|Entry: Story Solving|
|= Official Comment|
|From Q |
|That first link, The Machine....wow. That actually made me sit back. Quite impressive.|
"Because art cannot be measured. Or can it?"
I hope to hell not, because I got together with my fam last night and played Pictionary. Had we been judged, I am quite certain we would have all been promptly shot.
|From Junaid |
1. dated or not, nobody better mess with the superman myth. not even the now-goofyish tights
2. just wanted to comment on the point about whether art is measureable or not. Technically, everything is measureable. Everything in the universe can be defined/described in some form of mathematical construct. The same should apply to art - it is created by and appreciated (or not) by entities that can be defined mathematically and by default then must also be measureable. It is merely a matter of arriving at the right equation...
|From Katie |
|Good lord, that IS a terrible tagline for Tristan & Isolde. |
Their legend is most definitely more like Lancelot and Guinevere, in fact it has been almost universally accepted as a precursor and major influence of the Arthurian story.
Certainly not Romeo & Juliet. Which, in my humble opinion, is a shaky love story anyway. Perhaps the most overrated there is. It wasn't even one of Shakespeare's favorites. Why the hell is it the only love story anyone can think of?
|From Curt Sawyer |
|Is great art not like obscenity?|
I'll know it when I see it...
Or is that great wine?
There are many movies I see that were not great, but I was entertained. Where do they fall?
M.C. Escher said:
"To tell you the truth, I am rather perplexed by the concept of 'art'. What one person considers to be 'art' is often not 'art' to another. 'Beautiful' and 'ugly' are old-fashioned concepts that are seldom applied these days; perhaps justifiably, who knows? Something repulsive, which gives you a moral hangover, and hurts your ears or eyes, may well be art. Only 'kitsch' is not art - we're all agreed about that. Indeed, but what is 'kitsch'? If only I knew!"
|From EM |
|Art can only be measured to the extent of either being art, or not being art. A subjective decision made by each individual. The only grey area is between our ears. |
Finding that which appeals to, or at least affects, a majority can define commercial success.
Personally, I think using math as a verb is pretty artistic.
|From Batonga |
|I liked the Fredrick Douglas quote thrown in on the movie conversation. |
I think they say, "before Romeo and Juliet", because movie people figure they have to market to the lowest common denominator, so they can make their opening weekend box office sales, keep there job and make more terrrible movies. I think they go for the, if we can make "x" amount of dollars of what we do put up there, the odds say at least 1 in 100 will be a good film, plus we still make a lot of money. IMHO of course ... Then again, Tristan might be able to take Romeo in a straight fight, and his movie will win, because he is more Old School... then some theatre in the round.
All of the sudden I want to watch Mad Max and the Thunderdome ...
MASTER .... BLASTER
|From Steph |
|Is art measurable?|
At first I think, no of course it is not.
But then I think that perhaps is it is measurable only to each individual. They alone can measure whether or not it resonates with them, whether it is profound or breathtaking or just drivel.
And if it is drivel, I suppose the silver lining is that it served to only further my own belief in what art or storytelling should be.
Sorry, I would have more profundities, but my thunder is weak today.
|From WestsideKef |
|In my opinion, art is measurable only as a personal opinion against other art. For example, I like one movie MORE than I like another movie. Another might measure those two movies differently. As for finding the right equation, I am reminded of the graph of a poem's greatness in Dead Poet's Society, (which I think is better than a lot of movies.)|
|From Christian Kosanovich |
|Is all film art? What is art?|
Personally I watch films for a few different reasons. Sometimes I want a film that makes me think and entertains me (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Fight Club)
Sometimes I go to shut off my brain and be entertained (Pretty much any Schwarzenagger flick)
One type could be defended as art but the other is mindless entertainment. One type of film invites discussion and debate. The other is forgotten 5 minutes after walking out the theater. I think the most difficult thing is to see a movie you were hoping was going to invite debate but instead dissapoints. Film watching is subjective and art is subjective. No thunder today just some random observations.
|From Curt Sawyer |
|This comment thread is a good example of what I was talking about here. Would some type of forum interface be more conducive to carrying out this conversation, instead of comment after comment after comment?|
Granted, that would be a significant shift in how people interacted with this blog. And would Jessica continue to read every post, even in some type of forum interface?
|From Kevin McD |
|I kept asking myself what self-respecting humanoid being could possibly believe that wearing cartoonish tights is NOT worth $150/hr on the couch, but then I remembered that I'm trying to be jaded about the latest releases so that I can save money for what's really important...and on the horizon.|
|From laura |
|I think I can agree with the idea that not all art can be measured. But I personally feel that most can. And how? These are my own basic rules that I hold myself to: =)|
- what is its purpose and does it fulfill it?
- does the technique or technical aspects of it have something to do w/ its purpose? if so, judge technique.
- personal preference is always valid. but personal preference is secondary and less valid than personal [emotional] resonance.
crap, i gave away my critique secrets.
|From ambeart |
|My husband is always asking, "Yeah, but WHO decides something is art?" I look at Jackson Pollack and scratch my head. Why is that art? But I know there are a great many people who adore his work. I do not think that art can be measured mathematically. Art is too subjective, too intertwined with our emotions to be able to be quantified. Art is meant to connect with different people in different ways. That is why we have so many genres of music, film, dance, writing, painting, photography, etc., because we are all moved by different things. Life would sure be boring if everyone enjoyed the same things. It is the differences that spark up a good discussion as we each defend our taste. And the differences make Shades like me comment like this. And for what it's worth, "Tristan and Isolde" looks awful. Continue to discuss...|
|From lizriz |
|On "Tristen and Isolde," I definitely sense they are courting a teen female audience with the Romeo & Juliet reference and the Evanescence. It will be interesting to see if it works.|