Are we Artists or Techno Nerd / Computer Geeks ?

wheatgrinder said:
Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into BASH GuerrillaAngel thread...
Click to expand...

You are not guilty of the above. The statement to which you responded did that all on its own.

I'd rattle off a huge list of artists who are paid quite well for the contribution to the craft of film-making in any given position, but there is no need. A: It's already been started, and B: the work of those who would be listed speaks for itself.

And Kholi is the Threadwinner. +10 Internets to you good sir.
 
David.rhsc said:
You are not guilty of the above. The statement to which you responded did that all on its own.

I'd rattle off a huge list of artists who are paid quite well for the contribution to the craft of film-making in any given position, but there is no need. A: It's already been started, and B: the work of those who would be listed speaks for itself.

And Kholi is the Threadwinner. +10 Internets to you good sir.
Click to expand...

The unfortunate thing is that it seems it's only by getting paid that your *art* gets validation.
 
Feutus Lapdance said:
Artist are not teached how to make a story...
Click to expand...


So... storytelling is NOT an art ?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I disagree that storytelling is not an art.

The painter tells a story w/ his/her craft correct ? I want to use the medium of film/video to tell a story, paint pictures, leave an image in the mind of the viewer. I state that I'm an artist and I use a tool ( cam ) to paint w/ light and tell a story. The talent is a performance artist as is the makeup "artist" the sound person, or what have you.

I want to entertain and inspire passion and I want my expression to be taken as artistic. I am focusing on using my artistic skills to do that. A camera is my paintbrush, the world my pallet, the talent the paint, the sounds brushstrokes, the color pallet of the work is that, color.

However, how you go about your thing in the endeavor of what it is that you do is your thing and what you choose to label it must ONLY suit you.:yes:
 
DaVinci was a painter and a sculptor. His works were magnificently crafted and are considered art... he was hired to make paintings and sculptures because he was a really good painter and sculptor. His benefactors considered him an artist.

(in the following bits, the "you" is generic, not directed at one person)

Speak your mind through your work... if you do it well, you can make art. If you are an artist, everything you make must be art -- even the unwatchable crap that we've all produced.

I'm firmly of the opinion that art is a result, something to be achieved, something to strive for, not a point of origin.

Pursue your craft however it suits you... strive for art. If you don't have something to reach for, nothing will ever succeed in getting there -- there's nothing to pull you forward because you're already convinced you've achieved it.
 
Oh crap, here we go with another "what is art?" discussion...

If there are 6.5 billion people on the planet you will get 6.5 billions opinions as to what is art. The answer is entirely too subjective.

From Wikipedia:

According to Tolstoy, art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "affects" the viewer. Thus, real art requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is. He believed that the concept of art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings.

-------------------------------------------

Being a film director is akin to being an architect - An architect is a person trained in the planning, design and oversight of the construction of buildings. A director is a person trained in the planning, design and oversight of the construction of films.

Just as an architect contracts various craftsmen to handle the various technical aspects of building construction so must a director retain the services of other talented people to create his vision.

The biggest difference is that the director is engaged in an "artistic" pursuit. The talents of the craftspeople with whom s/he works need to be correspondingly creative.

As a musician I didn't have the "X", "It", or the "Whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it" factor to be a rock star. But I was integral in supporting the "artist" on the front of the stage in the spotlight. I engage in the same function now; I bring to life the directors aural concept of the film. Within my narrow purview I am very creative.

The directors job is to unite these creative-technicals and clearly communicate his vision and infect them with his enthusiasm. For the most part we are all engaged in creating entertainment; and there is nothing wrong with that. But occasionally, on rare occasions, the director gathers the right people to work on the right concept at the right time and "art" occurs.
 
IndieBudget said:
Im thinkin here, am I am artist or a Techno Nerd / Computer Geek ? Is a filmmaker both or do you have your specialty ?
Click to expand...
I will never get into any discussion on what is "art. But I
fully understand your point with this question.

I would consider myself an artist under the specifics of this
question and your Lynch example. I know Lynch. He couldn't
load or operate a 35mm camera - he can't figure out settings
on a PD-150 - he could figure out what f-stop to use or what
film stock to use or what miniDV tape to pick up. But he sure
as hell can write and direct interesting movies.

