Oceania This may be a dry topic, but...

Well, obviously those people I hired to do the job scarpered off with my money...damn.

 

Well, keep trying, at least this thread hasn't had every person on the forums drive it off topic in a race to be the first to politically correct someone.

Btw, the age old question, "What came first"? The answer, much to the chicken's dissapointment, was the Rooster...

 

Yeeaaah... Why bother trying to encourage something as self-serving as tolerance and understanding right?



Sorry bout that Deto, I'll try to redeem myself matey.
Back on point we go...

My take on Art is that it's essentially, about the human capacity for passion. I share Johnnage's sentiments that we end up doing whatever we feel like, rather than ruminating over some grand contrivance. I do believe though, that not everything is Art. People have to be able to relate to what is being presented. I could roll in a paddock full of cow manure, and then plonk myself in a gallery - explain that I represent how society has been sullied by progress, and that can pass for Art in some circles. My problem with this is, if you were to take away the explanations. All you'd have is a man in real need of soap and water.

But hey, some people juggle geese...

 

Not saying you shouldn't, but it's tiresome when it consumes the whole thread and everyone posting in it is the one trying to get the final dig in.

 

Fair enough SM, it probably seemed like that...
Good intentions can sometimes come off a little 'high and mighty'.
It's just I hadn't seen that kinda attitude on the Oceania for a while.

 

Speaking of attitudes and art ( ), how an artist projects them self into their work and to the outside world can be very interesting, and I believe can have an affect on how their art reaches the audience...

If you look at a writer like Joss Whedon - broadly speaking, he is a geek, writes for geeks and does geeky things, right? He comes across as laid back, interesting and funny, as does his work. His appeal is that he is 'one of us' to his fans. His work reflects the type of people who like it, or who are meant to like it.

Malcolm McDowell - slightly deviant, intense and rather cheeky guy who is a working actor, in it to make money doing what he likes. His work and choices of roles reflect that need to act and the desire to actually make money from it, rather than prestige that comes from being a bit more selective with his jobs. He doesn't shy away from it, and has said in a few interviews that he doesn't care that he's a **** on the screen, because he's just doing his job. His stuff appeals broadly but can be associated with certain types of movie goers - cult movies, c-grade horror and

Stanley Kubrik - known as a complete bastard, eccentric but made movies of cultural importance. (okay, thats my opinion sneaking in there, so dismiss if needed) He made films that challenged people and films that just downright replused them (Tom Cruise's acting in Eyes Wide Shut for example ). While widely accepted as a 'great' director, his works are sometimes seen as the choice of 'film connoisseurs' - they might not appeal to the masses, but gosh, you can talk crap about them no end, right?

John Bell - Shakespearean actor and director. He does the big productions, he drags the bard through hell and high water and comes up with 'retellings' or resets the play and keeps the plot. He redresses the plays in his company, and manages to make it so we are seeing the same stuff over and over, but we just don't think thats it. Theatre world loves him because he shows you can make money without it being a musical. He is seen by the public as revolutionary and making the sometimes 'thick' plays accessable.

So these people, and others, make art. Their art gives us a certain view of them, or so we think. This in turn means that certain people will like their work, which means that their audience - which provides them with money/support/experience/whatever - defines how they are marketed, which then somewhat dictates the kind of work they produce...

True? Ideas?

 

I agree, we also have people like...George Lucas. He says he sees art in a kind of fog and it's up for him to interpret that.
Yet then again, there's nothing GL likes better than to pick up his brushes ans fiddle with the canvas, much to the displeasure of people like us.
NOOO GEORGE! LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!

Yet this isn't just the case with him, I've often had it myself as artists are never satisfied.
That being said, sometimes changing your work is the worst thing you can ever do. The perfect example is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's ressurection of Sherlock Holmes.