Is film a major or minor art form?

[Gintoh]

I was just wondering weather you guys think film is on the same level as Painting, Music, Literature ect. or if it is a minor/ lesser art form. I would be interested to hear some opinions.

[Cunninglinguist]

In my opinion it can be the greatest means of education if we use it to that end. It, however, often is not. Even most "educational" shows are sensationalized and appeal to people who would rather watch explosions or re-watch some 2012 apocalyptic documentary rather than those who actually want to learn something. In my opinion film can the marriage of virtually all art forms. I liken it to watching a refined play or something of the sort.

[The Atheist]

I was just wondering weather you guys think film is on the same level as Painting, Music, Literature ect. or if it is a minor/ lesser art form. I would be interested to hear some opinions.

I'd be very sceptical of anyone who claimed that one art form or style is somehow superior to any other, so I'd certainly rate it alongside all other forms of human artistic expression.

[Desolation]

Think of it like this; we consider literature a "high" art form, and we must grudgingly place Dan Brown in the broad category of "literature." Now, does anyone really want to say that Dan Brown is on a higher level than Martin Scorsese just because Brown "writes" and Scorsese makes films? I really doubt it.

I mean, sure, for every Martin Scorsese there are 4 or 5 Michael Bays, but that doesn't really detract from the art of film as a whole anymore than Dan Brown detracts from the art of literature.

[sixsmith]

Basically agree with the above. The seriousness and quality of art is determined by the skill and vision of the artist, not by the medium through which he or she operates.

[JBI]

To an extent, though film is a rather new genre, so it is interesting to see how the individual negotiates it. Classical Drama for instance, came to the point where actors could be recognized for playing specific character roles (like King Lear, or Hamlet, or Oedipus). Film suffers from (until recently perhaps) a rather fluid creativity in plots (in that there has always been innovation when artists seek it). Film now has so many possibilities, and far less restraints (to an extent, in the sense that digital effects have overstressed the burden of budget).

[DanielBenoit]

Film is difficult because what so many Americans recognize as cinema is Hollywood movies, 10% of them which could actually be considered serious art. The problem with film is that unlike other art-forms (at least today in the 21st century) is that it has created a multi-million dollar industry whose goal is to make money. Is it any wonder why filmmakers like Jean Luc-Godard or Abbas Kirostami never are seen anywhere in theaters in America beyond Chicago and New York?

That's not to say that the classical narrative Hollywood cinema can't be art, Spielberg, the quitissential popcorn director has made plenty of films worthy of being called "art". Not to mention Hitchcock who is one of the greatest artists the cinema has ever had, while most of the films he made were intended as highly-fun entertainment.

But all and all film is most obviously an art, despite Transformers, modern rom-coms and the typical summer blockbuster. I completely agree with Desolation; it's the artist that determines what is art, not the medium.

Look at me straight in the face and tell me this is not art:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFzTBPy7nl8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcDVjCNTVP8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBZsj8FPSbo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps-v-kZzfec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZq1okVqbSw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YozQlhdu4QU

[LitNetIsGreat]

I wouldn't disagree with the points made so far, but what you would say about the factor that film is essentially a passive medium, whereas art, music, literature involve more of a dialogue between the work and the audience? As I say I'm not in disagreement necessarily with the above position (certainly not with the point about Br*wn) but I just thought I'd throw that point out - does films apparent passivity mean that is potentially weakened as an art form or not?

[kelby_lake]

Music's passive, even more so than film. I think film is a major art form because it's one of the most accessible and has many potentials. Art has to be for people, not just some elite circle. Whether people will use or misuse film, it is still a major art form.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't think music is so passive. I don't disagree that film is a major art form, but I still see it essentially as quite a passive medium in relation to most other forms. I certainly agree with Sixsmith's point when he says "the seriousness and quality of art is determined by the skill and vision of the artist, not by the medium through which he or she operates" but for me in particular, film has the drawback that it seems to demand less from those viewing it then most other forms of art. Even though I love a great many films (The Talented Mr Ripley wow!) at least for my personal preference literature and music have moved me the most and I think this is because, in part, that they require more input from me then the medium of film. In short, I personally prefer literature and music to film but that's obviously not the same for everybody.

