Dec 31, 2008
I like cinematic entertainment fine, but I just can't think of film as a serious art form.
Like this post?
I can’t get into movies as “art.” They just seem silly compared to books and music. And sillier, the harder they try.
* * * * *
© 2012 Abuyo. All rights reserved.
Silly isn’t a category usually used to evaluate art.
And comparing one medium as sillier than another doesn’t make much sense either. It’s like saying that pencils are more wistful than ballet shoes.
But some art could not be fully expressed through any means other than cinema. Have you ever seen Easy Rider?
And I wonder if you’d also dismiss theater as easily as cinema. Would Shakespeare be less artistic if you saw his plays rather than read them?
I couldn’t agree with you more Abraham. I’ve never been able to look at movies as art and don’t think I ever will.
c’mon?! i know you like coen bros., right? that’s art….usually.
Hmm. I even think of television commercials as an art form. They try to be silly. But mostly, there are ones that are just plain bad. Others are very artful. Maybe some movies aren’t trying to be anything other than entertaining, but some of how they are made is incredible art.
I don’t recommend the morality of Out of Africa but the cimematography is fabulous, beauty to be appreciated.
Just for the record, I don’t really ever watch tv. I haven’t owned one in over 15 years. However, when you are waiting for an oil change sometimes it’s unavoidable.
Hi Abraham! I’d be interested to hear more about your opinions on art in general and why you consider film to be “artless.” I do believe that film can move more quickly into the “trying too hard” category than most other forms of art… There are very very few films that I would consider truly artistic and innovative. Have you seen Citizen Kane?
So, are you saying that bludgeoning someone in the head with a bowling pin is an inadequate, “un-artsy” way to end a movie?
Of course film is an artistic medium. Whether it meets your standards for “good” art more or less often than other forms (books, music, theater, dance, visual art) is another category. My guess is you’re exposed to many more bad, poorly-done films than you are to bad, poorly-done ballets or operas, but that is largely a function of the sheer volume of movies produced today.
Ditto, Mark!
Films such as “The Third Man”, “2001: A Space Odyssey”, or “The Bicycle Thief” can hardly be described as silly, even when compared to great works of any other art medium. And should films like “Schindler’s List” or “The Passion of the Christ” be considered “sillier” since they “try harder” than more pedestrian movies like “White Chicks” or “Scary Movie 4″?
Given your affinity for literature and music, I’d think you’d have to give film it’s due place given that film incorporates the basic aspects of art: writing, color, music, etc.
On further reflection, I think it might be nice to hear some definitions of art. How do we differentiate art from silliness? How do we differentiate great art from lesser art?
Wow. Couldn’t disagree more.
Is it the art form or the content that gives you the impression of silliness? Is acting not an art form? What about photography?
One thing that I think people are missing is that Abraham’s statement didn’t discount films from being entertaining or even moving. They certainly have artistic elements (composition of a shot, beautifully constructed sets etc…) But they are primarily story-telling devices. Film fits more into the “entertainment” category. And I say this as someone with a BFA, having taken film studies and 3 years of art history.
Defining terms would help clear a lot of this up. Without getting overly-heady, what is art?
Nothing says “thanks for reading this year” like a post that almost all readers disagree with. :)
I think my perspective is nearly indefensible, which is to say, I’m not trying to convince any of you to like movies less.
I just can’t appreciate them seriously. It’s a gut reaction, not a thought-through perspective on art.
I have found that when I struggle to appreciate an art form it is because it is not a form that is a natural expression for me. I am not a writer and I am not a musician. I hear music, but not like musicians or writers do. I can appreciate a good tune, but only for how it entertains me. I cannot pick out good lyrics, instrumentation very well. I don’t know all the work, intentionality, and creativity that went into the work of art.
I have found that the more I learn about an art form that is foreign to my expressive nature the more appreciation I gain for it. I have friends who are musicians, cabinet makers, wood carvers, painters, film producers, actors, athletes, and book writers. They express themselves in visual, written, physical, and auditory ways. They do this as serious work and worship to God.
I do think calling some forms serious and some silly is not all that helpful. In every art form there is serious and silly.
Then you have never seen Spartacus or The Magnificent Seven.
You may have watched them, or observed them, but you have never seen them if you do not grasp their use as art.
