I have a very strong sense that Michael Bay, e.g., is neither a particularly sensitive person nor lacking in social support.
Without getting into the main argument one way or another, I do think calling Michael Bay an artist is pushing it just a little.
Without getting into the main argument one way or another, I do think calling Michael Bay an artist is pushing it just a little.
Oh, come on! He's remaking Friday the 13th!
Says who? Where is the central registry of artists? Do they have a secret guild? More secret than the DGA, I mean, of which Bay is presumably a member?
If you define artists only as people who make Earthshattering Works O' Genius, And Suffer Therefrom, then of course you're going to find a correlation of genius with mental suffering. You have literally defined your criteria for artistry to include those attributes!
Next hot topic: is there such a thing as bad art?
That is, if it's bad, does it count as art?
If so, doesn't that render the label "art" as practically useless?
sits back and makes popcorn
I suppose you could say Bay is an Artist in that what he does is artistic in nature...that is, it is not steel-working, it is making magical pictures float in the air on a giant screen.
On the other hand, you could call him a 'hack'...in that what he does makes me want to hack him apart with a machete for the betterment of all mankind.
Well, there is the Museum of Bad Art, which is in the basement of the Dedham Community Theatre, and appears to define bad art as paintings that have clowns in them. So at least one organization believes that art can be bad and still be art.
You think I am joking about the clown thing, but you are wrong. I have been there!
I support Michael Bay in all his explosive endeavors.
I support Michael Bay in all his explosive endeavors.
Sounds like you're sympathizing with him for having intense diarrhea.
Which may be an adequate description of his films. "Explosive diarrhea".
...that is, it is not steel-working,
I can't believe you're saying steel-working isn't an art!