4 ms·

> I could go further and make a movie that was 90 minutes of a black screen. That would be a worse movie but an even less satisfying answer. What about a blue

by NAFV_P 12y ago

> I could go further and make a movie that was 90 minutes of a black screen. That would be a worse movie but an even less satisfying answer. What about a blue screen? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106438/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106438/

CamperBob2 12y ago
I like drysart's criterion above (the delta-Q factor) as a way of discriminating between lowbrow but honestly-crafted crap like the usual MST3K fodder, and expensive yet incompetent crap like SW Episode 1. But you raise an interesting point, in that there should also be a penalty for novel, provocative work that, while perhaps well-executed, rests on principles that can never be used again, so they don't advance the state of the art or otherwise leave us with any enduring influence. Works like Blue and John Cage's 4'33 would fall into that category, I think.
- NAFV_P 12y ago
  > But you raise an interesting point, in that there should also be a penalty for novel, provocative work that, while perhaps well-executed, rests on principles that can never be used again, so they don't advance the state of the art or otherwise leave us with any enduring influence. Works like Blue and John Cage's 4'33 would fall into that category, I think. I've seen the first ten minutes of Blue, it's actually really good. After ten minutes you start seeing stuff, but you can't work out if it is your own imagination or the film itself. The concept of Blue could be advanced: I was thinking of "Gamma" - viewers are exposed to intense gamma radiation for 90 minutes.
  - shabble 12y ago
    Whilst I suspect you're taking the piss, I wonder if you could you induce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena without receiving a medically serious dose of radiation? Those buzzkills at the FDA have already banned any artistically worthwhile amount of X-rays from CRT televisions though[1] :( [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title21-vol8/xml/CFR-2013-title21-vol8-sec1020-10.xml http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title21-vol8/xml/CFR-2...
    - NAFV_P 12y ago
      > Whilst I suspect you're taking the piss, I wonder if you could you induce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena without receiving a medically serious dose of radiation? It's a joke, apologies I couldn't resist. Some art forms and certain works of art are genuinely dangerous [0]. Regarding cosmic rays, I thought it was caused my massive particles, and being able to produce them artificially would be a considerable scientific feat - its artistic relevance would pale in comparison. > Those buzzkills at the FDA have already banned any artistically worthwhile amount of X-rays from CRT televisions though[1] :( An old chemistry teacher of mine used to use an old TV screen as a cover for potassium+water reactions, it was about an inch in thickness. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Serra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Serra
- ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
  Penalize the avant-garde? Madness. Also, saying that they did not contribute to cinema is like huh?
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    To some extent, the market already penalizes avant-garde art created for its own sake. I'm just not sure how critics should respond. If the critics bubble effusively about how great Blue and 4'33 are, what exactly are we supposed to do with that criticism, as either artists or patrons? To me, works like these are symptoms of art forms that are well on their way to exhausting their own possibilities. What next? Green? 4'34?
    - sp332 12y ago
      4'33 was like an MVP. (It wasn't exactly the first of its kind.) Artists had dealt with room noise before, but usually as a distraction instead of realizing that it's part of the experience of a piece. As an artist, you could be more aware of the room noise as part of the performance of your work instead of getting in the way of it. As a patron, you could consciously choose a place that has noise to enhance your experience of a work.
      - robocat 12y ago
        Or do the opposite and listen to it in an anechoic chamber - which apparently is psychologi ally difficult to handle: http://www.ted.com/conversations/14056/why_is_absolute_silence_so_ter.html http://www.ted.com/conversations/14056/why_is_absolute_silen...
    - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
      Last time someone created a "work" inspired by 4'33", John Cage's publisher demanded royalties. http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-lawsuit-ever-infringing-on-cages-433/ http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-laws... So it may be difficult to build on those ideas even if someone did figure out an interesting way to do so.
    - 12y ago
KeithMaguire 12y ago
It's probably worth mentioning that Blue is more than a curiosity. It really is a profoundly moving film - one of Jarman's finest. If the synopsis of it on IMDB appeals at all I'd encourage you to track it down.

