frogthatcantalk

i liked history of violence...
the whole country mob person was quite funny to me

Well, this is what it's like for me.  I just drew this in photoshop, it took about 30 seconds and I didn't plan it out beforehand, it was totally off the top of my head!

Now, my true meaning with this image is that our modern culture is corrupting our children and playing video games makes our children violent and also God is punishing us for our sinful behavior.  Now some of you may be thinking that this is actually just some shitty stick figure drawing and has no meaning at all.  Well shut up!  I think I know better than you what this means.  Also I think it is incredibly well drawn and in a way, beautiful.  Also, the massive amount of blood is meant to shock you into seeing the truth!
No wait, actually it's just stick figures.


Why do you see more?  I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking the movie (or you) here, this is a subject I think about somewhat frequently... when is there really something beneath the surface, and when is it all in our heads.

zig wrote:

Why do you see more?  I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking the movie (or you) here, this is a subject I think about somewhat frequently... when is there really something beneath the surface, and when is it all in our heads.

Its a good question, and one that's hard to answer, and applies to all arts I think. Movies, music, painting, photography, etc.

You can get all movie-buff jerk with it and read interviews and essays that the artist wrote/participated in and find very specific, exact examples of what meant what, why who got shot in the face and all that kind of stuff. I think after a while of learning about an artist you can kind of tell if they're full of crap and just making stuff up off the top of their head that sounds good and makes their art seem meaningful, or if they actually are trying to do something interesting and artistic.

But that's the easy answer out because really, even if the stuff is beneath the surface to the artist himself, its just in his head. Maybe a picture he drew makes him think of a very specific thing that he felt or experienced in his life, and maybe the picture strikes the same chord with other people that look at his art. Or maybe its completely different for them and they think its just silly or stupid or makes them think of something completely different than the artist meant for it too.

So its kind of like the Mona Lisa. There are all these crazy theories about who it is, why it was painted, why she's smiling, how she's smiling, etc. Very educated, smart people have spent years just thinking about why this random girl (or IS it a girl?) is smiling. Its widely considered to be one of the most mysterious, greatest works of art EVER. But who knows? If we could go back and ask Leonardo da Vinci all these questions, why this, who that, when this, what that, about this painting of his, would he dive into a deep intellectual conversation? Or would he laugh and say, "Wow, you guys are crazy. This is just a painting of a friend of mine. Took my like two hours. I wanted to get her something nice for her birthday, but I couldn't think of anything so I painted her a portrait of herself. She actually didn't like it very much."

Basically, zig, in response to your question, everything is in our heads. Whether the artist tried to portray thoughts, meanings and ideas in a work or not, whatever we get out of that work is all in our heads - just like its all only in the artist's head. Because by definition thoughts, meanings and ideas - the things that you would "get" from beneath the surface of art - they aren't really real. But that's what makes it art, and that's what makes it interesting and fun. If you could do some equation and prove what was REALLY meant by a piece of art, it wouldn't be art anymore. It would be something mathematical, something technical, something provable. And people don't spend two hours of their free time going to a movie theater to have something proven to them. They go to either have fun, or to think or be moved in some way.

So really the only question left implied from your attack (it hurt my feelings. really. okay maybe not) is how do you know when an artist is a full-of-crap blowhard and when he's really an artist? And that's something that's completely left to interpretation, opinion, and preference. It's like drawing the line between genius and insanity. It's a much thinner line than you would think.

Or at least that's what I think. But thoughts are all just in my head, so... yeah.


P.S. Your drawing is awesome zig. Changed my life. I mean it.

Last edited by HappyNoodleBoy (Oct.12.05 02:12)

HNB, or whatever your real name is :blush:, that was some good discussion in your last post.

I read somewhere that a theory of who the Mona Lisa was is that it's actually DaVinci as he saw himself as a woman.  And another said that it was the wife of a friend of his who he was having an affair with.  Meh.

I've been thinking of this a lot lately, especially since my humanities class has been specifically going over the works of the Renaissance lately.  I keep picking at myself over exactly what makes great art great, and because I'm so soulless I turned it into kind of a mathematical principle.

I figure 1/3, not a perfect third but one of three, is the technical quality.  Non-aesthetically, just how universally good is it, kind of the technical level zig was talking about.

Then there's a third that's owned up to uniqueness.  Is it the first of its kind?  The only of its kind?  If it's one of many, is there some kind of sparkle about it that makes it a little different than everything else?

The last third I figure to be pure opinion on the viewer's part.  Because frankly, there's just some part of everyone's judgement that you can't try to quantify or account for by any other means than by saying it's their taste.  But usually if the other two are the tops, someone will probably be more likely to be a fan.  However, maybe not.

Anyway that's just what I came up with on the bus the other day, because it kind of does bother me that a lot of the time I really can't define what exactly makes one piece of art (be it old-timey art or something newer like a recent song or movie) "better" than others.

Its documented as that, but no one really knows for shure. OOoohhh myssttterrryyy....

Actually I really don't know that much about the Mona Lisa, I just thought it was a good example.

And zig,

"For me, I'll look at a movie more closely I feel it was very well-made on a technical level.  That's my trigger, I think.  If it seemed poorly made, my gut reaction will be "this guy's full of crap!  who does he think he's fooling!"  But I guess that's still just a reflection of my own personality.  If I have a great idea I'm going to make sure it's implemented to the best of my abilities, and I'd probably never let anyone see it if I wasn't sure it was good.  Bah, boring answer it is."

I can understand that, but even then there are only so many things you can point out about a movie that makes it technically good or not. Like, I remember one time you were talking about how you didn't like Gladiator very much, and when I asked you why, you said something like, "I dunno, nothing really wrong with it I guess, just didn't do anything for me." I think that movie was technically pretty good, but I think its more about the personality thing than the technical thing. If it doesn't strike you and you don't connect with it, you'll probably either find things about it you decide you don't like, or you'll just later say that it just didn't do anything for you.

Maybe its something more human and primal than just liking or respecting something at a technical level. But then again, maybe I'm just looking way too beyond the stick figure again.

Deacon wrote:

Well I think what he meant was more along the lines that if a movie is technically competent, that's when he'll look at it closely and decide whether it's good or bad.

Ah.

What was that guys story about? Was it a cop with nothing to loose and vengence on his mind?

So.... A few movies to review.

Just Like Heaven. The one with that blonde girl and that guy, and Napoleon Dynamite plays a small role. So, yeah, she's some sort of spirit and the guy moves into her place. And, like, they eventually fall in love even though half the movie he's trying to get rid of her. For a romantic comedy, it wasn't all that cheesy. I don't know if that's the right word, but it didn't bug the hell out of me with poor execution or anything. So that's a major plus for the movie. It has some pretty visuals too (or at least attempted prettiness). B+

Lord Of War. Again, I doubt I'm using the right words, but I'm thinking: witty, fun, evil, thought-provoking. The business of war, the disassociation from the people who are affected, who die. The greed, the satisfaction of making great deals or getting away with murder. The only negative to the story though, was, ironically, the love story. haha. It was actually worse than the romantic comedy I just reviewed. :shrug: B+

Sky High. The one where everyone has super powers and go to a high school in the sky just for them. It turned out to be one of those teenage relationship movies... There wasn't that much of the power demonstration, besides from the main characters. And when time came for everyone to "use their powers to save the day" they knew it'd be cliche and went with making it obvious instead of trying to hide that fact. So, that actually is a plus for the movie. heh. B

Saw Coffee and Cigarettes.  It took me awhile to get into, and for awhile I kind of was wondering if I'd made a mistake.  The first few conversations just didn't really grab me.  I think it was the one with Cate Blanchette that kind of signaled a turnaround, and from there it was pretty good throughout.  The one with Alfred Molina had me cringing to watch, and it's probably my favorite.  I'll have to watch it all again sometime, it seems like the kind of thing that'd get better the more you see it.

Can you say more about Bottle Rocket? I never heard of it....

zig wrote:

I didn't really get that movie.  I watched it all the way through so I guess it wasn't too boring, but it just seemed.. pointless.  I'd rather see real conversations between random people, rather than this set-up with celebrities stuff.

I was right when I guessed it got better with successive watchings.  The first time does feel kind of pointless to an extent, but watching it more... I dunno, it feels very "film studies" or something.  Like there's something to learn about dialogue and motion and acting naturally, and all that.  Even the bits that in my opinion didn't work to well kind of taught by bad example.

I got roped into seeing Doom on Friday and made fun of it pretty much until the movie started (I brilliantly dubbed it "Dum" I mean seriously haha city).  But it really wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it'd be.  I'd have to agree that, if not for the strangely lovable quality of Super Mario Bros., it's the best video game movie out there.  It's not a great movie but it at least is able to take itself on its own terms instead of just being one giant video game cameo after another.  But then I've never played Doom so maybe it sucked for the fans.  But maybe that's the trade-off when you're trying to make a non-shitty video game movie.

Also Eomer from Lord of the Rings was in it so yay.  I kept thinking man who's that cool guy and then on the way home my friend and I figured out where the hell we'd seen him before.