4 ms·

Original works of art that don't conform to the conventional norms of their time are likely to be panned by critics and ignored by the public at first. Only wit

by cs702 2y ago

Original works of art that don't conform to the conventional norms of their time are likely to be panned by critics and ignored by the public at first. Only with the passage of time are we able to reevaluate more objectively those works of art which are truly original. In the cacophony of the moment, it's hard to distinguish genius from folly. It happens with original music that doesn't conform to the norms of its day: https://www.honest-broker.com/p/why-did-the-beatles-get-so-many-bad https://www.honest-broker.com/p/why-did-the-beatles-get-so-m... It happens with original paintings that don't conform to the norms of their day: https://medium.com/@parkwestgallery/park-west-gallery-review-picasso-147efeccdf31 https://medium.com/@parkwestgallery/park-west-gallery-review... It happens with original films that don't conform to the norms of their day: https://screenrant.com/great-movies-panned-critics/ https://screenrant.com/great-movies-panned-critics/ By all accounts, "Megalopolis" is an original work of art that doesn't conform to today's conventional norms. Only with the passage of time will we be able to recognize if it is genius or folly.

fullshark 2y ago
Survivorship bias, most original things that are panned by critics and fail to find an audience get ignored forever.
- 23B1 2y ago
  Coppola has demonstrated a pattern of success in this vein so it's reasonable to believe this film will, at some point, be recognized in the same way.
  - fullshark 2y ago
    I think it will be recognized because auteur theorists will consider it a meaningful (likely last) work by Coppola, who will be canonized. Basically it will be recognzied for things outside the actual text, and things outside the text is all everyone seems to be talking about with this film (namely what it says about the economics of film these days, and auteur driven projects largely being nonexistant.)
    - 23B1 2y ago
      Recognizing a work as a valuable part of an artist's oeuvre, even if it's not a seminal work, is a legitimate form of appreciation - and it doesn't have to meet cultural norms in order to be praised. "The end of the auteur" is a headline as old as art criticism, and one of its most forgettable. Contrast that with the naysayers who decried Pollock or Kubrick – I don't remember their critics' names, do you?
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    "Coppola has demonstrated a pattern of success in this vein" Is this true? Apocalypse Now got relatively poor reviews when it originally came out, but I think most of his other movies are still largely seen in a similar light as when they came out.
    - 23B1 2y ago
      Oh yes, Coppola has been accused of all manner of experimentation orthagonal to the zeigeist. I remember Tucker being panned for being kitcsh, then being complimented later for the same reasons. I mean look at his filmography its all over the place, and he had to literally kill Michael Corleone so the studios would stop harassing him for sequels. I understand looking at a film 'in situ' by itself of course but it's more fun to see a coppola or a scorsese or even a james cameron. It's a whole arc for him, and anyone who can't see Metropolis through that lens... is missing out on a cool and dramatic history of filmmaking.
- cs702 2y ago
  I never said otherwise. My point was and is that only with the passage of time can we identify the survivors, i.e., the works that stand the test of time.
  - msabalau 2y ago
    Or, if someone is a person of judgement and taste, who regularly watches and enjoys films a lot more experimental than Megalopolis, and one went and saw the film, perhaps one can reasonably come to the conclusion that the film is an artistic and intellectual failure. That, occasionally, some original works of art have been underappreciated is hardly a reason to suspend judgement about all art that vaguely gestures at being slightly unusual.
AlbertCory 2y ago
I was about to pan this as yet another shallow "all great art gets criticized" take (ignoring that a lot of things that get criticized actually ARE crap). But then I got to the last paragraph. Yes, it's been rejected now, but maybe someday people will reevaluate it. Maybe they'll still think it's crap; maybe not.

by cs702 2y ago

fullshark 2y ago

Survivorship bias, most original things that are panned by critics and fail to find an audience get ignored forever.

23B1 2y ago
Coppola has demonstrated a pattern of success in this vein so it's reasonable to believe this film will, at some point, be recognized in the same way.
- fullshark 2y ago
  I think it will be recognized because auteur theorists will consider it a meaningful (likely last) work by Coppola, who will be canonized. Basically it will be recognzied for things outside the actual text, and things outside the text is all everyone seems to be talking about with this film (namely what it says about the economics of film these days, and auteur driven projects largely being nonexistant.)
  - 23B1 2y ago
    Recognizing a work as a valuable part of an artist's oeuvre, even if it's not a seminal work, is a legitimate form of appreciation - and it doesn't have to meet cultural norms in order to be praised. "The end of the auteur" is a headline as old as art criticism, and one of its most forgettable. Contrast that with the naysayers who decried Pollock or Kubrick – I don't remember their critics' names, do you?
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  "Coppola has demonstrated a pattern of success in this vein" Is this true? Apocalypse Now got relatively poor reviews when it originally came out, but I think most of his other movies are still largely seen in a similar light as when they came out.
  - 23B1 2y ago
    Oh yes, Coppola has been accused of all manner of experimentation orthagonal to the zeigeist. I remember Tucker being panned for being kitcsh, then being complimented later for the same reasons. I mean look at his filmography its all over the place, and he had to literally kill Michael Corleone so the studios would stop harassing him for sequels. I understand looking at a film 'in situ' by itself of course but it's more fun to see a coppola or a scorsese or even a james cameron. It's a whole arc for him, and anyone who can't see Metropolis through that lens... is missing out on a cool and dramatic history of filmmaking.
cs702 2y ago
I never said otherwise. My point was and is that only with the passage of time can we identify the survivors, i.e., the works that stand the test of time.
- msabalau 2y ago
  Or, if someone is a person of judgement and taste, who regularly watches and enjoys films a lot more experimental than Megalopolis, and one went and saw the film, perhaps one can reasonably come to the conclusion that the film is an artistic and intellectual failure. That, occasionally, some original works of art have been underappreciated is hardly a reason to suspend judgement about all art that vaguely gestures at being slightly unusual.

AlbertCory 2y ago

I was about to pan this as yet another shallow "all great art gets criticized" take (ignoring that a lot of things that get criticized actually ARE crap). But then I got to the last paragraph. Yes, it's been rejected now, but maybe someday people will reevaluate it. Maybe they'll still think it's crap; maybe not.