March 30, 2020, 10:34:32 AM

Author Topic: Art vs Artist  (Read 1587 times)

Offline Yora

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2020, 08:58:39 AM »
Of course they have. Movies as well.

Not that the works are any less good than before, but they are no longer enjoyable.
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on a big tower of other dwarves.

Beneath the Leaves of Kaendor

Offline Rostum

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2020, 05:26:26 PM »
Quote
I can't watch anything Star Wars related because the whole viciousness of the online debates over the movies makes me ill and watching a Star Wars movie reminds me how repulsed I am by both sides of the fandom, even if I actually liked the writing and direction (it's not bad but, it still feels written like fanfic with cosplay extras, choreographers and costume designers)

I have not watched a Star Wars Film since the 4th one, and don't have a great deal of interest in whats doing so. A number of people I know contend that the hardcore fans were shut down by incomers supported by certain online journalists who looked to gatekeep the narrative and determine what was going to be said. They may not have much interest in star wars per say but control and shutting down people whose love of the franchise spanned 40 years was the primary objective. Esports has seen a simular landgrab with support by the likes of Gawker group, Kotaku and vice and theose involved for the last 20 or so years are equally as pissed off.
 
@J.R. Darewood on a seperate note I came across the concept of disgust as a survival trait. Still trying to get my head round that as its not a context I had considered it in so I thought I would ask the expert.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 06:04:26 PM by Rostum »

Offline Bender

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2020, 06:15:49 PM »
Why would online debates put someone off from watching a movie? Surely we can enjoy a movie without needing to participate in online debates.

Movies aside, there are quite some nice books in SW world, Thrawn is spectacular. Plagueis gives a super psychoanalysis from Sith view, Bane is good.X-Wing is nice if you like adventure.  Mandalorian is a fun watch in TV. Rebels, Clone Wars are very good too. You are missing out on a lot of good stuff that don't necessarily need to be debated with nutcase fans.
"I shall hunt your firstborn children and laugh with glee as I tell them of your death in terrible detail, with many unpleasant adjectives!" - M-Bot

"Who needs science when you have a dragon?" - Neil DeGrasse Tyson in Sharknado 6

Offline Rostum

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2020, 06:46:53 PM »
From my understanding debate is not the issue. Personal attacks on actors and Disney employees, hounding  people off twitter (the short bus of the internet) and looking to get people removed from their positions seems to be par for the course.

You there is a massive amount of material making up Star Wars Lore. 40 years worth in fact and lots of it ignored by the films. Disney may now be done with the Star Wars franchise now anyway.

Edit: My main reason for not seeing movies at the moment is the media's attempts to polarize an audience. Birds of Prey has started up now with the media referring to Middle aged(white) male comic readers as man babies and piss babies based on a few tweets criticising aspects of the movie.
Along with Ewan Mc Gregor saying it’s an anti misogynist movie which seems to equate with anti male these days. Which already has made me cautious. I wont be seeing it in the cinema.

The film may well do OK despite looking to alienate half its audience through its marketing articles. It had a 100 million budget and probably the same for marketing it needs to take 250m to be judged a success, not a huge amount for a Marvel film.

BTW Rotten tomatoes has a 92% critic score for the film which leads me to believe that Rotten Tomatoes is just a paid for marketing tool now. I will stand corrected when this movie makes a billion in the box office.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 07:33:00 PM by Rostum »

Offline Bender

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2020, 08:17:15 PM »
Movies where women are portrayed as eye candy and purely for glamour content are not really rare. If someone makes a male version, I don't see the outrage.

And media loves clickbaits. They don't make money unless there's something to get outraged about and keeping emotions stirred is their meal ticket. I tend to ignore this completely similar to SJWs online.

And I ignore RT as it's a positive aggregation site. Metacritic and even IMDB are better for actual closer to ground reviews. I like metacritic. Birds of Prey has a 6.7/10 score in IMDB and 60% rating (mixed reviews) in Metacritic...which imo sounds more honest. It's a above average movie, but nothing spectacular.

In summary, using lesser but more appropriate sources is better than mass social media/news inputs.