And then there’s Dr. Strangelove, which one could watch every day for a week and find new layers of meaning in it. KUBRICK, BABY!
I have to agree with those who have said that film is an art-form. We just happen to have a vast money making machine behind film these days which causes lesser films to be sold as entertainment. I think the reality is that it takes a long time for something to be evaluated as worthy of our appreciation as an art-form. In painting, each new movement was denigrated in its time as unworthy by many, yet now any art appreciator would tell you that the works of Monet, Picasso, Da Vinci, etc are great despite being very different. I would argue that much the same has happened with many great pieces of literature as well. But I also agree that some people will never appreciate certain forms of art. I know people who hate art museums because they would rather watch a play or read a book.
BTW, do you consider staged drama “art”? I’d like to know why film is somehow less effective than staged drama — or if they are both the same inferior dreck. :-)
I agree with your logic! Is this why a movie is never as satisfying as reading the book?
Lukas said many of the things that I was thinking. I think the inability to appreciate a certain medium of art the way others do has quite a bit to do with our affinity for that medium. You have an affinity for the written and spoken word and for music. There are others who have a great affinity for film and other visual arts. To them, Bob Dylan might be silly, as might Cormac McCarthy.
If you can accept photography as art and literature as art …
I don’t get it. The best movies simply combine these two art forms.
Just watched Federico Felleni’s 8 1/2 last night and I’ve never seen a more artistic meditation on the inner struggles of a man with his art, his relationships and his very self. I’ll resist ticking off the other greats that have transformed my vision of myself and the world in which I live.
And Barnabas is right about Dylan and McCarthy. There are some folks on our well-educated faculty who weep when we go to the Opera but won’t be moved by a poem. “Why would anyone arrange words like that? Just say what you have to say!”
Note: I am not among those. But I’ve had to go the other way and learn how to be moved by classical music, opera, etc.
But Lukas, Barnabas, and Myrddin–
I love movies. It isn’t a medium that I struggle to enjoy like opera might be.
They’re very entertaining. They just don’t grab at my soul in any way.
Now, I won’t deny that they do this for others. I’m just baffled that the movies which movie-as-important-art people recommend are often among the worst movies I’ve ever seen.
I don’t get it.
Also, there’s obviously a craft to movie-making. I’m definitely not saying it’s skill-less or stupid. But there’s a craft to blogging too, and that’s not art.
Abraham,
Just out of curiosity, would you give a few examples of films that were recommended to you that you disliked?
Blogging isn’t art?!
Jared, this outburst of mine today was precipitated by watching “There Will Be Blood.”
Being slow, having weird music, desolate imagery, and no resolution doesn’t make a movie good.
I felt the same way about “No Country For Old Men.”
I expected to really like both of these. In fact I was certain I would.
Oh well.
Haha, Abraham, be careful when you start to try to define “art” or “music.” I’m always trying, but it’s a black hole.
But I know what you are saying, especially the “trying too hard” part. There are moments in movies when you can just tell they are setting you up for an “ahhh” or a “tear” or a “sigh” and all I can do is laugh. Like all art, movies aren’t art until they are trying to be something greater than “artsy.” Unfortunately in today’s existentialist world, many people can’t see any greater themes than the “creation of meaning (art).” Which is why many of today’s films fall flat.
And the desolate, resolution-less movies are the best example of the “trying to create art” genre.
ha! “There Will Be Blood” was one of my favorite films of 2007. oh well, to each his own!
anyway, a great topic today and thanks for all your excellent work with “22 Words” in 2008. looking forward to next year!
I am loving watching this unfold… I have been chuckling all morning. I hesitate to admit that I agree with you, Abraham. And I fear I am on the losing side. :)
I would concede that film is a medium that has the potential to produce art, it’s just that much of it doesn’t. I also enjoy movies, but have a hard time taking some seriously.
One more thing, does the Bible speak to this? What about, “whatever is pure, whatever is noble… think on these things.” Does this apply to a definition of art?
I’ll stop now, as I’m probably not helping your cause.
I am curious what the biblical categories for “art” are and how they would differentiate from “worship.”
Barring any research and going on pure assertion here, I think a case could be made that our idea of “art” is merely a human construct. The biblical category being “worship.” And while the form it takes might be the same ( a beautiful painting or even a gripping movie) it is only art (or worship, biblically) in its effectiveness at communicating God’s truth.
