But since it’s an art form, we don’t need to worry about that.
Film as we know it is reaching an end.
Film as we are yet to now is just getting started – that’s the fun part.
It’s an art form. and digital is obviously the now and the future. For now.
intresting, not my thought .but peter greenaways, when i saw him during a q& a at the ica it was part of his answer to a question. but the statement created such debate there were no more questions . and its a thought that has stayed with me , enough for me to bore my friends and you people , who i think i should respect on mubi
there was a better answer contained in a different post,film is neither an art form or art movement but a business sad but true
No, Andrew, film is an art form subject to the corruptions of commerce. It’s not inherently “a business, sad but true.”
I’d say an art form but as in every medium theres always going to be certain currents which influence and push in new directions adding bits and pieces to the history of film.
Clearly the most contemporary instrument of storytelling reaching large audiences, preceded by literature and succeeded by something very exciting thats for sure….
I love that we’re having this discussion!
@andrew – commercialism clearly disrupts the creative landscape but not necessarily in a negative way (at least not exclusively). Although monetary reasons might be the death to good ideas, many get to live and see the light of day if it werent for the possibilty to actually monetize them in some way….
Most certainly art.
“film is an art form subject to the corruptions of commerce”
Sure, but there’s never been an art form that wasn’t subject to the corruptions of commerce.
I think the more fundamental question to ask is whether film is inherently intellectually inferior as an interest to poetry, philosophy, or any other discipline. I think that would solve all our problems, since all these quandaries about film’s status as an art form stem from a sense of intellectual inferiority on the part of cinephiles and other people heavily invested in cinema. It’s the sense of intellectual inferiority more than anything else that breeds these discussions. After all, there’s debate about whether philosophical treatises are works of art or not, but nobody would deny philosophy’s status as a credible intellectual interest.
@piscesrising – i think this inferiority stems almost exclusively from film being the youngest art form of them all as well as the most widely & most easily accessible (with the most visible works arguably among the intellectually least demanding) – things with a broad mass appeal have always been shunned throughout history, if you look at the difference in reputation between opera & operetta in its prime for example. Looking at film as a giant long fad, eventually those who truly appreciate the art form will remain (probably a couple generations down the line) and popular opinion will move on to the next thing.
“i think this inferiority stems almost exclusively from film being the youngest art form of them all as well as the most widely & most easily accessible”
I understand this, but I don’t think determining whether film is an art form or not is the most important issue. Rather, it must be determined and proven that filmmakers have just as much intellectual importance as philosophers or poets regardless of whether or not they’re considered artists. The important debate is on whether or not they deserve to have the same intellectual significance. That gets to the heart of the matter. Hypothetically, I think a filmmaker with an inferiority complex would be reassured were someone to tell him or her, “you’re not an artist in the same sense as Kafka, Balzac, or Rembrandt, but your work has as much intellectual and cultural significance as that of Kierkegaard.” Do you get my gist? I’m not saying film isn’t an art form. I’m just providing food for thought. One needs to see the forest for the trees. On a fundamental level, the inferiority complex stems more from a perceived sense of intellectual inferiority than from a concern about whether or not one is an artist. I have no problem with the notion that film is not an art form as long as its still considered to be as intellectually and culturally significant as philosophy.
Is an Eisenstein an artist? Are Sartre and de Beauvoir artists? Were Kierkegaard and Kant artists? Was Henry Miller an artist? Is Claude Lanzmann an artist? Does it matter?
How do you people come up with these inane topics all day with these ridiculous categories?
Staring into cups of coffee, mostly
Thought this argument had been settled in the 1920s….
Not a surprise. This seem to be the tone of the times, turning the clock back faster and faster. Out there are people who question if the Earth is flat and about whatever evolution is real. Oh well.
“On the course that we are moving, we will shortly return to the Germanic Holy Roman Empire….”
It’s an art form that became an art movement. =D
It was an art movement that became an art form.
She is my sister, she is my…. Ops. Nevermind.
Matt Parks, the strange coincidence is that I have been obsessed with that scene for the past week. I saw it on youtube and it immediately made me want to see the film (it’s up next in my Netflix).
I’m sure I will be hoodwinked, and the other 95% of the film will be people reading books aloud and re-enacting the Vietnam War.
Still, that scene is absolutely amazing. The whispering is so genuine.
andrew cruickshank
if its an art movement and art movements have time spans is film reaching the end