RIFA wrote:But you said standing in front of camera and telling a story isn't cinema while it is. It is a captured moment. It's someone telling a story. Whether you appreciate that or not, whether you consider it art or not, that's an entire different discussion. But the fact is that it is part of the cinema just like the first shots by Le Prince.

The thing is if a person sits in front of the camera, doesn't ever tell a story, or anything really, just stares into the lens and barely even blinks, then I won't take issue with it. It's very much comparable to someone who draws some divergent lines on a piece of paper and call it art. I might like his work or I might not but would I complain about it? Absolutely not. It's his art and he can do what he wants as long as he remains true to his own medium.

However the moment the fella opens his mouth and starts telling me that story, that's when he's going to ruin everything. Because he's using the wrong tools now. Now it becomes comparable to someone who instead of drawing a landscape, writes a description of it on a piece of paper and then call it a painting. Well it's still some black marks on a paper but it's not unjudgeable anymore. Now he's contradicting the medium that he's using.

Now my whole argument is if a guy catches a fish, put it on a plate and passes it out to me, by the definition of the word that's still a meal. Some people might actually like to eat raw fish. But that doesn't mean I'm going to call the guy a cook or his work cooking. He might be a great fisherman or he might be a great storyteller but he's clearly not much of a filmmaker.

RIFA wrote:Hip Hop can be equal to reciting a poem as that's exactly what plenty of conscious rappers did in the early 90s. Plenty of tracks with either a minimal beat in the background or nothing at all where a rapper simply recites his verses. The latest similar case is on Kendrick Lamar's "To Pimp a Butterfly" album.

The very definition of rapping is to give flow and rhythm to your lyric. To create harmonic sounds with the words and therefor doing something creative with it. If you don't do it, then you're not rapping, you're simply reading it out loud. No one has ever been called a rapper by doing that.

RIFA wrote:The bolded part sounds like an excuse for someone to create anything within his medium because it doesn't needs to have a meaning. Which I hope is not what you're trying to say. I think you're trying to say something else but I'm not gonna guess.

So let me ask you this question. Do you think that a work of art is required to have a meaning? Does it have to make some sort of sense to be called art? Is this your argument or am I getting it wrong?

RIFA wrote:As for the rest, I'm not sure when exactly I disagreed.

Well I think you actually did, mate. But we'll get to this part later.

RIFA wrote:Lemonade sounds like this generation. It's a successful combination of multiple genres but what dominates the most is the urban/trap sound which is extremely popular and influential at this point in time. 25 is an album that doesn't sound like this generation. It feels like an evolution from 21 but in the same space of sound and subject matter. It is a classic pop sounding record that sounded very similar 5 or 10 years ago. If Grammy awards would be given to albums that sound good just in terms of musical execution without taking in consideration the age that we live in and the impact the album has on the current generation then we should have only classic albums winning because those are made "by the book". Those respect the teachings of our dearest music schools.

That's not an argument for quality RIFA. You can't just say that any album that is up to date has an advantage over any album that is old fashioned. This is not mobile industry. The type of music doesn't make one superior to the other. By the virtue of being fresh something doesn't automatically stand out.

RIFA wrote:On top of that, the subject matter on this album is diverse as hell. It's an album a lot of people can relate to as it addresses not only issues of the heart but also political and social issues.

And this is why I said above that you don't agree with me. You are talking about the subject matter and the message, not the work that has been done on that message to turn it into a piece of art, which is the only thing that matters. Would you also say that Moonlight is better than Fury Road because it tackles more important issues regarding the human life?

RIFA wrote:It's not as complex nor as diverse as Lemonade from a production and writing pov.

Now we are talking about what really matters, but neither diversity nor complexity equals quality. We all know that a simple tune played by one or two instruments, can be ten times more effective than a full orchestra performance.£

Master Virgo wrote:You might use art to try to give shape to certain themes, but there is no need for theme in art. Therefore comparing two works of art based on strength of their content is absolutely meaningless. Strong themes don't make your work strong. You have to do something special, something artistic with those themes, otherwise there is nothing to appreciate about your work. A great musician is someone who can create a piece that is auditorily memorable not something that is important to understand.

Art is about experiencing a change in how you feel and view things. It's different from drugs because it involves some creative content, which doesn't necessarily have to emphasize thematic content but thats certainly a valuable component of art. I don't think that thematic content should be the thing that's weighted the most, or as a component has the most influence on the overall quality. The best work of art, if such an idea makes sense, could have little to no thematic content but it would benefit from more of it. Thematic content is still a key way we can have these experiences, books involve this more than any other medium. It's also easier to talk about than the other components because it's more clearly defined. So yea comparing two works of art solely on their thematic content is pointless but saying that it means nothing doesn't make much sense.

Master Virgo wrote:Because he's using the wrong tools now.

What "wrong" tools? The only necessary tool in cinema is the camera.

Master Virgo wrote:Now it becomes comparable to someone who instead of drawing a landscape, writes a description of it on a piece of paper and then call it a painting.

If the words are painted then he'll call it a painting.

Master Virgo wrote:Now he's contradicting the medium that he's using.

And isn't that the challenge for some artists?

Master Virgo wrote:The very definition of rapping is to give flow and rhythm to your lyric. To create harmonic sounds with the words and therefor doing something creative with it. If you don't do it, then you're not rapping, you're simply reading it out loud. No one has ever been called a rapper by doing that.

No. But reciting can be part of music as much as it can be part of cinema. Which is the point.

Master Virgo wrote:Do you think that a work of art is required to have a meaning? Does it have to make some sort of sense to be called art?

Yes. Even the art that doesn't have a meaning has a meaning. The meaning being that it's empty. It doesn't serve anything yet it exists. Any piece of art offers something to the audience. Even if that something is nothing.

Master Virgo wrote:That's not an argument for quality RIFA. You can't just say that any album that is up to date has an advantage over any album that is old fashioned. This is not mobile industry. The type of music doesn't make one superior to the other. By the virtue of being fresh something doesn't automatically stand out.

Except we were talking about why Lemonade should have gotten the 2017 Grammy Award for Best Album. So you already have several contexts here. The year 2017. The award show. The cateogry and what it stands or should stand for. And it is an argument for quality. Something old-fashioned will not sit well regardless of how good it might be for the standards set 10 years ago. There's new standards today and being old-fashioned barely cuts it. It's the same in the film industry. If you make the same type of movie you'll be criticized for it regardless how well you actually made it.

Master Virgo wrote:You are talking about the subject matter and the message, not the work that has been done on that message to turn it into a piece of art, which is the only thing that matters. Would you also say that Moonlight is better than Fury Road because it tackles more important issues regarding the human life?

No. I'm talking about the whole thing. You can't separate music from subject matter if they are both components of an album. If you have a soundtrack then you don't have any subject matter so all I'll have to judge will be the music itself. Once you have lyrics added to your music then you open the discussion. It's this simple.

Master Virgo wrote:Now we are talking about what really matters, but neither diversity nor complexity equals quality. We all know that a simple tune played by one or two instruments, can be ten times more effective than a full orchestra performance

Of course. But only if it has that unique thing that separates it from other "simple tunes". You moved the argument way too far. And you moved it into an area where I don't even disagree lol.

This started when you downed music and made it look like it's both much less complex than film and way more subjective than film. That was your argument. And I already busted that idea but you changed the topic. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue on now because you started to say more and more things that are quite ridiculous.

dafox wrote:Art is about experiencing a change in how you feel and view things. It's different from drugs because it involves some creative content, which doesn't necessarily have to emphasize thematic content but thats certainly a valuable component of art. I don't think that thematic content should be the thing that's weighted the most, or as a component has the most influence on the overall quality. The best work of art, if such an idea makes sense, could have little to no thematic content but it would benefit from more of it. Thematic content is still a key way we can have these experiences, books involve this more than any other medium. It's also easier to talk about than the other components because it's more clearly defined. So yea comparing two works of art solely on their thematic content is pointless but saying that it means nothing doesn't make much sense.

Well I would have still cried as much as I did during Schindler's List even if it wasn't based on true events or if the holocaust had never happened. Because the film as an art product makes me feel and perceive pain, suffering, sacrifice and regret that is transpiring on the screen. My point is the fact that the film is about the holocaust doesn't give it any more quality nor would it have brought it lower if that wasn't the case. When we start talking about the content, we might be talking about philosophy, politics or religion, but clearly we are not talking about cinema anymore.

RIFA wrote:If the words are painted then he'll call it a painting.

Look I only said that I don't call the raw fish on a plate a product of cooking, I wouldn't say the same thing about slices of raw fish in a meticulously made salad. Just as I don't have any problem with a character suddenly monologuing or telling a tale from his past in the middle of a film.

RIFA wrote:And isn't that the challenge for some artists?

The challenge is to discover new horizons inside the framework of the format that you're using. To defy the unnecessary principles set by snobs and expand the medium's reach. I can't record my voice describing a music that is inside my head, about how it makes me feel and the things that it reminds me of and then say that I've created music or I'm challenging the medium. Because I'm not, I'm stepping out of the medium entirely.

