> -----Original Message-----
> From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Lesk
>
> I never said that art cannot be profitable, but in any case I don't
> consider
> the remake of Texas Chainsaw M "art." It was made for profit ONLY.
It is
> a
> PRODUCT pitched to consumers. As is much horror shlock.
>
TCM sounds awful, but do you really think that there were no goals
involved in the making of the film that are recognizable artistic goals?
I find that really hard to believe. If this were the case then each and
every decision in the production of the film -- where to put the camera,
how to edit the footage, how to light the scene, etc. -- would have to
be answered by what would make the most money. I don't see how this
could be done without reverting to questions that are recognizably
artistic.
> To counter, I don't know why you're stuck on the profit thing as
somehow
> congruent with the making of art. I presume that most art is made out
of
> a
> need to express something (a belief, an argument, love), while I admit
> that
> some art has been made with an eye to profit (say, once someone has
> achieved a
> reputation and coasts on it). Horror films are not mass art; they are
> mass
> crap, and I can justify that position aesthetically.
It sure sounds like your argument is circular. Horror is bad. Why?
Because it is not art. Why? Because it is bad. It looks like you'll
have to come up with some sort of definition of art that excludes horror
and includes modernist painting and non-program music. Good luck.
So, if you want to
> call
> them art, do so, but don't then think that it is somehow something for
> those
> poor "masses." And this gesture toward "masses" (as in, Look! We have
> something for the masses!) is really condescending. I am sure the
masses
> are
> thanking Carroll.
>
Strange that you are calling me condescending. I don't want to retrace
the issue of mass art right now, but you've got the idea completely
wrong.
> > and in this they strike
> > > me as deeply anti-intellectual (and yes, that is a comment on
> > American-inspired consumerism).
> >
> > I don't understand this either. Is this the idea that not being
> > intellectual is somehow anti-intellectual. This seems silly. I'm
> > really not sure what's at issue here.
>
> Well, then I might say you aren't reading what I have written closely.
I
> never
> said what you are saying (yet again). I am saying that much American-
> inspired
> consumerism (including the creation and promotion of horror films),
> concerned
> solely with profit, foments an anti-intellectual stance in that the
kind
> of
> consumerist attitude I am addressing here is mentally lazy: such
consumers
> are
> encouraged NOT to think about the product (creation, production,
> distribution,
> aim) so that they won't have to admit to themselves that they are
being
> sold
> down the river for a couple of cheap thrills that are no better than
empty
> calories.
>
It still sounds like you mean to say that non-intellectual art is
anti-intellectual. I just can't see how.
Aaron
|