by NAFV_P 12y ago

CamperBob2 12y ago

I like drysart's criterion above (the delta-Q factor) as a way of discriminating between lowbrow but honestly-crafted crap like the usual MST3K fodder, and expensive yet incompetent crap like SW Episode 1. But you raise an interesting point, in that there should also be a penalty for novel, provocative work that, while perhaps well-executed, rests on principles that can never be used again, so they don't advance the state of the art or otherwise leave us with any enduring influence. Works like Blue and John Cage's 4'33 would fall into that category, I think.

NAFV_P 12y ago
> But you raise an interesting point, in that there should also be a penalty for novel, provocative work that, while perhaps well-executed, rests on principles that can never be used again, so they don't advance the state of the art or otherwise leave us with any enduring influence. Works like Blue and John Cage's 4'33 would fall into that category, I think. I've seen the first ten minutes of Blue, it's actually really good. After ten minutes you start seeing stuff, but you can't work out if it is your own imagination or the film itself. The concept of Blue could be advanced: I was thinking of "Gamma" - viewers are exposed to intense gamma radiation for 90 minutes.
- shabble 12y ago
  Whilst I suspect you're taking the piss, I wonder if you could you induce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena without receiving a medically serious dose of radiation? Those buzzkills at the FDA have already banned any artistically worthwhile amount of X-rays from CRT televisions though[1] :( [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title21-vol8/xml/CFR-2013-title21-vol8-sec1020-10.xml http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title21-vol8/xml/CFR-2...
  - NAFV_P 12y ago
    > Whilst I suspect you're taking the piss, I wonder if you could you induce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena without receiving a medically serious dose of radiation? It's a joke, apologies I couldn't resist. Some art forms and certain works of art are genuinely dangerous [0]. Regarding cosmic rays, I thought it was caused my massive particles, and being able to produce them artificially would be a considerable scientific feat - its artistic relevance would pale in comparison. > Those buzzkills at the FDA have already banned any artistically worthwhile amount of X-rays from CRT televisions though[1] :( An old chemistry teacher of mine used to use an old TV screen as a cover for potassium+water reactions, it was about an inch in thickness. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Serra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Serra
ulisesrmzroche 12y ago
Penalize the avant-garde? Madness. Also, saying that they did not contribute to cinema is like huh?
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  To some extent, the market already penalizes avant-garde art created for its own sake. I'm just not sure how critics should respond. If the critics bubble effusively about how great Blue and 4'33 are, what exactly are we supposed to do with that criticism, as either artists or patrons? To me, works like these are symptoms of art forms that are well on their way to exhausting their own possibilities. What next? Green? 4'34?
  - sp332 12y ago
    4'33 was like an MVP. (It wasn't exactly the first of its kind.) Artists had dealt with room noise before, but usually as a distraction instead of realizing that it's part of the experience of a piece. As an artist, you could be more aware of the room noise as part of the performance of your work instead of getting in the way of it. As a patron, you could consciously choose a place that has noise to enhance your experience of a work.
    - robocat 12y ago
      Or do the opposite and listen to it in an anechoic chamber - which apparently is psychologi ally difficult to handle: http://www.ted.com/conversations/14056/why_is_absolute_silence_so_ter.html http://www.ted.com/conversations/14056/why_is_absolute_silen...
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    Last time someone created a "work" inspired by 4'33", John Cage's publisher demanded royalties. http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-lawsuit-ever-infringing-on-cages-433/ http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-laws... So it may be difficult to build on those ideas even if someone did figure out an interesting way to do so.
  - 12y ago

KeithMaguire 12y ago

It's probably worth mentioning that Blue is more than a curiosity. It really is a profoundly moving film - one of Jarman's finest. If the synopsis of it on IMDB appeals at all I'd encourage you to track it down.