Please, read Philip Kolker's "The Altering Eye", he has a web version here
http://www.otal.umd.edu/~rkolker/AlteringEye/
He certainly clarifies mostly of the topics you're interested in.
Best regards,
Juan Antonio
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] En
> nombre de nelson zagalo
> Enviado el: viernes, 19 de noviembre de 2004 17:22
> Para: [log in to unmask]
> Asunto: Film as art or entertainment
>
> Hi
>
> I would like to know if anyone here does knows any paper or book that
> deals profoundly with this matter, (film as art or entertainment)?
>
> I'm working with the so called entertainment film structures, as my study
> object. But I'm trying to define some kind of border line with some
> plausible and founded definitions. The text below is the only little piece
> I found written on the subject on the internet.
>
> Thanks
>
> Nelson Zagalo
> Research Unit of Communication and Arts
> University of Aveiro, Portugal
>
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
> Film as "art", not "entertainment." What's the difference?
>
>
> Most people would be more likely to see 2001 as "art" versus
> "entertainment" (due to 2001's slow pace and seeming lack of action and
> variety; to some the film is deadly boring). So what's the difference
> between film-as-"art" and film-as-"entertainment"?
>
> The best fast argument against film entertainment as art is the
> following web server
>
> http://www.well.com/user/vertigo/cliches.html
>
> which documents hundreds of film cliches, like:
>
> * Dogs always know who's bad, and bark at them.
>
> * When men drink whiskey, it is always in a shot glass, and they always
> drink it in one gulp. If they are wimps, they will gasp for air, then
> have a coughing fit. If they are macho, they will wince briefly,
> flashing clenched teeth.
>
> * Bombs always have big, blinking, beeping timer displays. Evil geniuses
> who devise bombs to destroy things/people are always thoughtful enough
> to include a visible display (usually LED) of how much time remains
> before the bomb detonates, giving the hero accurate feedback on
> exactly how much time remains.
>
> * Explosions always happen in slow motion. When an explosion occurs,
> make certain you are running away from the point of detonation so the
> blast can send you flying, in slow motion, toward the camera.
>
> * Pedestrians in Hollywood have the world's best reactions, so don't
> worry if you have to drive down a sidewalk. Mr. Pappodopolus is quite
> used to having his fruit cart smashed, and despite his gesticulations
> and curses, he always manages to get out of the way in time.
>
> and so forth. Thanks to the Web, now you don't have to pay $8.00 to get
> a healthy dose of visual cliches. They're free for the asking.
>
> That's a short differentiation: "entertainment" is the recycling, flow-
> chart style, of images which "worked" before. To those who have seen
> these images umpteen-cubed times, the images, funny how it happens, sour
> up on the mind, kind of like orange juice which has worn out its
> welcome. Yes, Virginia, that's NOT entertainment.
>
> Here's a long, wordy one:
>
> The "art" object, like its cousin the "entertainment" object, is a means
> of communication. This communication is via a medium [whether rock
> (sculpture), oil on canvas (painting), sequential varying images
> projected on a screen (film), words on a page (poetry, novel), metallic
> tube (trumpet), and a whole host of other media]. Here the similarity
> begins to end.
>
> A primary difference between film "entertainment" and "art" is in the
> quality and quantity of the messages sent and the level upon which they
> are pitched; the intentions of the two vis a vis the spectator are very
> different. Entertainment typically hews close to the base level of the
> human psyche, tugging at the most elemental emotions -- pushing buttons,
> to be pejorative about it. Art, while also seeking to engage the viewer,
> generally attempts to tap into more complicated and rarer emotions, and
> invites the viewer to not only be hypnotized (i.e. "get into" the work),
> but also to examine the work objectively -- an integration of cognition
> with emotion. While film entertainment frequently sends only one primary
> message, the greatest film artworks are sending many messages at once,
> and echoing and/or counterpointing these messages across many different
> domains (e.g. verbal, set design, montage, lighting, performance, etc.),
> in the same way musical works do. Because of this, the "entertainments"
> frequently exhaust themselves after a few viewings, while the greatest
> artworks, on the other hand, frequently get richer and richer upon
> subsequent viewings. On the philosophical dimension, (at the risk of
> oversimplifying this issue), the entertainer is typically focused on
> telling the audience what it WANTS to hear, while the artist is more
> often focused on what it NEEDS to hear. For this reason, many people
> would say that entertainment is "light," art "heavy," and thus, on
> Friday night after a hard week's work, would check out DIE HARD or DUMB
> AND DUMBER from the local BLOCKBUSTER, and not, say, Bergman's THE
> SEVENTH SEAL.
