CMonster wrote:Art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. (as found on dictionary.com)
I'm going by Joseph Conrad's definition of "art", i.e. something that speaks to the common human condition.
Using the dictionary.com definition, anything and everything can be "art". Also, what the hell is "ordinary significance", and what isn't?
CMonster wrote:I don't know how you personally define art, but I would say that there are certain "popcorn blockbusters" that could fall into the definition of art.
There's a huge difference between "movies that I like" and "movies that I consider art". The first set is much larger than the second, and the intersection between the two is not that great.
CMonster wrote:I legitimately think that people now days are trying to confine art to only things that are very serious,
...No? Where do you get this from?
CMonster wrote:Saying that something made with lighter themes, less symbolism, and less standout characters is not art completely ignores entire genres that require massive amount of creativity to make into worthwhile cinematic adventures.
You're projecting here, dude. I never wrote any of this.
To answer your specific question about whether I consider what stand-up comedians do "art" or not...maybe? There is indeed something brilliant and unusual that touches the human condition in the work of someone like a Norm MacDonald, Ricky Gervais, Sean Locke, or Russ Noble.
In the routine of someone like Carlos Mencia, Dane Cook, or Margaret Cho? Fuck no. And while stand-up nerds will froth in anger at this, not in the work of Louis CK either, even though I like him and think he's good at what he does.
Again, not everyone who is really good at what they do is necessarily an "artist", (this goes for books and movies, too) and not everything I like is "art". In fact, most aren't.
CMonster wrote:I recently read an article written about George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. The article said fantasy is essentially second class literature because the authors can use magic as a deus ex machina whenever they want so they are lazy writers.
Then he's a fucking idiot, and I would have stopped reading the article right there, as well as a single word that author had to say about anything else.
CMonster wrote:the author of the article is expressing something similar to how many people feel about comic books and comic book based movies,
Some comic books are absolutely art. Most that I would call this are Japanese, but there is at least one Western comic I would say is pretty close to "art". (The Watchmen)
You're assuming that I wouldn't consider them art, when in fact, I never once mentioned comics at all. Don't assume!
CMonster wrote:While what Nolan does is nowhere on the level of somebody like Kubrik, I would still call it art.
In many ways, what Nolan is doing is way BETTER than what Kubrick did.
I wouldn't call most Kubrick films "art", by the way.