World Trade Center

[bjorn_skurj]

How much did JFK cost? Hold on ... budgeted at $40 million, made that many times over. Forgive me for being deeply suspicious, but I suspect that those who pay for movies like WTC and JFK are hoping they hit a home run by plugging into some aspect of the zeitgeist like JFK did at the time.

[Beltmann]

How much did JFK cost? Hold on ... budgeted at $40 million, made that many times over. Forgive me for being deeply suspicious, but I suspect that those who pay for movies like WTC and JFK are hoping they hit a home run by plugging into some aspect of the zeitgeist like JFK did at the time.

Sure, of course... which is why WTC got the greenlight instead of a more controversial take on the subject: The zeitgeist right now is only ready for a movie that takes few chances, which gives the studio the best chance at recuperating their investment and maybe turning a nice profit. I mean, you could argue that WTC pretty much turns a blind eye to the dire consequences that have resulted from the kind of rah-rah jingoism it celebrates. It's true that Hollywood financed JFK, but that kind of money isn't going into that kind of 9/11 film any time soon. After 30 years have passed, maybe the zeitgeist will be ready for a version closer in spirit to JFK, much like it was finally prepared for JFK in 1991 (as opposed to five years after the assassination). Until the domestic market is "safe" for prickly takes on the subject, I think the risky 9/11 films are largely going to come from outside Hollywood. (And they've been coming for years already.)

[bjorn_skurj]

Why Oliver Stone, though? Couldn't any number of directors make a by-the-numbers 9/11 flick? I realize that not all of his movies are as insane as Natural Born Killers, but if this film isn't that complex or challenging, why'd they tap Stone? Marketing? He owed somebody a favor?

[Beltmann]

Why Oliver Stone, though? Couldn't any number of directors make a by-the-numbers 9/11 flick? I realize that not all of his movies are as insane as Natural Born Killers, but if this film isn't that complex or challenging, why'd they tap Stone? Marketing? He owed somebody a favor?

I'd guess that Oliver Stone is not a particularly strong marketing point for the flagwaving audience this movie courts. He's probably more of a liability.

 

If his interviews are to be believed, they didn't tap him, he asked for the gig. Apparently he read and loved the script. The studio was hesitant at first, but he persuaded them he wasn't interested in veering from the script and into "Stone" mode.

 

It definitely seems like an odd choice for him to make, but by all accounts he appears to have believed in this project as is. (Plus, I'm sure he recognized that after Alexander, such a film could help resuscitate his career, both critically and especially commercially. That's not to say I think Stone necessarily muzzled his own artistic impulses.)

 

Side question: When was the last time Stone directed a film he didn't help write? Was it U-Turn?

[MattZ]

Who said anything about art?

 

I wasnt trying to make an argument about whether this was art or not... thats a slippery slope that has been discussed here ad nauseum. For the record, I do think this is art -- and my prior post incorrectly suggests that it isnt -- I only meant that its cheap art.

 

The point I tried to make was that it is cheap and I have no interest in seeing a movie that recreates the bldgs collapsing in surround sound with surely to be nominated for an Oscar special effects. As if this is Star Wars revisited. And I acknowledge that my base instinct relates to the fact that my grandfather worked for 20 years in those bldgs and retired 2 yrs before they came down, and I worked for a summer in those bldgs, a mere 12 months before they came down.

 

Maybe part of my problem is also the unavoidable fact that I will be surrounded in the theatre by cell phones, popcorn and people whispering "what did he say?????". And that removes the issue from the filmmaker on a certain level. Maybe when this comes out on DVD, I can rent it and have a quiet night at home trying to gain a different kind of insight on that day. If I can, then maybe Oliver Stone achieves his objective after all, and maybe the art isnt cheap at all. Maybe it will be cathartic in some sense for me when I can finally watch it.

 

Either way, this is not an objective issue or an objective discussion -- it never could be. Its purely subjective on every level. I dont think my thoughts are, or frankly, even need to be logical. I am only giving my opinion which no one asked for...

[Dude]

Wouldn't giving that glimpse qualify as one possible function of art? To me, narrative is a kind of art, especially when filtered through the POV of the filmmakers, since it carries their personal imprint of what this story ought to look, sound, and feel like. This same story told by another crew, led by another director, would probably be a very different movie.

 

Isn't straight-up narrative craft, not art? If Stone offers a lifeless retelling of a story, he's no more of an artist than Thomas Kinkade.

[MattZ]

Isn't straight-up narrative craft, not art? If Stone offers a lifeless retelling of a story, he's no more of an artist than Thomas Kinkade.

 

Can't a straight-up narrative in the form of a documentary be art? Not trying to argue on behalf of Beltmann, but ...

 

If its a lifeless retelling, as you put it, I would think that makes it bad art, but art nonetheless.

[Dude]

Can't a straight-up narrative in the form of a documentary be art? Not trying to argue on behalf of Beltmann, but ...

 

If its a lifeless retelling, as you put it, I would think that makes it bad art, but art nonetheless.