[DanielBenoit]

I wouldn't disagree with the points made so far, but what you would say about the factor that film is essentially a passive medium, whereas art, music, literature involve more of a dialogue between the work and the audience? As I say I'm not in disagreement necessarily with the above position (certainly not with the point about Br*wn) but I just thought I'd throw that point out - does films apparent passivity mean that is potentially weakened as an art form or not?

I think it varies from each work and from each viewer/reader. Film can be incredibly engaging at times, just look at the films of Godard, Lynch or Von Trier. The first depends on the audiences intellectual sensibilities, the second depends on the audiences intuition to make sense of what's going on, and the latter depends on the audiences shock, disgust and turmoil in order to be effective.

Also, what about works of art (by this I refer to all mediums) which make use of Brechtian construction? Or more avant-garde works which intend to be "artifacts" of society and not exactly intended to engage the emotions. But even then, the distancing of the audience is in a sense a kind of engagement, because it creates a certain reaction from the viewer, just one different than say classical theatre or film for example.

And besides, since film and theater both require practically the same amount of engagement from the audience, then both must be considered together.

Like I said, most modern mainstream films that Americans are familiar with are for the most part intended to be simple entertainment and just enough to fill up some time in your day. This is what has given film a slight lack of acknowledgment as a major art form.

Though I do agree with Neely to an extent. No matter how great Hitchcock is, the effort put in to view him is much less than say reading Ulysses. And yet at the same time, when must the amount of effort required by the audience/reader measure a work of art?

I must add, I think film in fact does overall demand just as much effort as any other medium. In order to actually appretiate Eisenstein, one must examine the poetry of his editing and timing of shots, his rapid use of montage. The most famous form of film and the one most familiar to Americans and most of the world is the classical form which is still in use today, that is, which makes use of what John Ford called 'invisible editing' in which the viewer is totally unaware of the nature of the film and the fact that he/she is watching a film, and simply intends to tell the viewer a story. By contrast, Brechetian films such as those of Godard's constantly remind us that what we are watching is a film. In this sense, the Hollywood style weakens film and makes us focus on the story far and above any other of the many aspects of the film.

Watch these two clips and tell me how often you became aware of the camera and editing in both of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_CsWOx9QJs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KUVwKp6MDI

The former from Capra's It Happened One Night, like all Hollywood films, envelops the audience into what the characters are saying and using the camera as a window, not an object or means of expression.

By contrast, in the latter clip from Godard's Breathless, the use of jump-cuts immedietly makes the viewer aware of the rhythm of the editing, just as the hand-held camera makes the viewer more aware of the camera movemnt.

[OrphanPip]

I don't think there's anything particularly more passive about film. I'm really struggling to understand what you mean by this. Especially, since film doesn't necessarily entail a straight narrative, like a conventional Hollywood film, but could simply involve moving abstract images.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjM9SHZHdb8&feature=related

Edit: I'm also fond of Svankmajer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8dwv_vQJk

[DanielBenoit]

Also, here's an example of the free-floating stream-of-consciousness technique put to cinema:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0CQo1DhJDQ

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I know that film doesn’t have to be linear or conventional, but I often feel a little distanced with film, I’m passively receiving every single image and sound from every angle and position that the maker wants me to – little can be left to my imagination. I might wonder and engage on some sort of ideas level, but I feel I’m not fully drawn into the medium. I'm quite aware that others will find more in film then I do and that's more than fine, but film for me is a fully coloured in moving picture. With literature and music in particular, I feel that the artist has pencilled an outline and left me to do the rest.

[Gintoh]

I think film in part gets to me because it displays images that affect me, a film can have a good story, but I think the images/ the emotions they convey are most important. Just take these clips from bela Tarr's movies conveying loneliness/despair. Moments like these, images, are what I want from film and where there strength lies rather then narrative ect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8DOQFccj00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtSp3MpWOIc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg5vcflKq5k&feature=related

I think films to often try to just be illustrated text is what i'm saying. Also One must account for the fact that Hollywood films are only 5% of the worlds films.

[keilj]

Film is definitely a major art form

It is fairly unique, in that it combines story, visuals, sound, music

It is also very unique in that it is a collaborative art form. It takes writers, directors, actors and much more to create it

[DanielBenoit]

I think film in part gets to me because it displays images that affect me, a film can have a good story, but I think the images/ the emotions they convey are most important. Just take these clips from bela Tarr's movies conveying loneliness/despair. Moments like these, images, are what I want from film and where there strength lies rather then narrative ect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8DOQFccj00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtSp3MpWOIc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg5vcflKq5k&feature=related

I think films to often try to just be illustrated text is what i'm saying. Also One must account for the fact that Hollywood films are only 5% of the worlds films.

Totally agree. I've always loved this quote from Tarr, "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds."

And believe it or not, the above poster is right. Taking the data from this (http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/gtp/acompfilms.html) website, one can calculate that the output of Hollywood makes up about 9.24% of the total global output. Imagine how many films you must be missing!

Btw, it's always nice to meet a fellow Tarr fan ;)

[Caderyn]

It depends on how it is treated. Art usually has an underlying message and if that message is I want your money then it's just a ploy...to get your money.

Other than that, the amount of creativity that goes into a film probably surpasses other forms because it incorporates a little bit of everything.

[DanielBenoit]

It depends on how it is treated. Art usually has an underlying message and if that message is I want your money then it's just a ploy...to get your money.

Well this is only because making a film is rather expensive, even if it's just an indie; and thus studios jump in and provide all of the money possible, but demand that artists compromise their work. It's the studio system that is raping film as an artform, and thankfully we have independent and foreign cinema to make up for it.

[Gintoh]

Well, you could say the same of books, Nicholas Sparks/Twilight books are most likely there to get him money rather then say something profound.

[stlukesguild]

Art has to be for people, not just some elite circle.

Nonsense. Not all art is for everybody. The fact that James Joyce demands a reader of a certain level of literary experience does not negate its merits as art. The size of the audience is no measure of aesthetic worth for or against.

I must agree with the majority of what has been put forth. Film is most certainly as relevant (or "major") an art for as anything... despite its relative newness. The fact that it has spun off some multi-billion dollar industry is irrelevant. Music has done the same, but we would not question whether music is a major relevant art form. Personally, I'm fascinated with the potential of film and the ways in which it differs from older art forms such as literature and painting. These older forms are essentially the product of the individual... although in many cases they were not thought as such during the Middle Ages where art was something of a communal undertaking... self-expression and ego would have been frowned upon as art was but a gift of God and an expression of community values. One need only think of the Gothic Cathedrals. Film... like opera and the theater as a whole... is far more of a communal form.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Good enthusiastic post Daniel, just one point because of time:


And besides, since film and theater both require practically the same amount of engagement from the audience, then both must be considered together.

I wouldn't agree with that. There is the point that you are far less restricted in the theatre in what you see than you are with film. With film no matter how well it is put together everybody watches the same thing at the same time. This is not so with theatre. With live theatre every single person, while viewing the same play, sees things from a different perspective, even if this is just because they sat in a different seat! - but also that they are free to focus on different actors at different times, from taking in the whole stage to using the cool little glasses to focus in on one aspect or whatever.

Theatre as an overall dynamic therefore becomes far less passive then you think. Coupled with this every single performance differs, even slightly from the last as actors/directors might alter things slightly or they are affected by the audience in some way (ever been to a performance where the majority of audience is made up of 90% of school kids for example) in short I don't see theatre as a passive form or not as passive as film anyway.

[DanielBenoit]

Good enthusiastic post Daniel, just one point because of time:



I wouldn't agree with that. There is the point that you are far less restricted in the theatre in what you see than you are with film. With film no matter how well it is put together everybody watches the same thing at the same time. This is not so with theatre. With live theatre every single person, while viewing the same play, sees things from a different perspective, even if this is just because they sat in a different seat! - but also that they are free to focus on different actors at different times, from taking in the whole stage to using the cool little glasses to focus in on one aspect or whatever.

Theatre as an overall dynamic therefore becomes far less passive then you think. Coupled with this every single performance differs, even slightly from the last as actors/directors might alter things slightly or they are affected by the audience in some way (ever been to a performance where the majority of audience is made up of 90% of school kids for example) in short I don't see theatre as a passive form or not as passive as film anyway.

Ahh that's very true. And yes, there's always some kind of electricity in the air at a theatre performance because the actors are live right there.

Either way, I suppose it just differs on taste.


