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

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 21:55

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

Why not?

Who says?

Gustov · 14 Jan 2010 at 21:55

easyrider said:
"Some" films offer more than entertainment,

Others do not.

One is no less valid than the other

Thats the distinction.

Yet we enjoy them at different ends of the spectrum.

We might be getting somewhere here.

easyrider said:
Why not?

Who says?

Please don't start getting philosophical

Don't ask why :mad:

Chimerical · 14 Jan 2010 at 21:57

easyrider said:
Why not?

Who says?

Because that's the whole point of function. For the rollercoaster to be 'art' you have to not use it which goes against its purpose. It's pretty simple. That's why art monuments have no purpose other than to be observed.

Tummy · 14 Jan 2010 at 21:58

Gustov said:
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...

Don't be so daft then, I like you Gussy so this isn't personal, don't think it is.

I just don't get why you feel the need to point out that film is some how a better form of art then any other form of art? (doesn't matter what form of "art" we are talking about)

Tummy · 14 Jan 2010 at 21:59

Chimerical said:
Because that's the whole point of function. For the rollercoaster to be 'art' you have to not use it which goes against its purpose. It's pretty simple. That's why art monuments have no purpose other than to be observed.

Where does it say that art can't be functional?

Chimerical · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:00

Tummy said:
Don't be so daft then, I like you Gussy so this isn't personal, don't think it is.

I just don't get why you feel the need to point out that film is some how a better form of art then any other form of art? (doesn't matter what form of "art" we are talking about)

Then you simply disregard the word 'art' in its entirety if it can just be applied to anything. Paving stones are not art, they are there to be walked on. Practical function. People don't walk on a Picasso or roll it up to swot flies.

Tummy said:
Where does it say that art can't be functional?

Where has it ever said it can be? Like I said, name the practical function of film or music.

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:00

Chimerical said:
Because that's the whole point of function. For the rollercoaster to be 'art' you have to not use it which goes against its purpose. It's pretty simple. That's why art monuments have no purpose other than to be observed.

But buildings have function..

Churches are used for worship and yet these are deemed as priceless works of art.

So although you are very close you are not close enough.

Gustov · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:01

Tummy said:
.
I just don't get why you feel the need to point out that film is some how a better form of art then any other form of art? (doesn't matter what form of "art" we are talking about)

What!? I haven't said that once or even hinted at that? What is going on in your brain Tummy :confused:

Art is a term we could go on about for eternity...

It's all subjective. Which as I said before, makes art......well, art.

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:02

Gustov said:
Yet we enjoy them at different ends of the spectrum.

I can enjoy them at both ends of the spectrum.

You merely just accept one end as not being ART.

which in essence is BS

Chimerical · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:03

easyrider said:
But buildings have function..

Churches are used for worship and yet these are deemed as priceless works of art.

So although you are very close you are not close enough.

No they're not. The stained glass in them or the ornaments may be art but I'm not sure the buildings are classed as such. They're still places of worship (function) that are used as such.

Tummy · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:03

Chimerical said:
Then you simply disregard the word 'art' in its entirety if it can just be applied to anything. Paving stones are not art, they are there to be walked on. Practical function. People don't walk on a Picasso or roll it up to swot flies.

If picasso made paving stones I'd walk on them, providing they were on the floor that is, and not hung upside down in some wierd "arty" way.

Art can be anything, there is the potentional for anything to be art.

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:05

Chimerical said:
No they're not. The stained glass in them or the ornaments may be art but I'm not sure the buildings are classed as such. They're still places of worship (function) that are used as such.

That doesn't stop them from being deemed as art...

"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".

Gustov · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:06

easyrider said:
I can enjoy them at both ends of the spectrum.

You merely just accept one end as not being ART.

which in essence is BS

yep, that would be complete BS.

That's not what i think. I see them both as art, just a different form of art. I have my preferences over which form of art I like, that is all.

Chimerical · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:07

Tummy said:
If picasso made paving stones I'd walk on them, providing they were on the floor that is, and not hung upside down in some wierd "arty" way.

Art can be anything, there is the potentional for anything to be art.

If Picasso made paving stones to be walked on, it still wouldn't be art. You're missing the point.

You could use the canvas of a classical painting to make a small tent but by doing that you're applying function to something that was never meant to possess it. Art is PURELY observed. Buildings are not PURELY observed, they are lived in or used for practical reasons.

A painting sits on a wall and its looked at by people, that's all it does. Buildings and rollercoasters and tea mugs don't fit that category.

"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".

You're talking about architecture now. And that just proves the point anyway, the design of the buildings was done in a way to ellicit an emotional response. There you go, no practical purpose there. The fact that some church designs are considered to be art and my semi-detached house isn't is...wait for it...because my house is purely functional and was designed in such a way...

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:09

Gustov said:
yep, that would be complete BS.

That's not what i think. I see them both as art, just a different form of art. I have my preferences over which form of art I like, that is all.

Thats not what you said at the start

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:10

Chimerical said:
A painting sits on a wall and its looked at by people, that's all it does. Buildings and rollercoasters and tea mugs don't fit that category.

Yes they do

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.

Tummy · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:11

Chimerical said:
A painting sits on a wall and its looked at by people, that's all it does. Buildings and rollercoasters and tea mugs don't fit that category.

I'll be honest, I'm still missing how having a function some how makes it "un" arty?

Art can be anything, could be a really nice arty tea mug.

Kenai · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:15

What an epically pointless argument all because Gustov said he looks for something a bit deeper in his films than Avatar offers and easyrider took issue with that :/

easyrider · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:15

Chimerical said:
You're talking about architecture now. And that just proves the point anyway, the design of the buildings was done in a way to ellicit an emotional response. There you go, no practical purpose there. The fact that some church designs are considered to be art and my semi-detached house isn't is...wait for it...because my house is purely functional and was designed in such a way...

The church is functional as wll as being art.

Something can have function and still be art.

Chimerical · 14 Jan 2010 at 22:15

easyrider said:
Yes they do

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.

Key words you're not picking up on.