Good craft isn't bad art. It's good craft. Do you not see the difference between craft and art?

[embiggen]

Side question: When was the last time Stone directed a film he didn't help write? Was it U-Turn?

 

I dunno, but I walked out of that movie. terrible!

[MattZ]

Good craft isn't bad art. It's good craft. Do you not see the difference between craft and art?

 

I am no student of art in any sense. And I have no idea who Thomas Kinkade is. What's the difference between craft and art?

[EL the Famous]

What's the difference between craft and art?

 

As the defintion of both is completely subjective, i'm interested to hear the answer to that question as well.

[Spawn's dad]

craft is done by amateurs and kids, and art is declared by the self important?

[Beltmann]

Do you not see the difference between craft and art?

I think there is a difference between those terms, but also that they are not mutually exclusive. But we've already been down this path a few times too many.

 

Flick, I agree about U-Turn... definitely one of Stone's worst movies, in my opinion.

[Dude]

I am no student of art in any sense. And I have no idea who Thomas Kinkade is. What's the difference between craft and art?

Google him. He's a pretty popular painter who does "scenery" paintings. Many of Kinkade's paintings are completely indistinguishable from other painters of the same genre. They're meticulous in detail but they lack any humanity to them which would make them works of art. And while you could argue that he's a bad artist, I think it's more correct to say he's a great craftsman.

 

Craft is all about mastery of skill. Hitchcock was a craftsman for much of his career - excellent thriller director - who rose to the level of artist, mostly due to the fact that he inevitably gained complete control over his works and his personality and quirks and psyche shone through.

 

By today's standards, a Michael Bay is a good example of a pretty good craftsman. Saying he's a bad artist seems moot because he isn't even trying to create art - he's trying to craft pieces of entertainment.

[MattZ]

Google him. He's a pretty popular painter who does "scenery" paintings. Many of Kinkade's paintings are completely indistinguishable from other painters of the same genre. They're meticulous in detail but they lack any humanity to them which would make them works of art. And while you could argue that he's a bad artist, I think it's more correct to say he's a great craftsman.

 

Craft is all about mastery of skill. Hitchcock was a craftsman for much of his career - excellent thriller director - who rose to the level of artist, mostly due to the fact that he inevitably gained complete control over his works and his personality and quirks and psyche shone through.

 

By today's standards, a Michael Bay is a good example of a pretty good craftsman. Saying he's a bad artist seems moot because he isn't even trying to create art - he's trying to craft pieces of entertainment.

 

I think Kenny G and Steve Vai suck. And I suppose based on your definition above, you'd say that they are crafstmen and not artists. But that seems fishy to me. It just seems like another subjective box you are putting art into. Pretty arbitrarily actually. I dont see "technique with no feeling" as any lesser of an art form on any level other than a subjective one. Plenty of people think Kenny G is an artist.

 

Just because Kenny G plays on constant repeat in my own personal hell, doesnt make him a craftsman as opposed to artist. It makes him a shitty artist.

 

Sorry, not trying to hijack this thread or start a whole discussion about what art is -- we've done that many times.

[EL the Famous]

Google him. He's a pretty popular painter who does "scenery" paintings. Many of Kinkade's paintings are completely indistinguishable from other painters of the same genre. They're meticulous in detail but they lack any humanity to them which would make them works of art. And while you could argue that he's a bad artist, I think it's more correct to say he's a great craftsman.

 

Craft is all about mastery of skill. Hitchcock was a craftsman for much of his career - excellent thriller director - who rose to the level of artist, mostly due to the fact that he inevitably gained complete control over his works and his personality and quirks and psyche shone through.

 

By today's standards, a Michael Bay is a good example of a pretty good craftsman. Saying he's a bad artist seems moot because he isn't even trying to create art - he's trying to craft pieces of entertainment.

 

I undertand where your coming from, but (as much as I hate going to the dictionary) the 'definition' of art is the 'human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature' and the definiton of craft is pratically synonymous w/ art ('skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency. See Synonyms at art'). Personally, I think that both are too hard to ascribe a concrete defintion to due to the whole 'eye of the beholder' thing that we've beat to death on here time and time again. If anything, like Beltman said, they're too intertwined to be mutually exclusive.

 

The opening scene to Saving Private Ryan blew my mind and the way that that moment was interpreted was what I define as art...but somebody else could chalk up to nothing more than well-done special effects. I find it hard to argue gainst that POV even though it differs from mine, because it's just as accurate of a statement. I haven't seen this flick yet, but the recreation/interpretation of it would have to be an integral part of the story (as lacking as it may be), IMO.

 

Matt...this is one of those long-running VC debates w/ no end in sight.

[Dude]

I think Kenny G and Steve Vai suck. And I suppose based on your definition above, you'd say that they are crafstmen and not artists. But that seems fishy to me. It just seems like another subjective box you are putting art into. Pretty arbitrarily actually. I dont see "technique with no feeling" as any lesser of an art form on any level other than a subjective one. Plenty of people think Kenny G is an artist.

