Martin Scorsese says Marvel movies are "not cinema"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Shock and dismay flashed across my features.  

I've run into those folks. When pressed they seem to be channeling Stan Lee as the only one who could tell the difference.

---

So, marketed to adults with more disposable income but no better idea of how they differ except for price.

Yar, I was agreeing.  There's really no difference beyond marketing.

Boru

I didn't disagree with you agreeing. I was musing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yar, I was agreeing.  There's really no difference beyond marketing.

Boru

I didn't disagree with you agreeing. I was musing.

Far be it from me to disagree with the musings of someone isn't disagreeing with my agreement. 

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I didn't disagree with you agreeing. I was musing.

Far be it from me to disagree with the musings of someone isn't disagreeing with my agreement. 

Boru

Shall we agree to discombobulate then?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Far be it from me to disagree with the musings of someone isn't disagreeing with my agreement. 

Boru

Shall we agree to discombobulate then?

Discomboluatory status achieved.  

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As early as 1966.

[Alan V]

These days, I am more inclined to define efforts as "art" in accordance with their methods rather than their content.  Art is about applying attention to attract attention from others.  That is done through a variety of methods, including the display of talent, spectacle, action, emotion, color, contrast, texture, story-telling, empathy, and so on.  Whether something succeeds as art is measured by the attention it attracts, including long-term attention.  That's why it's so hard to judge art in the present, but much easier from the past.  Better quality art gets sorted out over time by what people continue to find interesting.

Well, I don't think we can judge a piece of art's quality by how popular it gets.

But that, I think, is exactly how we do judge what is good art. It's a matter of what is popular with the people we most respect, by the criteria they teach us.

Of course we also try to understand why they consider some works to be better art, and many times we agree even while we may disagree about other works.

Personally, I've been studying the fine arts and especially painting for going on fifty years, and I agree with perhaps half of what the experts say is good art. Much of what is called good art I think is nonsense, but still that 50% is a good percentage of agreement considering how diverse the arts are.

[EgoDeath]

When and where did I say they shouldn't share their opinions? Great honk, they can share their opinions from now til the heat death of the universe for all of me.

Boru

I agree.

Shock and dismay flashed across my features.

I've run into those folks. When pressed they seem to be channeling Stan Lee as the only one who could tell the difference.

Stan Lee be upon you. And also on you.

But that, I think, is exactly how we do judge what is good art. It's a matter of what is popular with the people we most respect, by the criteria they teach us.

Of course we also try to understand why they consider some works to be better art, and many times we agree even while we may disagree about other works.

Personally, I've been studying the fine arts and especially painting for going on fifty years, and I agree with perhaps half of what the experts say is good art. Much of what is called good art I think is nonsense, but still that 50% is a good percentage of agreement considering how diverse the arts are.

Except that works of art that are popular are not always popular because of people naturally liking them. Especially in the world of painting, a lot of what becomes popular has to do with important collectors and critics and what they decide is "quality art."

[Alan V]

But that, I think, is exactly how we do judge what is good art.  It's a matter of what is popular with the people we most respect, by the criteria they teach us.

Of course we also try to understand why they consider some works to be better art, and many times we agree even while we may disagree about other works.

Personally, I've been studying the fine arts and especially painting for going on fifty years, and I agree with perhaps half of what the experts say is good art.  Much of what is called good art I think is nonsense, but still that 50% is a good percentage of agreement considering how diverse the arts are.

Except that works of art that are popular are not always popular because of people naturally liking them. Especially in the world of painting, a lot of what becomes popular has to do with important collectors and critics and what they decide is "quality art."

Isn't that similar to what I said? The experts teach us to see why the art they favor is superior in whatever ways.

I guess your point is that if good art was based on straight popularity, there would be no need for the middle men of experts. But that's why what is considered good art becomes clearer over time.

[EgoDeath]

Isn't that similar to what I said?  The experts teach us to see why the art they favor is superior in whatever ways.  

I guess your point is that if good art was based on straight popularity, there would be no need for the middle men of experts.  But that's why what is considered good art becomes clearer over time.

My problem is with how easily these critics and important figures can be manipulated. The contemporary art movement, for example, is a total joke. I saw one piece that was simply a canvas that was painted red - that sold for something like 40 million dollars.

The question of who gets to decide what quality art is is a good question... and it's not one I pretend to have the answer to. But I think we can definitely decide what art is not. And painting a canvas red and selling it for $40 million is not art. And if someone argues that it is, I have some beachfront property in Idaho to sell them.

[Alan V]

My problem is with how easily these critics and important figures can be manipulated. The contemporary art movement, for example, is a total joke. I saw one piece that was simply a canvas that was painted red - that sold for something like 40 million dollars.

The question of who gets to decide what quality art is is a good question... and it's not one I pretend to have the answer to. But I think we can definitely decide what art is not. And painting a canvas red and selling it for $40 million is not art. And if someone argues that it is, I have some beachfront property in Idaho to sell them.

Yes, I certainly agree. But I see very little chance that such a painting will still be considered worth anything in the long run. In the long-term, even the critics get sorted out.

In the case of abstract expressionism, skilled artists created many decorative works which will stand the test of time. However, they were over-emphasized, as is so often the case with some trends.

I personally think Andrew Wyeth's work will achieve a much higher standing with time. He was a truly remarkable portrait painter for instance.