'Shindig'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Actual- I have to re-agree with Sue and juliana-- I forgot about the sweet dumb puppies....
even with the "normal" theater people, was a lot of passion - enough that it was outside the norm of the general populace.
I know this myself... in the theatre I am quiet, but firm, balanced and practical. In the "wild" I am a loud, emotional flake. And I seem to behave the same way in both places.
I think they're defensible.
And they may very well be, but I don't see the crazy correlation. And to be precise--do you see crazy as a correlation or a cause or an effect?
Meritorious things: well executed, original, thoughtful, insightful.
Mmm. I think this would include newspaper articles, mathematical formulas, judicial opinions -- many crafts that require thought. They do seem to be criteria for "works that I consider good." I bet Bay, whose movies I have to admit I've never seen, doesn't do action sequences without a lot of original thought.
I bet Bay, whose movies I have to admit I've never seen, doesn't do action sequences without a lot of original thought.
I wouldn't rank him with Cameron's work in T:2 or Aliens, or George Miller's work on Mad Max 2 or Spielberg's work in a lot of things. I think of Bay as a quintessential "running away from fireballs" guy.
I think this would include newspaper articles, mathematical formulas, judicial opinions -- many crafts that require thought.
I suppose I could rename my Original/Execution chart as "Quality Standards" but then I have to go and define Art. What does bob bob have to say about the state of Aesthetics?
Bob bob is an aesthetics ignoramus. He's a running away from the fireball of art kind of guy.
(For our anniversary one year he got us a 64-part DVD lecture series on the history of European art. We made it to 20, IIRC.)
Non-Meritorious things: hackneyed, cliched, poorly executed, conventional.
So, any montage with Hallelujah then?
So, any montage with Hallelujah then?
Not art.
I have a few (non-famous) friends in theatre that lead me to believe the flakiness is pretty widespread for that profession—not making judgement calls on relative niceness/assholitude, but the impulsiveness and emotion-based thinking does seem a common feature.
At work I generally deal with 5 professions: artists, writers, graphic designers, marketing people, and editors—listed in order of increasing reliability and decreasing incidence of colorful stories.
You've cut me off at the pass. I am no longer allowed to quibble. However, I will say, Hec, that I think your definition of art is personal, but in a way that weirdly claims objectivity. A "meritorious" work is a work in which you find merit, but, that presumes you have universally good -- and universally quantifiable -- taste.
(I've never seen you in a necktie or anything, but you have to have crappy taste in something! It's a universal rule! Why, I actually like meatloaf and acrylic sweaters [not at the same time]!)
but if something tries to be art and fails, its creator's got to be a bit of an artist, right? At least for the purposes of the crazy artist conversation.