 

Well, it's not just me. A hell of a lot has been written on craft and art by writers and philosophers going back to the ancient Greeks. When you get into defining ANYTHING, you get into "fishy" waters, as language itself is slippery in nature. And there are some who would apply the label of "art" to anything under the sun.

 

However, saying Kenny G sucks gets into your own subjective view of the quality of what Kenny G is doing. But Kenny G is a damn good saxophone player whether or not you personally like what he does. You can hate the style of his music, but few would argue he's a shitty musician who isn't skilled on his instrument. The quality of his "art" is totally up to your subjective interpretation.

 

Just because Kenny G plays on constant repeat in my own personal hell, doesnt make him a craftsman as opposed to artist. It makes him a shitty artist.

 

Again, this is your subjective view, yes? I don't see why saying Kenny G is a shitty artist is any better or worse than saying he's a great musician.

 

Sorry, not trying to hijack this thread or start a whole discussion about what art is -- we've done that many times.

 

True. But I find it interesting when these discussions come up that it comes down to the individual's definitions of various things. I also find it interesting that Craft vs. Art isn't something that came up in your english / philosophy classes.

[Dude]

I undertand where your coming from, but (as much as I hate going to the dictionary) the 'definition' of art is the 'human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature' and the definiton of craft is pratically synonymous w/ art ('skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency. See Synonyms at art'). Personally, I think that both are too hard to ascribe a concrete defintion to due to the whole 'eye of the beholder' thing that we've beat to death on here time and time again. If anything, like Beltman said, they're too intertwined to be mutually exclusive.

 

I never said they were mutually exclusive - you can have finely crafted works that aren't really art, and great art that shows little craftsmanship. However, I really don't see why categorizing works according to whether they are art or craft or commerce or fill in the blank is any worse than saying Oliver Stone or Michael Bay or Kenny G are shitty artists.

[MattZ]

However, saying Kenny G sucks gets into your own subjective view of the quality of what Kenny G is doing. But Kenny G is a damn good saxophone player whether or not you personally like what he does. You can hate the style of his music, but few would argue he's a shitty musician who isn't skilled on his instrument. The quality of his "art" is totally up to your subjective interpretation.

 

Except thats sort of my point -- it seems like you are doing the same thing as me (and thats why I used those examples)... This is all subjective. But isn't your defintion of craft really just art that you dont like (because it doesnt have feeling)?

 

Why does something have to have feeling to be considered art? If something doesnt have feeling, I always considered it bad art, but not something other than art. Or, I should say, before I knew there was a difference that's what I would have said. In other words, art without feeling (e.g., vai, kenny g, etc.) is just art that I dont like -- but not that it is something other than art.

 

EDIT: Would you say Kenny G creates craft or art?

Edited August 15, 2006 by MattZ

[EL the Famous]

I really don't see why categorizing works according to whether they are art or craft or commerce or fill in the blank is any worse than saying Oliver Stone or Michael Bay or Kenny G are shitty artists.

 

It isn't and I never said it was. It's all personal opinion...that's what i've been saying all along.

[Sir Stewart]

So this thread is another What Is Art? discussion!?

[MattZ]

So this thread is another What Is Art? discussion!?

 

I take the blame for it. But in fairness, I think its a What Is Craft? discussion.

[EL the Famous]

So this thread is another What Is Art? discussion!?

 

or, conversely, What is Craft? ARTS & CRAFTS.

[cryptique]

I undertand where your coming from, but (as much as I hate going to the dictionary) the 'definition' of art is the 'human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature' and the definiton of craft is pratically synonymous w/ art ('skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency. See Synonyms at art'). Personally, I think that both are too hard to ascribe a concrete defintion to due to the whole 'eye of the beholder' thing that we've beat to death on here time and time again. If anything, like Beltman said, they're too intertwined to be mutually exclusive.

To me, craft is a component of art, along with inspiration: craft + inspiration = art

 

In my opinion, you can be a tremendously skilled craftsman, but if all you do is build really solid but stylistically boring pieces of furniture all day, it'd be difficult to consider you an artist.

 

On the other hand, if your inspiration enables you to build beautiful furniture, pieces that move people, you are an artist.

 

Substitute "music" or "sculpture" or some other medium for "furniture," if need be.

 

I think art requires a certain level of craftsmanship, but not necessarily an expert level. If your inspiration can make up for what you're lacking in craftsmanship, I say you're still an artist (look at the Ramones). The best artists, typically, are both master craftsmen and brimming over with inspiration. Either way, the inspiration's got to be there.

 

Of course, we could probably come up with seventeen different ideas about what constitutes "inspiration," but that's a whole 'nother topic.

[EL the Famous]

In my opinion, you can be a tremendously skilled craftsman, but if all you do is build really solid but stylistically boring pieces of furniture all day, it'd be difficult to consider you an artist.

 

On the other hand, if your inspiration enables you to build beautiful furniture, pieces that move people, you are an artist.

 

The flaw in that rationale is your defintion of boring and/or beautiful versus someone else's.