While I do have some tech knowledge I am sorely laking in
the computer department, I know not a damn thing about
audio. But I can write (I've been paid to do so) and I can direct
(I've been paid to do so) and I can work well with the people
who understand the tech end. But to me, the "art" (for lack of
a better word) is what interests me.

Fascinating question.
 
As cracker funk demonstrated, not all art is good.

As for Conrad Hall, if all 4 millions of us has the same tools and $$$ as Hall did, there would be about 314 people (est) that could out-Hall Conrad Hall. He'd be just another Joe/Josephine with a camera.

Besides, cinematographers don't create art (the film's final edit/look) . . . unless they're also the director.
 
I love these discussions. Having studied these debates historically, I find it really cool that it's still a viable topic. Many of the film pioneers had this discussion and we read the results of them. The writings of the pioneers trying to figure out what this medium was in the first place, beyond just series of pictures that gave an impression of motion. Edison, Lumiere (the brothers), Griffith and Eisenstein had very different views of the purpose of cinema and what role it could fulfill in society.

More recently, the auteur theory was hotly debated as well when it was first brought to light in the US by Kael and Sarris... these are great knock down drag out published academic fights between respected theorists. Great reading, lots of drama (could even be a script in there somewhere) :)
 
GuerrillaAngel said:
As for Conrad Hall, if all 4 millions of us has the same tools and $$$ as Hall did, there would be about 314 people (est) that could out-Hall Conrad Hall. He'd be just another Joe/Josephine with a camera.

Besides, cinematographers don't create art (the film's final edit/look) . . . unless they're also the director.
Click to expand...

I'd estimate the number at 176 regarding surpassing Conrad Hall.

And I agree, DP's don't create art, they just flip on light switches. Anyone can do that.

Writers don't create art either, all they do is type.
 
GuerrillaAngel said:
As cracker funk demonstrated, not all art is good.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

As for Conrad Hall, if all 4 millions of us has the same tools and $$$ as Hall did, there would be about 314 people (est) that could out-Hall Conrad Hall. He'd be just another Joe/Josephine with a camera.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure I can take you seriously after this.

Besides, cinematographers don't create art (the film's final edit/look) . . . unless they're also the director.
Click to expand...

By the same token, you could argue that producers create art when they're supplying the money - it's not unusual for producers to have scenes cut, or have the final say on the look (choosing colour over black and white because it will be easier to distribute, for example).

It's quite convenient how only starving artist filmmakers (like you) and directors (like you) are the only artists… anyway, all directors do is stand and point.
 
IndieBudget said:
So... storytelling is NOT an art ?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I disagree that storytelling is not an art.

The painter tells a story w/ his/her craft correct ? I want to use the medium of film/video to tell a story, paint pictures, leave an image in the mind of the viewer. I state that I'm an artist and I use a tool ( cam ) to paint w/ light and tell a story. The talent is a performance artist as is the makeup "artist" the sound person, or what have you.

I want to entertain and inspire passion and I want my expression to be taken as artistic. I am focusing on using my artistic skills to do that. A camera is my paintbrush, the world my pallet, the talent the paint, the sounds brushstrokes, the color pallet of the work is that, color.

However, how you go about your thing in the endeavor of what it is that you do is your thing and what you choose to label it must ONLY suit you.:yes:
Click to expand...

Well....I did not say Storytelling is not a artform. Storytelling is not includded in art school. And I think thats a Pitty.
 
4 jears of art school lookt likke this.

1st jear learning bassic art skils. Painting, sculpture, video etc. Get rid of all on original Ideas consisting of: video games, comics, movies, graffiti art, Gotic art likke dragons and shit...

2de jear, learning more basics, letting go of the bassics, and getting rid of the last of the on original Ideas.

3de jear, Finding a original art form. a style that is uniquely jours, understanding wy jou makke joure choices, jou makke, and finding joure concept.

4de jear, improving of the 3de jear.
 
Feutus

I want to say thank you for your opinions. Sorry if I sounded coarse, I love a good debate is all. No intentions from me on making anything a personal attack.

