Brüno

[ShogunRua]

The argument Shogun is making is that progress marches on, but this is not truly the case in art.

It's not the case when it comes to older mediums of art that gradually decline in both influence and popularity. Painting is a wonderful example.

I will absolutely agree that paintings at any period between 1500-1930 exceed what is being produced today. That's because there are now far fewer painters, it's seen as less viable and important, and there's less money in it. Ditto for sculpture, poetry, etc.

But it's completely FALSE when it comes to NEW mediums of art that, on the contrary, increase in terms of importance and prestige. And there isn't a finer example of that than cinema, which was nothing more than cheap, mindless entertainment in the 1910s being produced by a small handful of filmmakers for tiny budgets and very modest rewards, as opposed to what it blossomed into just a few short decades later.

With the way this topic is going, pretty soon, people will be telling me that Atari's "Pong" is a better, deeper, and greater game than "Bioshock", "Shadow of the Colossus", "Portal", etc.

hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahha

Glad I wasn't the only one astounded by that statement.

There's really no comparison because GNR, Dream Theater and Symphony X are all terrible, so yeah.

And Elvis "I can barely play my guitar and re-use the exact same, simplistic, tone deaf melody, while my songs are crappier versions of what black entertainers did" Presley is? Fine. Tell me who is not terrible, according to you.

[Pickpocket]

And Elvis "I can barely play my guitar and re-use the exact same, simplistic, tone deaf melody, while my songs are crappier versions of what black entertainers did" Presley is? Fine. Tell me who is not terrible, according to you.

I haven't listened to enough Elivs to defend him. Elvis Costello on the other hand... But i have listened to those other bands and they all share the same quality of being way too overproduced. And also playing as fast as humanly possible doesn't make it good if it still sounds like shit. Also, metal is gay.



seriously, how gay is that? that's what 95% of all hardcore metal fans look like. I went to a DT concert once and just about everyone looked like that. Except for the chicks who all happened to be morbidly obese.



rock on bro

[ShogunRua]

HAHA, I love how hilariously off-topic we've gotten.

PickPocket-

Come on man; you're better than that. Make an argument about music, not a few randomly selected posers.

By the way, most fans, including myself, do not look even remotely like that. Most have short or even shaven heads, and no self-respecting metal fan would ever wear a fucking Motley Crue shirt (they suck).

[Jeb]

HAHA, I love how hilariously off-topic we've gotten.

I'm surprised you just now noticed .

By the way, most fans, including myself, do not look even remotely like that. Most have short or even shaven heads, and no self-respecting metal fan would ever wear a fucking Motley Crue shirt (they suck).

Along with all of the other hair metal bands of the 80s.

[ShogunRua]

Along with all of the other hair metal bands of the 80s.

Totally agree. But neither GNR, Dream Theater, nor Symphony X are 80s hair metal. They're not my absolute favorites, by the way, but they were picks I was fairly certain everyone would agree about. Guess not, heh.

[Jeb]

Along with all of the other hair metal bands of the 80s.

Totally agree. But neither GNR, Dream Theater, nor Symphony X are 80s hair metal. They're not my absolute favorites, by the way, but they were picks I was fairly certain everyone would agree about. Guess not, heh.

I didn't say they were hair metal. I've heard at least one song from all of them and I could name out the genres for them in a heartbeat.

[tef]

The argument Shogun is making is that progress marches on, but this is not truly the case in art.

It's not the case when it comes to older mediums of art that gradually decline in both influence and popularity. Painting is a wonderful example.

I will absolutely agree that paintings at any period between 1500-1930 exceed what is being produced today. That's because there are now far fewer painters, it's seen as less viable and important, and there's less money in it. Ditto for sculpture, poetry, etc.

But it's completely FALSE when it comes to NEW mediums of art that, on the contrary, increase in terms of importance and prestige. And there isn't a finer example of that than cinema, which was nothing more than cheap, mindless entertainment in the 1910s being produced by a small handful of filmmakers for tiny budgets and very modest rewards, as opposed to what it blossomed into just a few short decades later.

With the way this topic is going, pretty soon, people will be telling me that Atari's "Pong" is a better, deeper, and greater game than "Bioshock", "Shadow of the Colossus", "Portal", etc.