Just like facebook vs this forum
"I shall hunt your firstborn children and laugh with glee as I tell them of your death in terrible detail, with many unpleasant adjectives!" - M-Bot

"Who needs science when you have a dragon?" - Neil DeGrasse Tyson in Sharknado 6

Offline Rostum

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2020, 09:06:20 PM »
Quote
Movies where women are portrayed as eye candy and purely for glamour content are not really rare. If someone makes a male version, I don't see the outrage.

Nor do I, not what I am getting at at all. Where either the director or marketing says this is not for you to a group (and the only acceptable group to do this to is white males) they then always come back and screech about white males boycotting their film or series when they fail to do as well as expected.

As many women are as tired of the noisy woke on social media as men but if you argue with them and you are a Nazi, a bigot, alt right, alt right adjacent, a misogynist or the best yet if you are a woman a compartmentalised misogynist. Being woke is about shutting down debate not about having the conversation.

The current hot take for the film is "Harley Quinn doesn't need you when she has the girls and the gays. Cishet males aren't mad that Harley Quinn doesn't have sex appeal they're mad that the characters of Birds of Prey have sex appeal that isn't catering to them."

Now while this may be extreme and ridiculous it is damaging and you read enough of this nonsense and go why should I pay for this. Now I like Margo Robbie as an actress and think she is better at her profession than is required for comic book movies but if that is what she chooses to play she gets very rich doing it. However the film may do better without this type of hate click marketing.

Offline cupiscent

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #36 on: February 06, 2020, 10:26:07 PM »
I'm super looking forward to Birds of Prey and trying to figure out how I can swing babysitting to go see it in theatres. It's wonderful to me that I can see a comicbook film - with the fun action and silly one-liners and over-the-top storylines that I love - that will actually have more than one significant female character in it.

And from looking at the trailer and press for the film, it looks like the setting for the movie is a strip-club and related organised crime endeavours, so if every male speaking-role in the film is a sexist asshat... isn't that just realistic? (I'm thinking about similarities between this and Suckerpunch now, but obvs I can't really write that essay until I've seen the film.)

Offline Rostum

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2020, 12:34:04 AM »
Well I hope you sort the babysitting and enjoy the movie.

I got taken to see suckerpunch at the cinema and thought it was dire. I would be curious to hear your take on it though.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2020, 12:42:20 AM by Rostum »

Offline cupiscent

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2020, 04:40:29 AM »
I got taken to see suckerpunch at the cinema and thought it was dire. I would be curious to hear your take on it though.

I really enjoyed it. It was a nice chewy blend of fun action (with a kicking soundtrack) and thought-provoking thematic stuff wrapped up in just enough weird for me. It had a few of my favourite actors giving great performances, and it was ridiculously pretty. It wasn't flawless, but the good things covered a multitude of sins, imho.

My comparative essay on both films would probably lean hard into ruminations on stories that explicitly bring female-authored violence into settings entirely about the dehumanisation of women and thereby sort of both offer escapist fantasy and a satisfying real-world commentary. But like I say, should probably wait until I've actually seen Birds of Prey. It might not deliver what the trailer suggests.

Offline Rostum

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2020, 05:23:26 AM »
Well it's opened to empty cinemas so get your Tickets quick cos it won't be showing for long.

Offline J.R. Darewood

  • aka Duckly Breadgood
  • Writing Group
  • Khaleesi
  • *
  • Posts: 2522
  • Total likes: 1494
  • Gender: Male
  • Zork. And it was all downhill from there.
    • View Profile
    • Nerd Empire
Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #40 on: February 07, 2020, 08:53:20 AM »
I have not watched a Star Wars Film since the 4th one, and don't have a great deal of interest in whats doing so. A number of people I know contend that the hardcore fans were shut down by incomers supported by certain online journalists who looked to gatekeep the narrative and determine what was going to be said. They may not have much interest in star wars per say but control and shutting down people whose love of the franchise spanned 40 years was the primary objective. Esports has seen a simular landgrab with support by the likes of Gawker group, Kotaku and vice and theose involved for the last 20 or so years are equally as pissed off.

You might find this very very interesting. The implication of this WIRED article is that Star Wars just happened to be released at the same time that Russia was interfering in the US elections, and it became an opportunity to weaponize the social media puritanism of progressives against each other, as part of their larger strategy with Sanders and Clinton

https://www.wired.com/story/star-wars-russian-trolls-study/

Why would online debates put someone off from watching a movie? Surely we can enjoy a movie without needing to participate in online debates.

Movies aside, there are quite some nice books in SW world, Thrawn is spectacular. Plagueis gives a super psychoanalysis from Sith view, Bane is good.X-Wing is nice if you like adventure.  Mandalorian is a fun watch in TV. Rebels, Clone Wars are very good too. You are missing out on a lot of good stuff that don't necessarily need to be debated with nutcase fans.

I can't say I've really participated in online debates much, but the Star Wars is pretty much the most extreme example of my feeling that "fan" is short for "fanatic" would I be a happier person if I'd never seen the horrors of Star Wars fans at each others throats? Absolutely, but it's burned into my memory. You thought the casino subplot made no sense in the middle of a space chase HOW DARE YOU YOU RACIST. Nevermind the awfulness of the actual racists. I feel the same about Marvel fans and DC fans. At one point someone insisted that if you just thought Captain Marvel was "okay" that you were clearly sexist. It's all repulsive and I'm just sick of superheroes and Star Wars and all of it.  Its not out of some sense of social responsibility or trying to punish an industry or an artist. It just has this stain to it now, whether logical or not, I see something star wars and it's hard for me to get over the knee-jerk revulsion I feel because it reminds me of all this grossness and all the ways social media has made us all stupider as a species. I've managed to almost completely get off facebook and I'm much happier because of it, but somehow I still find my way into this stuff. I'm curious about something before it comes out (aka the witcher, WoT) I read up on it. Sometimes that makes me love it more, sometimes I'm revolted.  So yes, I *want* to be able to view art as art on its own, but its just so rare that I'm ever able to keep the blinders on effectively.

Spoiler for Hiden:
I get the exact same vomit in my mouth feeling I get when I see an academic cite Nietzsche: he might not have been a Nazi himself but the stain is still here of being a proto-Nazi whether I find a logical reason for the connection or not.

@J.R. Darewood on a seperate note I came across the concept of disgust as a survival trait. Still trying to get my head round that as its not a context I had considered it in so I thought I would ask the expert.

There are at least 2 different theoretical strands that would lead to this concept.  One comes out of sociobiology (looking people as animals first and foremost, who's behaviors are adaptations that (whether useful or not today) enhanced the viability of ones offspring at some point in time). Whether it has to do with sanitation or identifying allies and enemies, disgust can play a role.  Personally I find sociobiology a bit hard to swallow.

The other line of thinking is likely one that comes from Mary Douglas's Purity and Danger released in 1966. I'm not entirely on board with Mary Douglas either, but her ideas have been incredibly influential both within anthropology and outside of anthropology.  She looked at the historical production binaries of sacred/profane and clean/unclean, comparing taboos in different cultures.  Its a bit more abstract, but one of her ideas is that its very much about the need to produce categories. We need things to fit into one category or the other, and that liminal, unknown, uncategorized space distresses us so many societies link it with the profane, the dangerous.

There's a whole strand of work in anthropology on categories. Categories give us a sense of "knowing" things we can't possibly know-- through categories we essentialize, misrepresent, presuppose, and interpolate all of these ideas, in effect making categorical thinking often less accurate, rooted in false binaries, a tool for the propagation of all sorts of -isms.  Think of it as the (much-maligned) Meyers-Briggs concept of judging vs. perceiving-- social categories are about judgement, which impedes understanding. And what is unknown is judged as taboo, or what is known but associated with the Other, or with outside groups.

Here's a poem-- kind of a polysemy of disgust

https://culanth.org/fieldsights/disgust

Slate did a great anthology of essays on online outrage awhile back, I found some of them to be very insightful:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/12/the_year_of_outrage_2014_everything_you_were_angry_about_on_social_media.html
« Last Edit: February 07, 2020, 09:04:26 AM by J.R. Darewood »

Offline Peat

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #41 on: February 07, 2020, 08:08:49 PM »
After trying to write this post two times and coming to some sort of understanding about where I'm coming from...

