Please think carefully about this one. Don't immediately jump to the conclusion that art is anything that is pretentious or unentertaining. Most critically acclaimed movies are considered art. But how 'artistic' does a movie to have to be to be considered 'art'. If a movie that is 'artistic' suddenly not art the moment it entertains? Would you say there is an art to all film making, except some entertain and others don't? There are plenty of films I've seen with so much artistry that goes far beyond just script writing and acting. Think of the big budget epics for example. Star Wars for example has artistry in set design, prop design, model and miniatures, special effects, costumes, action scenes, sound effects and etc. But it entertains as well. Do you think it's necessary for a movie to not entertain to be considered art? There's also a case where some movies that are entertaining to one person is not entertaining to another. Please think about this.
What would you call art?
Anything that is created by an artist and appreciated by at least 1 person other than the creator is art.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment