Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Do I ever consume art simply to "escape," and do I every do anything that gives me that warm and fuzzy (but essentially hollow) feeling that nostalgia brings? Certainly, and I think anyone who says they don't is being disingenuous. But I think in moderation it can be fine, and as long as you never turn off your bullshit detector--always being on the lookout for poisonous ideas, that is--because just like junk food, that rush can feel good, but if that's the only thing that you bring in, you're going to wear down the parts of your mind that keep you alive and vibrant.

Yeah, this is basically where I'm at, too.

You guys are right, I'm such a liar lol

wat

I thought I was agreeing with you, not calling you a liar.

I was referring to the "disingenuous" comment.

But anyway, I would like to add that in addition to always keeping an engaged "bullshit detector," it's just as important to remain open and perceptive to insightful ideas in all kinds of movies, even if you go in looking for escapism.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was referring to the "disingenuous" comment.

But anyway, I would like to add that in addition to always keeping an engaged "bullshit detector," it's just as important to remain open and perceptive to insightful ideas in all kinds of movies, even if you go in looking for escapism.

Oh. Yeah, I wasn't agreeing with that part. I can't pretend to tell another person what they're thinking/feeling/experiencing in regards to all that.

I just meant that in terms of our own personal philosophies about consuming art, you, ST and I are pretty much in agreement. Obviously, I just have a higher tolerance for escapism and think there can be validity in that and nostalgia.

Also, I agree with your post above, too. And I find I enjoy those surprise moments of insight when I'm not looking for them, or I'm watching something that I expect to be without.

I guess I just think if a filmmaker's primary purpose in making a given film is "to entertain" or "to help the audience escape to somewhere beyond their own reality" it's just valid as "to hold a mirror up to mankind" or "to ask impossible questions that we nevertheless attempt to answer."

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was referring to the "disingenuous" comment.

Didn't mean it like that! I don't think you've ever claimed that you never consume entertainment for fun, but being in the academy, I run across those people all the time, so it was more directed at that general attitude. In all seriousness, you fall more into the second category of people I described--your explanations for why you find value in some of the most disliked films/shows/music on the board are usually met with gruff laughs, but I usually find your explanations consistent and reasonable. I've said before that you'd make a good academic, and I stand by it.

durdencommatyler wrote:I guess I just think if a filmmaker's primary purpose in making a given film is "to entertain" or "to help the audience escape to somewhere beyond their own reality" it's just valid as "to hold a mirror up to mankind" or "to ask impossible questions that we nevertheless attempt to answer."

These things aren't mutually exclusive, though. "Entertainment" is not synonymous with "escapism."

Simple Torture wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was referring to the "disingenuous" comment.

Didn't mean it like that! I don't think you've ever claimed that you never consume entertainment for fun, but being in the academy, I run across those people all the time, so it was more directed at that general attitude. In all seriousness, you fall more into the second category of people I described--your explanations for why you find value in some of the most disliked films/shows/music on the board are usually met with gruff laughs, but I usually find your explanations consistent and reasonable. I've said before that you'd make a good academic, and I stand by it.

Thanks, ST!

Liar.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I guess I just think if a filmmaker's primary purpose in making a given film is "to entertain" or "to help the audience escape to somewhere beyond their own reality" it's just valid as "to hold a mirror up to mankind" or "to ask impossible questions that we nevertheless attempt to answer."

These things aren't mutually exclusive, though. "Entertainment" is not synonymous with "escapism."

I never meant to imply otherwise.

When ruddo splits this discussion off into a thread called "The Use and Value of Art," can we all agree to rebel?

I'd gladly embrace a thread where we can have these sorts of discussions without pissing off Skitch.

durdencommatyler wrote:I'd gladly embrace a thread where we can have these sorts of discussions without pissing off Skitch.

Oooo but we could talk about Polanski; that would get him going.

Simple Torture wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I'd gladly embrace a thread where we can have these sorts of discussions without pissing off Skitch.

Oooo but we could talk about Polanski; that would get him going.

Do you think if we made this thread and called it "HEY SKITCH DON'T LOOK IN HERE IT'LL JUST PISS YOU OFF" he'd actually click on it and give it a good read?

Lol

Burt

Sorry Skitch...


We are having this conversation running through star wars and super hero movies threads, so clearly we’re all comfortable with a minimal level of substance. As long as a movie doesn’t make us feel dumber for having watched it we’re probably okay with that—even you, LV.

Ideally art sometimes makes people think and challenge the world around them (though it's not the only purpose). Ideally people who talk about politics are not only informed about the facts of an issue, but possesses a coherent set of ideological convictions that are both internally consistent and actually describe the world we live in with some semblance of accuracy. Unfortunately most of us are too busy living our lives to develop that. I’m fortunate enough to think I have this (for politics at least), but I’m also lucky enough to make my living having to think and talk and write about politics professionally. Not everyone has that luxury. Likewise, most of us interact with art because we want to be entertained—because life is hard and challenging and finding a way to turn off and disengage for a few hours is pleasurable. And that’s something to be applauded—it’s a small pleasure that helps make life worth living.

But even if you subscribe solely to a more rigorous set of expectations for art (and again, let’s look at the thread this conversation is taking place in and dial back our heroic sense of intellectual purity) it’s worth remembering that many artists who try and talk about big ideas often get those things wrong and people might be better off having not learned something from them—bring wrong in an artful way doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong. But even if all art (or ‘real’ art) manages to teach people something about how the world works, simply knowing how things work is a recipe for cynicism and paralysis unless you ALSO think that things can change. This requires a certain degree of optimism about the human condition and a belief in our capacity to transform ourselves. Things that can take us back to our youthful idealism, that make us feel a bit better about the world, that help us imagine the impossible—this becomes as much a part of the story as the sophisticated intellectual critique of reality. Each needs the other to get anywhere.

And looking backwards is not always nostalgia, at least not in the pejorative sense it’s being used by many in this thread. There’s nothing harmful about finding something that’s comfortable and familiar, especially if all you want is the chance to relax and recharge. It’s easier, and relaxation should be easy. If that’s ALL you do you’ve lost something, but it’s still a healthy part of a balanced existence. Childhood nostalgia is not an ideology if it is a comfort for familiar symbols as long as those symbols do not in themselves have a harmful political meaning. There’s a big difference between yearning for a 1950s (or 1980s) golden age, and enjoying reconnecting with a set of characters you once cared about.

And for that matter, nostalgia is also enduring relationships and the desire for anchors in a world that doesn't have many. We are attracted to things we once knew because we care about them and we welcome the chance to continue to have them as a part of our lives. It’s why we don’t all get divorced every 5-10 years. Exposure to new things has value, but the capacity to build a meaningful bond also helps ensure we’re not all sociopaths. It’s helpful to have both in your life.

And as McP mentioned earlier, for MANY people Star Wars is a part of their identity. These characters were the ones that helped us understand good and evil, heroism and cowardice, loyalty and sacrifice. It’s where we learned how to use our imagination. For about two generations it’s a foundational myth, our equivalent of the Illiad and Odyssey. And those myths were severely compromised. Not by the merchandising or the toys or the commercialism. That was always there and we separated them from the stories themselves. It was the prequels that were the problem. So a new Star Wars movie, one that looks like it may have the ability to repair the damage done by the prequels, that’s a BIG deal. It’s a recovery, a purification, a restoration of something innocent insofar as it was foundational—the base that all the baggage gets piled on top of. And being able to refresh that is about more than nostalgia or escapism. It is, in a small but meaningful way, a reaffirmation of our better selves. And that transcends entertainment (I’m more into the MCU right now than I am Star Wars but the MCU will never have the roots of star wars), and it transcends the petty minutia and bickering of nerd culture, and it transcends the marketing and the products and all the rest.

If Star Wars was not a part of your upbringing then you may not feel this. But you should be able to understand and appreciate WHY it has the impact it does for some people.

stip wrote:Let's list all the things vader actually accomplishes in the original trilogy that does not include:

A: murdering his employees
B: throwing distracted old men off of balconies
C: kept his armor clean

anything else for this list?

IM SO MAD

What is art?

BurtReynolds wrote:What is art?

YOURE ART. STUPID ART.