CarrieMpls said:

"Invested" in it? Perhaps. But I feel there are lessons to be learned from reality programming, in that you are witnessing actual human behaviour (as opposed to the not-so-reasonable facsimile you see in the vast majority of scripted works). I mean, if I'm watching TV, do I want to watch a fictional version of life, or the real thing? As a wise man once put it, "Don't listen to what people say, just watch what they do."

Ace said:

Dude. Believe and trust me when I promise I'm not trying to come across as intellectually superior or frantically waving a crowd round while I choke on a bubble of obnoxious reactionarism, but that lyric is outrageously lame.

Number23 said:

In the context of the rest of the lyric, it's anything but.

Ace said:

That's like saying 'I like that piece of jigsaw. It's shaped real nice.' Show me the picture.

Ace said:

It generates discussion, like now!

gee....wow...well i dunno. all i know is that is you like it then fine. if you don't like it that's fine too.

i like James Brown...i don't like Celine Dion.

Lleena said:

But can't straightforward works of art generate discussion?

Ace said:

Yes of course, and it does, endless discussion.

Personally I think there's room for both. I just think that not stating the obvious can be interesting too. For the artist and for us.

Ace said:

1. Yes, that quote is still relevant and true.

2. In the few genres you name - FILM, TV, MUSIC --very little is art.
ENTERTAINMENT reigns today; Society doesn't promote the intelligence or refined thought necessary to create and appreciate art on a mass level.

This is why many true artists are penniless and unknown.

3. My personal definition of art is that it is the dramatization of an idea, of a central transcendent concept.

There are central thoughts so powerful that they can inspire revolution.

There used to be a time when even the working man dealt with philosophy, and considered poetry around the dinner table.

But we really don't deal in such phenomenons today.

We accept HOLLOW creations. Those that deal in concrete symbols -- WORDS, VISUALS, SOUND -- but not the ideas behind the symbols.


Once at a community center, I asked a so-called artist the philosophy behind his work. He had none. He just created something to trace a whim, a feeling ... to make something that looked beautiful or cool.

Over the years, I've spoken to many fake artists without original thought or any reflective thought whatsoever.
I used to be dumbfounded, but now I see it's the norm.


So if you're equating entertainment, with art, that could be the source of your woe. Entertainment is the opiate of the masses , yes.

And one day we will all be the worse for it.

Oh, and I should say -- since you decry romance --

* Romanticism is a school of thought I love. Romanticism, in the classic sense -- meaning the reach for that which is superlative and ideal in humanity and nature.

It's very powerful and not really about "happy endings."

These sentimental, mawkish narratives littering Lifetime, Hallmark, and Disney channels today have nothing to do with classical Romanticism and should not be championed as art.

I actually don't care if a work of art ends happily or tragically... as long as the artist demonstrates the concept well. I want to end the experience thinking damn(!) that was a perfect illustration/dramatization of [insert idea here]..


For example... after watching "Mysic River" (a great movie that I consider cinematic art) ... I left appalled by character choices, but in awe of the deft illustration of theme.
[Edited 5/12/05 18:43pm]
[Edited 5/12/05 18:43pm]

Ace said:

Says who. There are some, like me and Aristotle , who would believe that art should project human beings as they should be not as they are.

I believe that as well, and crave the HEROIC in art. That's not mindless escapism.

Ace said:

I question whether you've ever had a profound thought.

Have you spent years ruminating on something? Are you introspective? Do you realize there are concepts you can think about every day for 30 years and still refine more and more until the day you die?

There is an African proverb that suggests that no matter how long you live you can never get to the bottom of a thought.

One idea attaches to another and then another and then there's a huge scheme to convey. You can't just say it simply. You have to use figures, symbols, metaphor. You have to saturate a work of art so that it contains the millions of shadows, angles, and perspectives you've spent your days and nights anguishing over.


YOu can't just convey stuff like that in some simple way. Why do you say such things?

Art is bunk.

SynthiaRose said:

I'm not talking about art that "project(s) human beings as they should be" (and what we "should be" is a whole other topic). I'm talking about so-called art that presents the idea that there is, for example, a "soulmate" out there for us who, once we meet them, will make our lives "happy" (and this seems to be the vast majority of popular art). And are you saying that art should not project human beings as they are?



You are absolutely right. You obviously know me well. Why don't you share with us some of your profound thoughts?


Ya don't say?


Why?

SynthiaRose said:

Perhaps you should share with us the names of some of these artists and explain to us why they are "true artists".



Aren't you agreeing with me here?



Oh, no woe here. And since you make such a clear delineation between all "art" and all "entertainment", perhaps you should define what you view as "art".

I am deeply into both my faith and art. Neither have the desire or ability to paint a false perception of humanity as far as I am concerned. Art is vast and generally depicts life in many ways. I would say as often as not it provokes thought on the whole. ( In music we hear just as much if not more unhappy endings I would say.) Paintings capture a whole array of miseries as well as triumphs. etc.

I would say delusion is the option of the individual. The masses seek opiates because they have a deep sense life isn't as they wish. In certain eras when the people couldn't change life circumstance art was a welcome addition to life. A moment where misery wasn't the only thing.

SynthiaRose said:

a perfect illustration / example of a particular idea would seem to me to be the most boring type of art imaginable.

...and simplistic and, in all probability, cliched.

...but then of course, since art appreciation is so often enormously subjective (not always), my opinion matters not a jot. and aside from the size of the artist's wallet, neither does anyone else's.

Muse2NOPharaoh said:

But does it sell? Look at what's at the top of the charts: is it not, for the most part, very romanticized views of life?

For Ace: I've defined art. I question whether you can process information and debate coherently.

Yes, I was agreeing with you in one part and disagreeing in another. My statements are clear.

Instead of debating the statements... you ask empty questions (some of which have been answered) in my three posts.

You are not reflective enough to be discussing authentic art. Please discuss "pop art," as you alluded to, or entertainment only.

TheFrogSpawn said:

FrogSpawn. Use your intellect here. I've mentioned the need for original thought, the distilling of an idea over years with great reflection, and a powerful concentrated of that concept into a work of art.


In no way can that be cliched (ORIGINAL!) or simplistic (I referred to schema not a detached surface thought).

You should not discuss art either. These statements are illogical.

Both you, get to a library, museum, or quiet wood where you can think deep thoughts now.

SynthiaRose said:

Why don't you give us some examples of "authentic art" and explain to us why it is inherently better than "pop art"? Or is that an empty question?
[Edited 5/13/05 10:42am]

SynthiaRose said:

What's so empty about them? Could you give me an example of an "empty" question I've asked and tell me why it's empty?

SynthiaRose said:

So "entertainment" cannot be "art"?

SynthiaRose said:

"Original thought is like original sin: both happened before you were born to people you could not have possibly met." - Fran Lebowitz

SynthiaRose said:

Ya know, if I were prone to making judgements about people I didn't know, I'd say you were a pretentious blowhard. Good thing I don't do that.

To SynthiaRose:

1 - I agree with all your points here.

2 - No use in discussing with people that will never understand. Not trying to offend anyone .
I know nothing about opera so I won't refute an opera lover's points of view.
The same for all forms of art.