However, if you concede you can't support that argument, and it is just a personal opinion, that is OK.

This is s discussion about art, mother fucker. not science. You don't get to win an argument, you can only express opinion.

[White Sky]

Fucking hell. I'm beginning to think that you are just too ignorant to bother with. Capitalism is a system of exchange that emerged out of the early-mid Medieval system. "Making Money" (the phrase you quote me as using) is a phenomenon that dates easily as far back as the invention of coinage by the Greeks in the early 5thC BC. But the thought that I am expressing - the idea that the artistic value can be compromised by "making money" goes far beyond the existence of "money" per se.

You know the person knows they've lost when they start melting down and typing in purple...and that's you...
And you explicitly said: "I think there is a fine line between making money as an artist and having capital pervert artistic endeavor." So, you were addressing capitalism, regardless of from where it sprang, and the only one being ignorant--and having a terrible memory--is you.

Well if my opinion does not count, why the fuck are you wasting my time and yours by asking your stupid questions, and making your dumb points? Why not fuck off and talk to "most film Scholars"?[/b][/color]

Now, you've confirmed you have no brain, and you can just fuck off period. And as you've probably noticed, I'm not the only one who's scored it that way. I never said your opinion didn't "count," moron. I said it wasn't enough--particularly since it's tremendously stupid--to count as an argument. And the fact you can't counter my points and questions shows--again--the only stupid and dumb statements have been yours.

I'm not really bothered with you if you are not interested in what I have to say.

Actually, you are clearly bothered by me--as well as hot and bothered, period--because I showed how terribly inane your arguments were. You're even moreso because you clearly showed you couldn't counter any of my arguments showing how terrible they were. You could only cry and rage in purple...

So, I have no time for ignorant--and likely poorly educated--clowns who can't make good arguments or defend bad ones. So, I'm putting you in time out and putting you on ignore. I'm off to have discussions with some sane, stable people.

[White Sky]

No, you said it to support a flawed argument--about film and Art--you were trying to make. However, if you concede you can't support that argument, and it is just a personal opinion, that is OK.

This is s discussion about art, mother fucker. not science. You don't get to win an argument, you can only express opinion.

Yes, it is a discussion about art, mother fucker...and I just won it. The fact you couldn't counter my correct arguments that debunked your terrible ones proves it..

[White Sky]

There is no argument, flawed thinking, and conceding. These are all happening in your mind.

No, your delusion there is no argument, flawed thinking, or conceding is only in your mind. You responded to my statement--in our debate--that films could be art by saying "I usually don't think of films as art" and "mostly black and white films are art." That was a clear clarification of your argument about art in the capital system rarely (or not being art, and particularly films as art. So, it was an argument.

However, if you retract it and say it was just opinion, then you are conceding you don't defend it as a valid argument outside of opinion. If you don't, you are standing by it as an argument. I'm good with either.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Fucking hell. I'm beginning to think that you are just too ignorant to bother with. Capitalism is a system of exchange that emerged out of the early-mid Medieval system. "Making Money" (the phrase you quote me as using) is a phenomenon that dates easily as far back as the invention of coinage by the Greeks in the early 5thC BC. But the thought that I am expressing - the idea that the artistic value can be compromised by "making money" goes far beyond the existence of "money" per se.

You know the person knows they've lost when they start melting down and typing in purple...and that's you...
And you explicitly said: "I think there is a fine line between making money as an artist and having capital pervert artistic endeavor." So, you were addressing capitalism, regardless of from where it sprang, and the only one being ignorant--and having a terrible memory--is you.

Well if my opinion does not count, why the fuck are you wasting my time and yours by asking your stupid questions, and making your dumb points? Why not fuck off and talk to "most film Scholars"?[/b][/color]

Now, you've confirmed you have no brain, and you can just fuck off period. And as you've probably noticed, I'm not the only one who's scored it that way. I never said your opinion didn't "count," moron. I said it wasn't enough--particularly since it's tremendously stupid--to count as an argument. And the fact you can't counter my points and questions shows--again--the only stupid and dumb statements have been yours.

I'm not really bothered with you if you are not interested in what I have to say.

Actually, you are clearly bothered by me--as well as hot and bothered, period--because I showed how terribly inane your arguments were. You're even moreso because you clearly showed you couldn't counter any of my arguments showing how terrible they were. You could only cry and rage in purple...

So, I have no time for ignorant--and likely poorly educated--clowns who can't make good arguments or defend bad ones. So, I'm putting you in time out and putting you on ignore. I'm off to have discussions with some sane, stable people.

Run along now, there's a good boy.

[Pluto]

There is no argument, flawed thinking, and conceding. These are all happening in your mind.

No, your delusion there is no argument, flawed thinking, or conceding is only in your mind. You responded to my statement--in our debate--that films could be art by saying "I usually don't think of films as art" and "mostly black and white films are art." That was a clear clarification of your argument about art in the capital system rarely (or not being art, and particularly films as art. So, it was an argument.

However, if you retract it and say it was just opinion, then you are conceding you don't defend it as a valid argument outside of opinion. If you don't, you are standing by it as an argument. I'm good with either.

This is perverse.

[White Sky]

No it isn't, but you're saying it is sure is. You obviously can't counter my correct arguments or defend your terrible ones, and you're reduced to desperate, weird and perverse statements.

So, since I thoroughly debunked your "arguments" about Art, capital, and film, we're done...and I'm putting you on ignore with that other disturbed individual, Hobbes' Choice. You can keep your perversity to yourself...

[Pluto]

What an horrendous individual.