James Cameron's 'Avatar' - The next gen of cinema

A rollercoaster is entertainment.
A film is entertainment.

For you and many others film is art.
For many others and not you rollercoasters can be art.

Get off your high horse Gustov, you sound daft sometimes.

Buildings can be arranged to appeal to the senses.
 
Chimerical said:
Well the definition of Art (off Wiki) is "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions".

Buildings have a functional purpose so I wouldn't really call a building 'art' in that sense.
Click to expand...

Many "arty" things have functions, do they not count as art either?
 
easyrider said:
You arguement is flawed..And i just merely highlighted the fact.

I have noticed in the other thread too that when you buckle under the strain of intelligent discourse you get aggresive and call people names:p

So special as in....

Film is no more special that anything else.

Film just is.

Its that simple;)
Click to expand...

You haven't proved my argument to be flawed, you've just told yourself your opinion is the only correct one. Like I've said I'm happy to accept your stance on film as a medium. You go to the cinema to be entertained and that's enough for you. I also go to the cinema to be entertained but like it if the film offers more in terms of audience interaction / provocation. Can we leave it there ?

Tummy said:
A rollercoaster is entertainment.
A film is entertainment.

For you and many others film is art.
For many others and not you rollercoasters can be art.

Get off your high horse Gustov, you sound daft sometimes.

Buildings can be arranged to appeal to the senses.
Click to expand...

Jesus, I accept that Rollercosters and films are entertaining but films offer much more than entertainment, that's where i see the distinction...
 
Take Gothic Arcitechture...designed beyond function..

Gothic style was expressed most powerfully, its characteristics lending themselves to appeal to the emotions. A great number of ecclesiastical buildings remain from this period, of which even the smallest are often structures of architectural distinction while many of the larger churches are considered priceless works of art.

NEXT :D
 
Gustov said:
You haven't proved my argument to be flawed, you've just told yourself your opinion is the only correct one. Like I've said I'm happy to accept your stance on film as a medium. You go to the cinema to be entertained and that's enough for you. I also go to the cinema to be entertained but like it if the film offers more in terms of audience interaction / provocation. Can we leave it there ?
Click to expand...

Some people might to to a rollercoaster to be offered more ?
 
Gustov said:
Jesus, I accept that Rollercosters and films are entertaining but films offer much more than entertainment, that's where i see the distinction...
Click to expand...

Rollercoasters offer much more then entertainment for rollercoaster fan boys ?

Whats your point?
 
easyrider said:
Anything.

Some rollercoaster are awful rides their constructions are marvelled at.

Think Deeper... IT may help you free that shackled mind of yours.
Click to expand...

No because you're now talking about observing a rollercoaster rather than using it.

You're wrong basically because using the rollercoaster for its intended purpose doesn't constitute as art, whereas watching a film does.
 
easyrider said:
Anything.

Some rollercoaster are awful rides their constructions are marvelled at.

Think Deeper... IT may help you free that shackled mind of yours.
Click to expand...

I will free my mind to the wonder of

Rollercosters!

I might start a project where I travel around the world riding every rollercoster ever built and become an avid reviewer of......rollercosters.

This has gone waaaaaaaaay too far...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom