The idea of the “cultural attractor” is both interesting and sad to me. On one hand, it is the nature of business to be successful on as many fronts as possible. That means writers, producers, creators, promoters, etc want to make money, and in order to do that they have to attract an audience of consumers. I understand and appreciate that just fine, and that’s why I’m not completely opposed to cultural attractors; everyone has to get paid, right? Sure.
On the other hand, what happened to the days when art was art for the sake of beauty? What happened to the days when the primary goal was to express thoughts, feelings, and a burning, passionate desire to show the world something amazing? When did everything get commercialized? Sanctity has been removed from just about all the things that used to be revered by a society. In ancient times, a civilization’s “greatness” was determined by the quality of its art. Now, the greatness of a film is measured by how much it makes at the box office opening weekend. Are movies even art? I think they are. When the effort, vision, direction, etc of the film-making process is taken into account, I don’t think anyone can deny that movies are art. And it’s for this reason that I think the regulations for their appropriation should not be as lax as they are. Then again, who am I to say the arts are being misused? I can always choose not to participate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Monica--If you study art history, you learn that there have always been art forms that some people would consider "crude" or "prurient." Some of the baudiest "art" I can think of comes from ancient Greek or Indian (Hindu) art. And for as long as I know, the artists who survive into the public sphere have somehow connected themselves with the resources to produce their art (the luxury of time, the materials, the patrons who made their work public--either in their own lifetimes or later). So, I think there has always been some form of "capital" associated with art. The delivery systems today just make the consumers transparent through advertising. Great topic for further research. Dr. L
In terms of movies, I think that there are still quite a few movies that are more centered on showing art rather than making money. Most of them have advertisements and commercialism that accompany them so that people will spend money to see them because as you said, people need to make money, but I think the capitalist society that we live in is not completely taking away the true art that you referred to. If anything, the delivery systems today make these works of art easier to view for those who could not in the past which in turn brings more of it into our culture.
Thank you for the idea, Dr. Lilly, I think I will add this to the list of potential projects for our class.
Lacey, you are right, there are still quite a few movies that are art centered, and they do get their due sometimes. I just feel bombarded, bamboozled, and embittered by all of the crap that's also shoved down our throats every Friday release night and all of the effort that is spent glorifying stuff that's rarely worth the effort.
Sorry, I've just really been disappointed by the last few movies I've seen.
Post a Comment