I mostly, but not always, separate art from the artist in terms of my enjoyment. There's a bit more of a link in terms of whether to promote them. This is partially deliberate, a reaction against the sort of puritanism Mr Darewood talks about. The nature of the artist's unpleasantness matters to me too. Abusing pre-adolescents is about the pits for me. I also prefer honesty and have a harder time accepting it when they haven't paid for it. The honest kinda goes into the artform. Nobody ever claimed Black Metal or Gangsta Rap was going to promote wholly wholesome views and be by wholly wholesome people. Conversely, sports/movie stars who want to pretend they're just a good everyday lad while trying to stick it in anybody that doesn't get away fast enough are extra contemptible.
This is the blog of Peat - http://peatlong.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline Rostum

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #42 on: February 15, 2020, 07:33:51 AM »
So I was mostly wrong. Birds of Prey tanked but most of the people who saw it were men. Presumably insulting those who read the comics didn't stop them watching it.

Offline Bender

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2020, 06:31:44 PM »
So I was mostly wrong. Birds of Prey tanked but most of the people who saw it were men. Presumably insulting those who read the comics didn't stop them watching it.

Found this interesting statistic. It does seem comic book movies are generally more popular with men than women.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/807365/marvel-movie-viewership-gender/

Also that BoP had a R rating whereas most Marvel movies had a PG-13 rating, which is a key differentiator because of kids/family. Kids are a big reason for presence of accompanying adults in audience, which BoP didn't take advantage of.

Joker was the only R rated movie to do well at box office and I'd put that down to familiarity of character plus Dark Knight movie's popularity. BoP had mostly unknown characters outside of comic book community...probably similar to why Suicide Squad was also a dud.

"I shall hunt your firstborn children and laugh with glee as I tell them of your death in terrible detail, with many unpleasant adjectives!" - M-Bot

"Who needs science when you have a dragon?" - Neil DeGrasse Tyson in Sharknado 6

Offline cupiscent

Re: Art vs Artist
« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2020, 03:23:29 AM »
Found this interesting statistic. It does seem comic book movies are generally more popular with men than women.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/807365/marvel-movie-viewership-gender/

Gotta wonder how much of that is the fact that it's only in the last few years we've had comic-book movies that contain more than one significant female character. "Oh no, women won't come watch movies wherein characters like them are traditionally sidelined!" No, really? Trust needs to be earned.

Quote
Also that BoP had a R rating whereas most Marvel movies had a PG-13 rating

Now this is fascinating to me, and my initial thought was about how expressions of female sexuality get a higher rating than male, but seems like that's probably not the case here. I couldn't find US information, but the Australian rating information has it MA15 (our equivalent) for themes, language and violence, which seems totally on-brand for the character and in keeping with the trailer. (I mean, you're only allowed one f-bomb below R-rating, right? A bit restrictive.)

I also found an article talking about why they weren't shying away from a higher rating and it just makes me more interested in the artistic vision, honestly. I certainly agree that not being able to dig into dark themes with characters who have significant trauma--in a film thematically about confronting and overcoming that trauma--hamstrings the whole story. But perhaps, if that's what they wanted to do, expectations needed to be adjusted accordingly.

On the other hand, it's still making them money. Which reminds me of an amusing comparison I've seen of opening-weekend numbers for BoP and for Ford vs Ferrari, which have the same numbers (both take and budget) but BoP's labelled a "disappoint" and FvF "terrific". The difference, of course, is in expectations for the film (from the studio and elsewhere). And yes, I'm finding a lot of discussion suggesting it's the rating that's limiting the audience. I found this quote particularly amusing:
Quote
“Suicide Squad” was rated PG-13 and went on to have a record-breaking $US133.6 million opening (if it got the kind of reviews “Birds of Prey” did imagine what its lifetime gross would have been). (from Business Insider)
Reviews say it's a good movie. And yet. The impossibility of understanding how this all works is bleakly amusing to me.