RIFA wrote:No. But reciting can be part of music as much as it can be part of cinema. Which is the point.

You're missing my point RIFA. I'm saying recitation alone is not enough. I'm saying the material won't create art by itself. It's what you do with it that's important.

RIFA wrote:Yes. Even the art that doesn't have a meaning has a meaning. The meaning being that it's empty. It doesn't serve anything yet it exists. Any piece of art offers something to the audience. Even if that something is nothing.

My stance is that art is about emotion, not comprehension. If an artwork has a lot of meanings but doesn't make you feel anything then it's useless. Even if there is a meaning in there, still what matters is how it impresses you to pay attention to that meaning. Not the meaning itself.

RIFA wrote:Something old-fashioned will not sit well regardless of how good it might be for the standards set 10 years ago. There's new standards today and being old-fashioned barely cuts it. It's the same in the film industry. If you make the same type of movie you'll be criticized for it regardless how well you actually made it.

And yet you defended The Artist and disliked Hugo. One is a silent film made traditionally, another is an attempt to explore a new format for filmmaking. An artist might try to create freshness in her/his work and fail, while another might want to stick with treading the same waters and make an impressive art product. What you're saying is not a valid point.

RIFA wrote:No. I'm talking about the whole thing. 1. You can't separate music from subject matter if they are both components of an album. If you have a soundtrack then you don't have any subject matter so all I'll have to judge will be the music itself. 2. Once you have lyrics added to your music then you open the discussion. It's this simple.

1. But that's what you did man. You tried to argue that one of the merits of Lemonade is including social and political commentaries. While it doesn't even matter what your album is about. If I try to say that Birth of a Nation is a step ahead of The Force Awakens, merely because racism is more important than spaceships shooting each other in space, then that's a failed argument.

2. Lyrics? Sure, Message? Absolutely not. Because when we talk about about the lyrics, what we talk about is the poetry, how impressive it is in terms of wording, in terms of literature. A lyric about Syrian children is not necessarily more effective and more inspiring than a lyric about a simple nice short story.

RIFA wrote:This started when you downed music and made it look like it's both much less complex than film and way more subjective than film. That was your argument. And I already busted that idea but you changed the topic. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue on now because you started to say more and more things that are quite ridiculous.

First of all I never said that and yes my whole attempt was to explain why most discussions regarding the music are doomed to fail. Since there is hardly anything to discuss. I wasn't trying to defend 25, I was trying to tell you that what you're doing is not arguing, rather commenting. You're giving me adjectives. It's like saying The Notebook is a more emotional film than Memento or when I said a few pages back that Adele's vocals are more impressive than Beyonce. What of it? One artist tries to achieve something, another goes for something else. It's not shortcoming if you don't have all the qualities you can possibly have in a medium.

A real argument is when you for example tried to point out how the exposition in Inception makes it a struggle to sit through in repeat viewings, simply because we are listening to explanation that we've already heard and understood, and regardless of agreeing with you or not I can clearly see that it's a sound argument. You're detecting what you perceived to be a flaw and you're elaborating on it, you can bring other examples that didn't make the same mistake and explain how they proved to be more effective in that regard.

But if I resort to saying stuff like Transformers is more action packed than Inception, or Guardians is more entertaining than Interstellar, then I'm not arguing anymore, I'm simply talking about my own perception of what I care more about. You think complexity is more important, another one thinks the singing is more important. But none of us can ever explain why this aspect matters more than the other and therefor it doesn't set any ground for a discussion.

That was my focus from the beginning, but then you took issue with some of my examples and then I tried to explain. It was never my intention to derail the argument.£

This is clearly a case of "form vs. content".

In my opinion, it is very hard to separate the two. Lyrics in music can be as much form as they can be content even though they seem to be closer to the latter. Therefore, not talking about both when discussing the quality of a record that has both makes no sense. Lyrics in Lemonade and 25 matter as much as the musical composition because they are integral part of the experience the artists wanted their listeners to have. They compliment each other by existing within the same work of art.

So when you ask me which is the better album of the two and what are my arguments... in what way am I wrong by bringing in subject matter and diversity, as well as the modern or classical sound of a record if they are all part of the intended experience?

Master Virgo wrote:

dafox wrote:Art is about experiencing a change in how you feel and view things. It's different from drugs because it involves some creative content, which doesn't necessarily have to emphasize thematic content but thats certainly a valuable component of art. I don't think that thematic content should be the thing that's weighted the most, or as a component has the most influence on the overall quality. The best work of art, if such an idea makes sense, could have little to no thematic content but it would benefit from more of it. Thematic content is still a key way we can have these experiences, books involve this more than any other medium. It's also easier to talk about than the other components because it's more clearly defined. So yea comparing two works of art solely on their thematic content is pointless but saying that it means nothing doesn't make much sense.

