Flasher: you got me all confused. Do you agree with me or disagree? If you want me to get the point, use short simple words from on ok?
I was not trying to express it in dollards an cents. And believe me, I have spent a good while thinking, trying to define art, and arguiing with my parents who happen to like Picasso and David Lynch. I am not just a hick who has never seen art or read philosophy (I have never read much philosphy, but I have spent huge amounts of time thinking about it, and in my opinion thats just as good), and tries to speak about it.
I have come to the conclusion that to be art, something must be:
-If its a visual art, it must be beautiful to behold.
-It must require a level of talent to make that is beyond ordinary people
-It must have a message (some of it doesnt, but mostly it does)
-More (or less) to come, as I ponder some more
What I see when I look at for example Mulholland Drive, is something that almost certainly does not truly have a message, but was only driven to appeal to people who consider themselves above the intelect of normal people, and to play into their feelings of a "smart" movie. Or if it did have a message intended, it was obscured by some many strange plot details, and it was made intentionally hard to figure out. Why? Is there something less intelectual, or less artistic is displaying the message clearly?
In modern art, there are many examples of pieces thar are considered remarkable and legendary, that I could myself produce easily. Does then, the name brand matter, like for shoes? Is the painting itself not important, but rather the person? If that is the case, then my point is proven. Anyone can claim that 3 red dots a white background represents the eternal suffering of man, but c'mon...do you believe them? Please explain to me, how it making a very long wall made of pink plastic, across a barren countryside art?
____________________________________________
I'll give you two examples to examine.
1. Visual: The guy who did the red, yellow and blue boxes (I dont wanna go look at an art book right now) vs Joe Madureira. One picture, is several boxes, simple rectangles, of varying colours...thats it. The second, if you are not familiar, is a comic book artist, who's style is very cool and (until everyone started copying him) very unique. His drawings express great emotion, and are simply cool to look at. When he has had the opportunity to create characters himself, they have turned out unique, interesting and simply cool.("Low brow idiot, cool isnt important" I hear you say) Tell me then, who is the artist?
2. Movie: Mulholland Drive vs Fight Club. One, if it even exists, hides the message behind so many stange events, that it is hard to even understand the message, much less agree or disagree. However, I think that it is simply an "artsy" movie (I can just see your hick detector going of the scale for using that term), which simply tries to present that a series of starnge events are very profound and appeals to people who think of themselves as being intelectuals, and therefor they are above the normal people because they can "interpret" complex art. And the other, Fight Club, is a film who's message is both profound and easy to understand from watching the movie. it also has a different message based on the viewer, and does a very good job of presenting and satirizing modern culure. It really makes you think, and examines the human being and the cuture he creates. Which one of these is more artistic, and why?
Why then, is a comic book, however profound and well drawn, not considered art (by most people), but a few coloured boxes on a white background is? Try to exmaplin it using logic and reason, instead of just falling back on tradtition of what is art and what isnt..
edit: my bad spelling doesnt disqualify my opinion...I'm just a bad speller when writing in a hurry, and dont really see the oint in fixing it up afterwards, as long as you get my point..
