If you had scrolled down on my message, you'd see that I addressed three
of your points.
I'll past it in again, in case you deleted it. Again:
[
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Lesk
I do not
> advocate
> censorship or self-censorship; rather, just a greater awareness of
things
> that
> have more to do with profit and capitalism than they do with the
thinking
> person and, dare I say, entertainment.
I'm not clear what the argument is here. Is it that art cannot be
profitable? Or that profit motives necessarily, not just sometimes,
hurt art? I don't see why either of these would be the case. If so,
then all commissioned paintings must be bad. David Bordwell addresses
this in his Planet Hong Kong pp. 5-6. He makes a distinction between
profit driven and market-oriented that may be useful if someone wants
this continue this art must be autonomous line of thinking and beat the
position to death.
Horror films strike me as a kind
> of
> lowest-common-denominator: a lazy way to make a point,
I don't understand this. It sounds like the LCD argument against mass
art. The argument that fails to see that the profit motive encourages
mass art to be produced for multiple audiences, and if anything move
towards a middle ground so as not to alienate the largest portion of the
audience. Carroll examines the LCD argument in A Philosophy of Mass
Art.
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.
Aaron Smuts
[
Aaron
|