Well I would have still cried as much as I did during Schindler's List even if it wasn't based on true events or if the holocaust had never happened. Because the film as an art product makes me feel and perceive pain, suffering, sacrifice and regret that is transpiring on the screen. My point is the fact that the film is about the holocaust doesn't give it any more quality nor would it have brought it lower if that wasn't the case. When we start talking about the content, we might be talking about philosophy, politics or religion, but clearly we are not talking about cinema anymore.£

I didn't know where to put this Kubrick interview but since he makes the same points we both made in this thread I figured that posting it here made sense. I'm not using his opinion as an argument, what he says conflicts with part of what I said/believe anyway, nor do I feel like continuing this discussion but its still interesting since we don't really get filmmakers talking this directly about their work anymore. Or maybe I just don't look hard enough.

https://youtu.be/wvoxjkTNOXE?list=LLUOa ... Clk3Q&t=50

Well its more difficult only in the sense that it doesn't involve social topical issues one can talk around instead of talking about the film. You know with Dr. Strangelove you could talk about the problems of nuclear war, with 2001 you can talk about extra terrestrials or future social structures. I've never found it meaningful or even possible to talk about film aesthetics in terms of my own film.

When he says "in terms of my own film" I'm pretty sure he's still referring to film in general since he wouldn't be so self absorbed to think that only his films are technically and artistically indescribable. Obviously I still think thematic content is extremely valuable in art and I don't think they're wholly independent from one another. I remember reading an interview (tho I can't find it now) where Noam Chomsky, a major figure in cognitive science, said that we learn more about human psychology from comparative literature than from psychology as a science. Kubrick, I think rightfully, said that "if it can be written or thought it can be filmed" so the same applies for film. Music is much closer to film aesthetics than thematic content. Because of that I've always found it easier to talk about books and films than it is for music, or have more to talk about, simply because the subject matter is better defined.

Well its more difficult only in the sense that it doesn't involve social topical issues one can talk around instead of talking about the film.

But that's exactly my point. When you talk about the message or themes you're not talking about the film anymore. Only when we study the ways in which the filmmaker has tried to convey those themes through the narrative and cinema, you can call it film talk.

Sure you can't discuss the aesthetics of an art piece. But there is still the matter of the quality of the script, whether or not the story is well developed if there is any, do the characters feel alive, is there a line of dialogue that feels out of place or why, does that one moment contradict the rest of the work and how, etc. But when I start talking about the horrors of slavery when I'm supposed to talk about Django Unchained then I'm clearly lost.£

Master Virgo wrote:

Well its more difficult only in the sense that it doesn't involve social topical issues one can talk around instead of talking about the film.

But that's exactly my point. When you talk about the message or themes you're not talking about the film anymore. Only when we study the ways in which the filmmaker has tried to convey those themes through the narrative and cinema, you can call it film talk.

Sure you can't discuss the aesthetics of an art piece. But there is still the matter of the quality of the script, whether or not the story is well developed if there is any, do the characters feel alive, is there a line of dialogue that feels out of place or why, does that one moment contradict the rest of the work and how, etc. But when I start talking about the horrors of slavery when I'm supposed to talk about Django Unchained then I'm clearly lost.£

Thats what I meant when I said that I'm not using his quote as an argument for my case since on that point he seems to be on your side. Besides, him having that opinion doesn't prove anything, it's just interesting. I think that creative storytelling should be considered art and I also think that a lot of the time themes drive/inspire the story. What I meant by "art and thematic content aren't wholly independent from each other" is that they both service one another. Certain ideas benefit from illustrations that are/can be made into art because the picture of what the idea is supposed to be becomes more clear. Theres a long list of philosophers and psychologists etc who were greatly influenced by authors like Dostoevsky... etc who have had an impact on their thinking. Art benefits from ideas/themes because they can enhance the experience people get from art by making them more relatable to whats going on in their lives or things about the world that people find interesting.

Like I said in my first post, a work of art can have little to no thematic content but can still be considered the "best" work of art there is. Only that piece of art would benefit from some added thematic content because that would make it more faceted with positive things that can enhance one's experience. I see where you're coming from because when you look at popular youtube channels that analyze films, like Wisecrack, there seems to be this tendency to look for depth in everything to strengthen the reputation/value of peoples' favorite films. Obviously thats kind of annoying and wrongheaded but that doesn't mean that thematic depth is irrelevant for art. That's all I have to say about the topic.