So a possible reason why filmmakers are ineffective at gripping the heart is because the “truth” that they are worshiping is not, in fact, true.
Abraham,
I’d be leary of classifying anything too recent as great art. So, ignore “There Will be Blood” for now.
I get that you like films and just don’t see them as art. But, I also wonder if it might be you’re just missing the art–missing the forest for the trees. When I first saw “Easy Rider,” I didn’t get it; I was 13. Now, I get the message of freedom, struggles for power, etc.
“Citizen Kane” is an absolutely horrid movie to watch, but its message was powerful and relevant to its audience. What do you think of “American Beauty,” “The Graduate,” “Taxi Driver,” or “Saving Private Ryan”? I wonder how someone can ‘enjoy’ these films without enjoying them as art.
Nothing says “thanks for hosting a great blog this year” like a bunch of us saying: “thanks for hosting a great blog this year, Abraham.”
Thanks.
What is even meant by calling something art? Whether film, novel, poem, or painting, “art” lacks a meaningful definition.
I love film. More than reading, listening to music, or looking at paintings or photographs. There are a bunch of movies that inspire me and a handful that have changed me. I do care if others do or do not like them, but I don’t care whether they are called art, films, or just movies.
worst post of 2008!!!
in fact, you didn’t even HAVE a bad post until today!
(be calm, people. i’m totally kidding.)
“you’re out. and you’re out. i’m out, too.”
o.k. what highly entertaining movie is that from???
need a hint?
That sounds fair, Matt. I’m glad we can still be friends.
Abraham,
You see what “Blades of Glory” will do to you.
I know that I disagree with you Abraham, but good artistic films are difficult to find. This is the case because even short films are extremely expensive to make, and thus the director’s vision is often compromised to gain funds to actually make the movie. Even more, the majority of films that we encounter in the cinemas are made to entertain the masses. That does not in itself remove the possibility of a film being artistic, but it does make it more difficult. Finally, as someone commented earlier, I would hesitate to say any recent film is worthy to see as art, not because none of them are, but because time is needed for them to prove themselves as great art.
As to Bruce’s comment about Citizen Cane being a horrid movie to watch, as a person with a BA in Film Studies, I enjoy Citizen Cane a great deal, and watched it several times for different courses. The horrid to watch stuff was some of the “transendental” (their label not mine) film styles from some European directors. Citizen Cane is one of the movies I would love to get on DVD or Blueray someday.
It seems the real question is what is art. People often see paintings and photographs as art. Well video images are part of a film, and some of the cinematography I have seen in various movies has been breath taking, especially those done all by the skill of the use of the camera rather than today’s CG touched up images. Literature is seen as art, and in spite of comments that books are always better than movies, that is simply because to take a 300 plus page story and put it to film would require a rather longer movie that 2 hours. When a movie is written specifically as a movie, I cannot imagine that reading the screen play is better than watching the movie unless the movie is very badly done.
Finally, just because the movies one person has seen they have not found one they consider art, does not mean films cannot be art, it simply means that you have not yet seen one that is.
i analyze movies like i analyze literature: characters, themes and motifs, setting, symbols. some movies, like some books, don’t deserve it. but the few that do are so artistically and theologically rich, it’s fun.
Jenna- I know! I know! Pick me! Pick me! It’s Bottlerocket, right? I LOVE that movie!
NO WAY, JEN!!! You TOTALLY guessed it! Totally impressed!
best line in my opinion:
“Okay. There, you see the star is me, right there, and I’ll be in there. The X is Anthony. Bob, you’re the zero out here in the car. ”
so much funnier in context, though…
Disagree with you on this, Abraham. IMHO, it depends on the movie. It depends on the book. And it depends on the music. Your statement, although your honest and no doubt humble opinion, was a HUGE generalization that almost makes me take offense, although I’m not quite sure why.
Usually love your 22 words, though. :-)
Peace out.
What a shame for you.
PS there may be no art to blogging, but there’s surely an art to commenting…
I still haven’t heard an explanation of how AP defines “art”. This has nothing to do with whether you like something (a particular movie) or not. Its more on the order of saying synchronized swimming or bowling or that spinning thing the Canadians do where they sweep the ice with brooms is a “sport”- or not. I just saw Gone Baby Gone again- and that is art, good art, thought-provoking art.
