6 ms·
None of your examples are even artistic expressions; they're informative content. The comparable counterparts would be television shows or documentaries, not Ho
by OO000oo 3y ago
None of your examples are even artistic expressions; they're informative content. The comparable counterparts would be television shows or documentaries, not Hollywood narrative films. Tiktok has a lot of artistic expression, but simply nowhere near the level of greatness found in the American cinematic canon, which contains by most measures the greatest artistic accomplishments of mankind.
- edanm 3y agoI don't think it's valid to say that documentaries or tv shows are not artistic expressions. But yes, as I said, it is not a direct comparison to movies specifically.
- OO000oo 3y agoIt is perfectly valid. Their primary purpose is to convey information, not artistic expression. It is that simple.
- mcpackieh 3y agoThey can do both. Werner Herzog is a master of this. Check out Lessons of Darkness.
- OO000oo 3y agoHad any of the examples been Lessons of Darkness or Grizzly Man or Burden of Dreams, this conversation would have gone quite differently, but since none of those films were released on Youtube they were not even an option to begin with.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> primary purpose is to convey information, not artistic expression It’s to entertain. Same as Hollywood. You have to get into the grunge of any medium to find content whose primary purpose is artistic expression.
- OO000oo 3y agoThe purpose of art has never been to entertain, even if art can be entertaining. The fact that so many people think such a decadent idea shows how debased our society has become by way of the profit motive.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> purpose of art has never been to entertain, even if art can be entertaining Sure. But the purpose of mass-market movies is to entertain, and has been since the broadcast era.
- alexb_ 3y agoThis is an insane way to think about art. Of course art exists that entertains, and it is art. To say that art can't entertain is an absolutely drab way to look at things - it almost assumes that only negative emotions can be transferred through art.
- OO000oo 3y agoWell, nobody said that.
- ses1984 3y agoSeems to me like you’re taking a narrower definition of ‘entertain’ than the parent post.
- AceyMan 3y agoRepeatedly referring to "art" is misleading. Think of what good movies & television do as storytelling and I think you'll agree it better fits the narrative at hand.
- watwut 3y agoGenuinely American cinema always seemed like almost pure entertainment to me. There is not that much greatness or artistic accomplishment, but there seemed to be craft. I mean, there are shows that are more then that, but overall American production was rarely focused on great accomplishments beyond "make it fun and make good guys win".
- OO000oo 3y agoGreat craft cannot be delineated from great art, and neither can "genuinely American cinema" from American cinema. Was Kubrick a master of British cinema? Of course I can't really argue with your specific point, but one of the most groundbreaking things about American cinema was the sheer size of the incorporated components that made it possible. Hollywood pioneered moving Heaven and Earth for the silver screen, and it could never have happened without the brutal capitalism that only America does best. Likewise, Hollywood sold entertainment and the works of art were more often only a side effect. This has been the case for so much great art throughout human history that it's hardly an exception rather than a rule.
- watwut 3y agoKubric has great visuals and all that .. but he is not exactly engaging with ideas all that much. It is that thing about American cinematography - you see it and forget it. Is it engaging and fun? Yep. Is the greatest artistic achievement? Not really, because they rarely even try.
- OO000oo 3y agoPlease enlighten me with some of these "idea" films you speak of. I'm not sure I am convinced that more "ideas" makes better movies. What has you so tickled? Tarkovsky? The French New Wave? German Expressionism?
- watwut 3y agoI said that American cinema is not engaging with that and never engaged - with rare exceptions. On top of head, I think that something like Shigurui or Berserk would be great examples of art that engages with ideas and complexity. So would be Umberto Eco and the Name of the Rose, more or less. Even original Witcher books have huge amount engagement with ideas despite being meant for entertainment. The movie "Come and See" managed to make war sound not fun which is something too. American cinema is just not about that. It is not about complexity, it is about simplifying and streamlining. Which is fine, it is just odd that someone claims opposite.
- jonp888 3y ago> American cinematic canon, which contains by most measures the greatest artistic accomplishments of mankind. I love how Americans are so high on their own exceptionalism that they come out with these kinds of statements without even realising how clueless it makes them look. Not even "some of the greatest artistic accomplishments of mankind.", but all of them, apparently.