[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ART vs. DRAMA

Nelson Zagalo wrote:

<It all hinges on this rather arbitrary distinction of yours about
'decoration' >

I must agree with the "decoration" term.

I see decoration as the opposite of art in terms of the effectiveness of
the cognitive and emotional change. How can we measure it?


Why 'emotional' ? Is this just something that more emotional people want to see in ART? When I look at Piet Mondrian's work, I don't usually become emotional about it. I do analyze and contemplate it. It effects a change in me, insofar as my brain performs analytical work upon it. I may react with thoughts such as "beautiful," "ugly," or "I don't care," but those thoughts are not necessarily connected to emotions.

Did Piet Mondrian not make ART? I have a very hard time buying that idea. Rather, his ART is usually rational and analytical, concerned with the aesthetics of color and spatial balance. It is not usually loosey-goosey and emotional, although he did loosen up at the end of his life with works such as "Broadway Boogie Woogie." Even with those, one would only see 'emotion' as compared to his previous works. Someone without historical knowledge of Piet Mondrian's life would probably not see emotion at all.

DRAMAtists tend to dwell on emotion, and I wonder if this is a strong, perhaps insurmountable bias when they contemplate other forms of ART.

In my view through the use of time as measurer, in order to see the
lasting and so the effectiveness of the people changing. We can easily
see that art painting techniques from XIX century are being used today
in a so formulaic way that people only feel changed at the first time
they are in contact with the object, or we can say for a real short
period of time. Art is not supposed to be Fashion phased, it's supposed
to last. If not for the emotional change at least for the cognitive
change, albeit being impossible to do this type of separation.

ART does last. It matters not if the Mona Lisa is mostly a matter of technique. People born into the world must learn it anew for themselves. Anyone can go on a personal journey of discovery, beit aesthetics or drama, and ultimately become jaded / bored with things they once found fresh and exciting. It matters not that millions of people have gone through the same experience before them.

Some of the most famous Hitchcock films don't have the emotional effects
today they had in the 50's. Mostly because they can't compete with
everything that has been invented since then and also have pushed his
concepts of suspense and thriller forward. However they still produce a
lot of cognitive effects on people, which brings new emotional levels to
the enjoyment of the artworks.


ART also lasts when its audience has a larger intellect and broader appreciation of history. I don't necessarily have to rate a Hitchcock film in modern terms to enjoy and appreciate it. That would be rather much like eschewing all the Jesus paintings just because for a long time, everyone did Jesus over and over and over again. There are things to find in such paintings - not the least of which is connection to one's ancestry - even if in many respects they are boring.

It's easy to classify Rocky as an artistic film on the contrary of Rocky
V. Not because of being a commercial exploitation, but only because
there was nothing in the film really able to transform people. Artists
behind Rocky V were merely decorating and not creating any art.



Here, 'decoration' sounds like a label for 'bad', without having any more substance to it than that. I have not watched Rocky I or V as an adult, so I can't comment on their cinematic merits or demerits. On the other hand, I'm savvy to things that can make screenplays good or bad in general. So, what specifically about Rocky V made it a deficient film for you?