Abraham,
In my personal opinion, most movies produced have much less artistic value than nearly every book ever produced. For me, the music issue is a tough one, because some of it rocks my soul, and other music feels like an assault on my sensibilities.
I do believe that the challenge to good moviemaking these has always been the profit issue. Many artful movies stand no chance of making money, and many weak-art films are very profitable. This is one of the challenges for consumer-driven art. Here’s my rule of thumb, even before reading the critics–my favorite site happens to be Rotten Tomatoes–For my artistic taste, generally the larger the “hype” on a film, the less impressed I will be.
Having said that, I can point to two of the films I saw last month as great examples of film as art. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas was one such film. The other was Slumdog Millionaire.
By the way, thanks again for doing what you do!
I think of art as quality creativity that evokes emotion and thought.
Some cinema doesn’t move me at all, though it’s considered top movie art — Citizen Cane, for example. But others move me a great deal — like LOST.
But it’s the same with books. Some classics I think are very overrated — yet they must move some people. Other books that people reject as bad art, like the Harry Potter series, I consider very good art, because I find it well-done and moving.
sucks for you. maybe you just take other forms of art way too seriously.
and i loved ‘there will be blood.’ i want to marry it.
You appreciate writing as an art form, but do you neglect to think about all the writing/rewriting that goes into an original or adapted screenplay? Fresh adaptations are an art form in and of themselves.
Yes, some movies are not as artistic; but a good film, and a generic movie are separate: Just as a Van Gogh and a comic-book sketch can each be appreciated by their respective audiences at different levels, even though we obviously consider one more “fine art” than the other.
They are considered art???? When did that happen????
I didn’t used to think much of movies until I started watching a lot of them as well as the special features. I quickly grew tired of the standard formulaic hollywood flick which lead me to indie films, documentaries, and the desire to sift through the bad big budget ones (which btw, i’m not saying are not “art” but just not to my liking. there are many great big budget ones out there).
Hearing directors and actors talk about plot subtext and character analysis deepened my appreciation for film as an art form. Even the seemingly mere logistical, behind the scenes things such as: wardrobe, special effects, lighting, etc. forced me to look at film in an entirely different way than I had been for years.
I’m a musician, songwriter, and recordist. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been watching an interview with a director or actor and I instantly draw parallels to constructing a song, capturing a good performance, editing/exercising restraint, emotional impression, sonic texture, etc. When it’s for the sake of the final outcome or bigger picture, I consider any aspect to be an artistic contribution.
If the Christmas sweater Aunt Betty crocheted for you makes you feel a sense of beauty, it’s art.
If you draw a picture that no one else sees and it moves you, it’s art. If you create a film that expresses something and makes someone else cry, think, laugh, or change, it’s art.
I think “good” art (not to be mistaken for “fine”, “high”, or even “serious” art) is anything created that communicates something in a way that has a significant emotional impact on someone else. It has zero to do with medium, skill, subject matter, popular opinion, occasion, or intention. Good/bad, funny/serious, abstract/concrete, minimalist/baroque, professional/amateur – it’s all different strokes for different folks.
Jeez if you can’t even accept movies, I’d shudder to imagine what you think of videogames as art (which they are, or at least can be, even though much fewer people accept them as such than film, music or books)
Amen Ben,
Shadows of Colossus, Final Fantasy VII, Half-Life 2?
Jim Vellenga,
Is ‘art’ a different category from ‘entertainment’? What divides them? A big budget?
As someone who has had a lifelong obsession with movies, I’m just a little offended, Mr Piper.
Aren’t you being just a LITTLE high-brow? Not all of us read poetry for pleasure, or thoroughly enjoy a good 6 hour opera. And I’m an actor. I definitely appreciate those things as art, though. Just as I do movies, video games, and anything else that has a director, actors, and visual artists.
Just as in all art forms, there is “good” and “bad” art. Good film and theatre are designed to make the audience think about and feel things. Sometimes those “things” aren’t specific; one moment in a movie can evoke different individual reactions.
as long as you are watching a serious movie, film is a very serious art form. And it’s the best because it combines every art form to express itself. this is also why it is the most entertaining art form at least for me.