>
> If art is communication, then information theory comes into play when
> evaluating art. The following is a list of parameters partially derived
> from information theory that sets some lines of demarcation that will
> enable us to say "while both are food (communication), art is more like
> the main course, and entertainment is more like dessert."
>
> I have included after these parameters some films which, in my view, are
> prototype (but non-exclusive) examples satisfying that particular idea.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> 1) Totality of Conception
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 2001, CITIZEN KANE, ERASERHEAD, THE SHINING
>
> 2) Multi-dimensional Voicing
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 2001, CITIZEN KANE, ERASERHEAD, THE SHINING
>
> 3) Complexity of Information
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH, ERASERHEAD
>
> 4) Formal Beauty
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> BARRY LYNDON, 2001, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS
>
> 5) Excellence of Parts
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, HUDSUCKER PROXY, CITIZEN KANE,
> NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS
>
> 6) Metaphoric Significance
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, 2001
>
> 7) Understanding of Film Language
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> CITIZEN KANE
>
> 8) New vision/Exploding possibilities of the medium
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> CITIZEN KANE, ERASERHEAD, BLUE VELVET, MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH, 2001
> VERNON FLORIDA
>
> 9) Power/Impact
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, SWEPT AWAY
>
> 10) Verisimilitude (feeling of reality)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> MIDNIGHT COWBOY, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
>
> 11) Lack of superfluous information (high signal, low noise)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 2001
>
> 12) Necessity (feeling it could only be done that way)
> ^^^^^^^^^
> 2001, RAISING ARIZONA, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, ERASERHEAD
>
> 13) Expressionistic
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ERASERHEAD
>
> 14) Number of parameters satisfied
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 2001, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
>
> 15) New content
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> MARAT/SADE, ERASERHEAD
>
> 16) Theme and Variation (reworks and transforms conventions)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> HUDSUCKER PROXY
>
> 17) Unpredictability/Freshness
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ERASERHEAD, VERNON FLORIDA
>
> 18) Depth (number of interpretations possible)
> ^^^^^
> 2001, THE SHINING, MARAT/SADE
>
> 19) Creation of salient mood
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> MARAT/SADE, ERASERHEAD, OBSESSION, BLUE VELVET, TITICUT FOLLIES,
> BARRY LYNDON
>
> 20) Form follows content
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 2001, ERASERHEAD, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS
>
> 21) Significance of themes
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 2001, MARAT/SADE, SWEPT AWAY, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
>
> 22) Striking imagery
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ERASERHEAD, AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS
>
> 23) Integrity/Uncompromising
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ERASERHEAD, 2001, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, MY DINNER WITH ANDRE,
> MINDWALK
>
> 24) Universality (speaks to everyone regardless of spatial, temporal
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ location)
>
> WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, THE SHINING
>
> 24) Communicativeness
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> SWEPT AWAY, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
>
> 24) Intellectual (engages cognition)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> MINDWALK, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, 2001, MARAT/SADE,
> MY DINNER WITH ANDRE
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Another important aspect of art as a medium of communication is
> avoidance of the following negatives:
>
> Cliche
>
> Pretentiousness
>
> Art-by-numbers (e.g. doing what the "school" tells you to do)
>
> Unethical imagery (e.g. positive framing of sadism, etc.)
>
> Contrived images
>
> Reliance on cheap "effects"
>
> Compromising: going down the mountain and cheapening the
> message
>
> Those who are fascinated by the issue of "what is art?" (a question
> around which a whole discipline, aesthetics, revolves) must get the
> brilliant PUZZLES ABOUT ART: AN AESTHETICS CASEBOOK by Battin, Fisher,
> Moore, and Silvers (St. Martin's Press, NY, 1989). This book uses, quite
> uniquely, the case method found in law schools to explore this very
> complex question, discussing in the process well over a hundred
> hypothetical situations in non-technical language, introducing the
> layman to "the issues" in a very accessible way. Highly recommended.
>
> (B.K.)
>
> from http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/kq.html
>
> * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
> always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send
> the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help
> email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|