I am at a place where Im looking at what I'm doing and I'm feeling the need to define exactly what it is that I feel I can best do. I have learned a lot of technical skills ( still lacking in many in relation to filmmaking ) and I see it is time for me to put what I have to it's best use. I have made a proclamation that I'm an artist and I want to create something that not only entertains, but is pleasing to the eyes and makes one think. I'm doing this proclamation thing to best describe what it is that I want to do so I can plan on how I want to go about doing it. What will be my starting point, what will be my plan of attack.

I'm NOT saying that one who focuses more on technical aspects is any better or worse than one who thinks they are an artist.

I am in the process of listing and evaluating my skills and passions along with my desire to create and wanting to use everything I have and get the help I need to make things happen. With that said...It's time for me to create art that will make one think, feel and maybe educate ( or indoctrinate )
 
I think the "art no art" is pretty pointless, I like indiebudget's new tack.

The study of the technical teaches us what is possible, regardless if we reach proficiency in the technique.

Side bar:
Sometimes the "what is possible" envelope is busted wide open and new and interesting things become part of the collective conscience.

Consider the first film goers. There are reports that the first audiences to SEE moving images panicked at the sight of the oncoming train! How is that possible? The quality was LOW, the color was in no way lifelike, yet the experiences was entirely new and the average mind had to be introduced to the new REALITY.

end side bar:

perhaps as we gain a certain level of familiarity with a technique, we are now better able to find others who have the DEEP understanding to meet our demands. So you move from being a technical orientated director to a "manager of people" to achieve your vision. practical example. The director says, I want to bring out the subject more from the background.. the director knows enough that you can call B.S. when the DP says its not possible. Lame example sorry..
 
Actually, the quality was really high... What we see now of those old films are reprints from paper tape backup from the LOC that were transferred as old media onto machines that ran at 24 fps as a standard now that hadn't been set at that time.

At the time, the print would have been new and pristine as would the machines running them, no wear on the sprockets or the sprocket holes to make gate weave or bounce... the illumination may have been a smidge inconsistent due to the newish nature of electricity distribution and under regulated infrastructure, and the speeds may have varied a bit if the units were hand cranked. But the prints them selves were made from full frame 35mm photographic filmstock and would have been glorious to behold... I'm told that the old silver + acetate film had a "glow" to it based on the light passing through the specific chemical composition of the fixed emulsions of the time.
 
Interesting discussion......

I'm an artist... I sculpt, draw, paint, record music, etc..., but I'm the biggest tech geek I know..... both by profession. They are so closely related to me that I've never really thought about it. Tech is just an insanely cool tool....

If you have the talent and determination, there comes a point where you learn the fundamental techniques well enough that you dont have to think about them. While youre creating something and those chaotic things happen.... the random overlapping brush strokes, editing clips together and finding that magic cut, pushing clay into shapes.....the times when it feels like the work is creating itself....... The difference between what I have in my head and what I actually created in those moments is what art is to me......... and thats one of those things that people that are not artists will never understand or experience.
 
Anim8 said:
. . . there comes a point where you learn the fundamental techniques well enough that you dont have to think about them. While youre creating something and those chaotic things happen.... the random overlapping brush strokes, editing clips together and finding that magic cut, pushing clay into shapes.....the times when it feels like the work is creating itself....... The difference between what I have in my head and what I actually created in those moments is what art is to me......... and thats one of those things that people that are not artists will never understand or experience.
Click to expand...

:yes:
 
In everything I do, feeling is where my creations emerge. There isn't an explanation for my methods. An example are my two experiences at the Kennedy Center American College Theatre Festival-Regionals. I was an Irene Ryan Award nominee both instances. It went from 400 actors, to 30, then the final 10. I was in the top ten, and fortunate enough to have won the acting scholarship and be the indivual to move on and perform at the Kennedy Center twice in a row. When asked my approach by the responding professors and fellow students, I simply stated, "I inhale, exhale. Then, I am free." With acting, photography, painting, writing, and piano that is my only method. Another person's approach or teachings are very limiting to me. The idea that art is calculated techniques with rules is the most superfluous thing I have ever heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top