Sunday, November 16, 2008

Question for the class, Film Production, Distribution, and Exhibition

Matthew Wright asks this question of the class, taken from his reading response to chapter one of Film Art.

Do movies that are treated like a product really qualify as fine art?

8 comments:

Erin W. said...

As a film maker, I say no. If something is made for the sake of money, marketing, or simply making a Spiderman 15 so that a company can sell dolls at Christmas, it becomes a bastardization of art. Fine art is subjective but I will never think of Batman as fine art. The Tim Burton ones were awesome, but still not art.

Erin Wilkinson

Sanjana said...

Movies as products should not be allowed to qualify as fine art at all. I'm sick of all these movies that come out with a million parts just to make money. I'm sorry to say that I'm not the biggest fan of Star Wars because of it. When I think about Fine Art films I think about artists who enjoy the thought of letting the viewer experience a film in oppose to just watching it and not getting anything out of it.

Christie Hougham said...

I believe that movies that are created for alternative purposes like for means of making money through the products that they will sell to promote a movie or vice versa is not fine art. A film or movie that is created as fine art should not have any alterior motives that lean toward product or financial gain.

adturner said...

Wow so OK the first question is how do you define fine art. The purpose of any movie today is to make money. Think back to the Renaissance, artist were commissioned by a patron to paint sculpt... for money, and now those piece are considered fine art. Many artist work on a film, there are set designers, matte painters, cinematographers, and costume designers. Now i know that the umpteenth version of any movie gets ridiculous, but that is what the public wants. Art is what the artist sees and how it makes the viewer feel. So what you think is junk may be fine art to another.

meghan. said...

Do movies that are treated like a product really qualify as fine art?

I think it depends on who is treating like a product. If it is being produced for the purpose of only to make money, then I would probably say no.
If a film becomes really popular, like pan's labyrinth, for example, I don't think that makes it not art.

But I also think it depends on your definition of fine art. I highly dislike the term fine art.

DK said...

I believe that the quality of the film determines its artistic appeal. It's sleazy to just make a film to make money, but if the film is good I don't care one way or the other. Some films that are considered high art should not be in my opinion, and they are created for that purpose. So to me anything could be considered high art as long as it is of good quality.

Derek Klayum

nate watters said...

Moot point i guess, but my two cents is that art is something created by someone to fulfill some sort of intrinsic need. When art is made for the entertainment of others or made to conform to what others may want to see, it loses it's value and importance. Good art is art that means something to the artist and if the audience can somehow relate to, connect to, or understand it, then it becomes that much more valuable. So in this sense my answer to the question is no. But then again, by this definition, who is anyone but the artist (filmmaker) to say what fine art is?

Racheal Johnson said...

As you look back through the readings that were assigned in class, you find that "high art" or "fine art" was defined as something that would gather a large price tag, something that was made for the higher end of society to purchase. By this definition, these blockbuster movies would be considered high art. My perception of the early film makers was that they were a narcissistic group that was never satisfied with the final showing of their films. They were always trying to get the films out of a museum or gallery and into something bigger with a larger audience. They made art for the popularity rather than the art, but these films are still considered fine art. Why is something like Star Wars or Spiderman given a different set of rules?

-Racheal Johnson-