Skip to main content

View Diary: Are old movies doomed to obscurity? (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If they're competing with video games.... (7+ / 0-)

    ....they've lost. Not quite yet, but soon, when the AI in games can give non-player characters enough flexibility to consistently give interesting responses to player actions.

    Even now, if watching a second-rate action movie, I think, "Why am I sitting here watching this when I could be in the middle of it in a game, influencing the way it comes out?"

    The end of movies? No way. But they will have to have stories that are strong enough to make up for the passivity the medium forces on us, or people will just walk away.

    "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

    by sagesource on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 05:54:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Funny. To me, you are not passive... (4+ / 0-)

      if you know how to engage with a work of art. You are responding to the story, emotionally, psychologically. Someone has a story to tell in the form of ART. You are not supposed to influence it by changing the work itself.

      I think viewer engagement with another's art is becoming a lost art.

      Last year, spring, there was an exhibition of abstract expressionism/New York at MOMA, as well as the work of German expressionist painters. The lines were around the block, exceptionally long - spring break for public school, I guess.

      We're inside. I realize I'm hungry for this stuff. I havent been viewing art like this for a long time and I think its great. Then I begin to notice what is happening with a great number of visitors; people are rapidly moving from painting to painting, snapping a shot to "grab" the image and then flit to the next - shielded from the work by their smart phone cameras, or cameras. No one was standing there SEEing the art. Communicating with it. They were just confiscating it for their little screens. I guess that was as "interactive" as they could get in that environment.

      I found it appalling.  

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

      by NYCee on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:00:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •   A good painting asks you to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gay CA Democrat

        take your time to see what it is. No rush. To think about what you saw. And you need to look at it not just one time, but several times. Our culture does not encourage this kind of behavior.

        Movies? You watch them once and then go to Starbucks and talk bullshit. Act like a bigshot because you know about "film history".

        "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." - Oliver Hardy

        by native on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 09:11:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "You are not supposed to influence it...." (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jakedog42, arch, churchylafemme

        But you do by the way you interpret it, don't you? And what of that "not supposed to"? Says who?

        There's far too much sneering and superior attitudes in this thread, though I should add that you don't seem to be especially guilty of these sins. Too many people eager to prove that they don't like what the "peasants" like.

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 10:24:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, no, you dont influence a painting. (0+ / 0-)

          (Barring Yoko type art experiences, where you get to climb up a ladder and hammer a nail into it, but even then, that's her idea) Nor do you influence any finished piece of art, like a movie. Certainly you can influence a live performance with the type of attentiveness or lack thereof (that smart phone gazing!). But you are not going to call out lines to the actors on stage or run up and change a prop. You arent going to grab the guitar from a musician's hand and redo the riff. What's done there is done by the artists. You, then, the viewer, are influenced by the work. It is a transference and you interact with it inside. But you don't influence it, most definitively not in the slightest in the case of a painting, a movie, recorded music. (Keep your Sharpie in your pocket as you approach the Mona Lisa!)

          I am happy to discover you have (just barely?) not thrown me on that heap of the "sneering and superior." I even like very bad, made for TV movies! They relax me, passive and docile. Better than Vicoden!

          I'm just a person who wants to see bodegas and astrology/tax preparation stores, a place where you can buy hardware and get a haircut, loaves of bread on a bench on a street, a Washington Square Park for vagabond singers in search of a countercultural mecca/icon instead of 7-11, i-HOP and  Bloomberg's suburbanized renovation/deletion of that park (the former list being things that used to be in the E Village, NYC, the latter what is usurping all that).

          I'm just a poor lass who really wants to "see" paintings that are incredible without people buzzing around me to snap them on their phones rather than "seeing" them. I prefer to walk up a street teeming with people and not see 2 out of every 3 passersby sucked into their smart phones.

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

          by NYCee on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:53:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ha. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Back when Facebook only used square profile pictures, I heard an artist complain that he had to make images square so that people would relate to them. I think he was only half kidding.

        "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in". Leonard Cohen

        by northsylvania on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:40:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site