No offense sir, but you talk a lot. First, there are way more painters now than there has ever been. Painting is not in decline, or is only in decline if you view it in some subjective way. There are more painters and painting is more accessible now than it has ever been. (The cost of materials used to be really high).

I find the lines you draw in painting very strange. 1930 is a bit late, it suggests you're fine with abstract art and Dadaism and all that stuff but have a problem with what came later.

I don't make any value judgements about it. To me, the most striking paintings (if we're talking about the European tradition) come from the birth of perspective. But I don't have a problem with op art and all that other nonsense. I wouldn't say that it's better or worse, merely different.

This is all related to film because I hold the same assessment of older film vs. newer film. It's different. It's not objectively better.

There were fewer films being made in the past and there were different standards. Innovations were made in the way films were shot and so on. Time marches on.

Now you tell me, why are our newer films better? (As a whole).

[AFlickering]

And in keeping with the literature analogy you're fond of using, something like "Heliodorus- An Ethiopian Romance" is an example of an antiquated, no longer relevant or particularly exciting, yet influential book made when the concept of novels was still new and largely experimental. Should it be in a list of the greatest works ever? If all you care about is influence, sure. If we're actually looking at the quality and depth of the novel, however, then absolutely NOT.

Hell, I have an even better example! Music! Do you honestly, seriously think that Elvis Presley, or for that matter, even a much superior early rock artist like Chuck Berry can even remotely compare with a more modern rock group like GNR, Dream Theater, or Symphony X? Nope.

rofl seeing as all those bands are fucking godawful, yeah i do. influence is obviously irrelevant to judgments of quality. sabbath are an absolute assload better than any one of those bands in every way that matters, but that's why they were so influential, not because of it.

In fact, when it comes to playing and producing music, those last three groups have all forgotten more than the originals ever knew. They would fucking run circles around them.

Hell, even a legendary guitar pioneer like Hendrix would get absolutely embarrassed by any top solo guitarist nowadays, whether it be Malmsteen (inspired by Hendrix, incidentally), Vai, Petrucci, Buckethead, or Sartriani.

technically sure, but none of them have the feel that hendrix had, or anything close to the songwriting ability. which, again, is my point. hendrix wouldn't have jerked off his guitar like dream theater even if he was capable, because he understood things like restraint and subtlety and mood and flow. he was a greater musician in every single way that relates to artistic quality.

I've watched Metropolis and Nosferatu and some Buster Keaton, and you couldn't be more wrong. They ARE boring. They ARE dry. Ditto for Chaplin, and whoever else you want to bring up. They're simply not that good, if you only take the blinders off.

i bow to your superior knowledge of what i find entertaining.

I take issue with you not reading my posts, and constantly mischaracterizing my position. This isn't what I said at all. Technical advancement was not the reason there were a number of great 1930's films that stand up to this very day, and practically none from the 20s.

Rather, it's the necessary improvement and knowledge gain that occurs upon the birth of ANY NEW MEDIUM.

ok fine, i just disagree when the cut off point is. the very first films are of no interest today, but film grew up before 1930.

If you think Shakespeare is the pinnacle of the written word to this very day, I feel deeply, deeply sorry for you. You're missing out on mountains of great literature, man.

There's nothing more I can even say at this point. I think you just favor old things because of their age.

3 or 4 of my top 10 favourite films are from this decade. several of my favourite albums are from this decade, some of my favourite books are from this decade. and shakespeare to me is the pinnacle of the written word. opinions are funny things huh. seems to me like you just hate old things because sometimes people mistakenly equate influence with quality.

You haven't proven a single thing.

lol well technically i haven't screenshotted the evidence but i've told you the facts twice already: the most obscure films on the imdb list are higher up on the TSP list, the most obscure films on the TSP top 250 are not on the IMDB list. it's telling that you keep refusing to acknowledge this even though it's right there in front of you.

[AFlickering]

what this boils down to is the fact that you can't 'learn' in art the same way you can in, say, swimming, because there is no universally agreed upon definition of quality or great filmmaking by which one can judge as one goes along what worked and what didn't. swimmers constantly improve because things are tried and tested in relation to becoming faster, but there is no way of testing the quality of cinematic techniques except in relation to personal preference, or some target audience's reaction.

[tef]

I'd love to hear what writer is 'superior' to Shakespeare. And I'm Persian. I have a favourite writer (who is not Shakespeare) but I wouldn't say he is superior. Art isn't physics.