Hopefully in not diverting this thread from its original question but here's something I would think is appropriate to throw out: Is television art? (major or not)

and

Can video games be art? If yes; do they have a possibility at being a major art form?

[kelby_lake]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;899718]Art has to be for people, not just some elite circle.

What I mean by that is that art should seek to engage with people. Yes, some art would need more studying than others to fully appreciate its meaning, but the desire to engage with people has to be there. Even experimenting with language or style can engage people.

Film to an extent is a literal medium- however you can use metaphors and symbolism if you so wish, a la American Beauty.

[IzzaThePush]

art is what you call art. we could also just drop the word art.

[Caderyn]

Well this is only because making a film is rather expensive, even if it's just an indie; and thus studios jump in and provide all of the money possible, but demand that artists compromise their work. It's the studio system that is raping film as an artform, and thankfully we have independent and foreign cinema to make up for it.

Ah, yes. I almost forgot about the expenses. Plus the time it takes to come up with a good product and the fact that it's a popular form of art... But if these people take a perfectly good idea, knowing it is popular, and try to suck in all the money possible...then it's a ploy. And I don't just mean sequels. It's everything up and beyond film when it get to the point of being exhausting.

Then again, it doesn't take much to entertain the masses. I guess it wouldn't be fair to blame producers for taking advantage of this by making money. And it's not their fault that they're successful.

No matter. There are many redeeming qualities in independent films and I shouldn't let greed spoil my entire outlook on the form.

[Perscors]

I'm a new member and am really enjoying following the conversations thus far. Unless I missed a post no one has commented on authors views of film. Some examples off the top of my head: Paul Auster in The Book of Illusions and especially Man in the Dark comments on film, with Man in the Dark considering the passive aspect of film. Auster himself has of course dabbled and film and it is a subject of a few of his books. I also think of Cormac McCarthy's interview after completion of the film version of The Road
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704576204574529703577274572.html):

John Hillcoat: Cormac, do you think we caught the spirit of the book?

CM: Yeah, absolutely. I haven't seen the final print version.

JH: Be glad you didn't have to sit through the assembly cut, which was four hours. Look, I've never made a film anywhere near two hours. I admire the films, back in the day, when they were 90 minutes.

CM: One school of thought says that directors shouldn't be allowed to edit their own films. But the truth is they should be. And they should be really brutal. Really brutal.

JH: Viewers are being hardwired differently. In film, it's harder and harder to use wide shots now. And the bigger the budget, the more closeups there are and the faster they change. It's a whole different approach. What's going to happen is there will be the two extremes: the franchise films that are now getting onto brands like Barbie, and Battleship and Ronald McDonald; then there are these incredible, very low-budget digital films. But that middle area, they just can't sustain and make it work in the current model. Maybe the model will change and hopefully readjust.

CM: Well, I don't know what of our culture is going to survive, or if we survive. If you look at the Greek plays, they're really good. And there's just a handful of them. Well, how good would they be if there were 2,500 of them? But that's the future looking back at us. Anything you can think of, there's going to be millions of them. Just the sheer number of things will devalue them. I don't care whether it's art, literature, poetry or drama, whatever. The sheer volume of it will wash it out. I mean, if you had thousands of Greek plays to read, would they be that good? I don't think so.

JH: No, you're absolutely right. Just as an example, the Toronto Film Festival is one of the biggest in film festivals. They have made it, for the first time ever, much more difficult to submit a film. They charge an entry fee and they still had 4,000 submissions just this year and they boiled that down to 300.

CM: This is just entry level to what's coming. Just the appalling volume of artifacts will erase all meaning that they could ever possibly have. But we probably won't get that far anyway.

[Perscors]

Hopefully in not diverting this thread from its original question but here's something I would think is appropriate to throw out: Is television art? (major or not)

and

Can video games be art? If yes; do they have a possibility at being a major art form?

I predict all film to be heading towards tv. Haven't seen the Wire (gasp) but many would argue that show to be up to par with anything coming out today. Lets not forget Twin Peaks and Mulholand Dr. (film being merely a reworked pilot for the never aired tv program).

Video games... still have some way to go. Probably the biggest brain in games in Miyamoto (yes?), how would we rank him alongside film or other medias? Despite the best designers achievements I think they are still very lightweight compared to the pioneers of early film.