Quote:
|
Originally Posted by atari 2600
Hmm, an interesting but muddled argument you've got there. Still, it's valid food for thought. Film may go back to the shadow play, but getting real, film, like comic books, is also an art form with a literal narrative that relies more heavily on craft and subject than fine art which deals with the indefinable, yet defines an age.
Film is interesting in that it has a potential to influences the masses, involves more senses, and is, in that respect, far more phantasmagorical than fine art. But at the end of the day, like comic books, film just isn't fine art. Good film, like good comic books, have elements of fine art aesthetics that shape the result. Film is more readily dissected than fine art, but yet the immediate emotional impact has the potential and usually is far greater than viewing a painting or sculpture. And good cinema is, like modern art, influenced heavily by process. Cinematic features also, like architecture (and moreso than graphic novels (storyboards, in the case of film)) involve huge hierarchical teams of people working towards a result.
But excuse me, these are all mental notes to an argument I can't seem to put into words all that well.
|
I'll assume that you're referring solely to more conventionally narrative film (which both the Classical Hollywood style, and the 'Art house' style are) without moving into areas such as that populated by some avant-garde filmmakers.
Either way, no, these kinds of films are not 'fine art' in so far as 'fine art' is an institutional idea that prohibits the inclusion of such films in accordance with a set of extremely vague ideas regarding what 'fine art' actually is at a given time. Despite what somebody like Greenberg might say, there really is nothing remotely teleological about the practice of art.
Sorry, all this is incredibly vague. Like you, I'm just externalising stuff while working it out in my head, rather than presnting some fully formed position.
Interesting discussion.