I haven't read any Haldeman, but been told before I should. When I finish the 1400+ pages of Les Miserables, I'll hunt down some of his work.

If you want fun light reading and enjoy military sci fi, try the Hammer's Slammers series by David Drake.

OK, I'll look into that when I finish I Am Legend.


But, back to OP:

Why does art, of all things, need rules?

I have to say the books are less than impressive. This would be a rare case of the movie version being better. Also 2010 was pretty entertaining too.

I love the part where Dave is like:

"Turn around"

lmaooo

More impressive are the original novels 2061 and 3001. Especially 3001. Frank Poole's body is found floating in space, effectively cryogenically preserved. He gets healed up and ends up taking a trip to Europa.

@Thucy - "something wonderful"

I'm arriving a little late, but I read this whole thread, so I've earned the right to comment:









Additionally I should like to say:







Thank you, that is all.

mcbry +

Alright, catching up...

Abgemacht, your response, "Why must their be rules?" has been hailed.

And yet, somehow I cannot help but wonder HOW you can make such a statement...

Let's throw any and all rules out the window, shall we?

Except...we can't--for one rule remains: all rules are out the window.

Your first tule of art is that there are no rules to art?

Not only would that be a rule, a statement, a comment, whatever you'd call it, but what's more, we can ONLY understand and judge it BECAUSE their are rules...in this case, the Rules of the English Language.

asdfasdgfasdfamsdn fsm 834834 ^&$$%#$%#

I just wrote the same thing you did, abgemacht, "Why must their be now rules?"

Only *I* wrote it in my own personal language.

Now...who here, if I had not told you the translation, would have been able to tell what my own language means, what the symbols signify?

The very FACT that we understand what you wrote and may respond to it affirms that you, in fact, adhered to the rules of the English language composition-wise, and, as such, we are then able to interpret what the MEANING of your words are, as we have an understanding as to what it is we are interpreting, knowing that the "Why" doesn't mean "Chocolate cake" and the "rules" doesn't symbolize an inner yearning to milk a yak.



Again--no score, no sentence, no style, no STRUCUTRE...no substance.

There is actually an entire field of study devoted to this idea called "Semiotics," and while I REALLY disagree with the majority of his ideas--or at least the way he presented him in his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (which really did disappoint me, to be honest, I expected something far more clear from a man who claimed we was going to clear up the issues with language)--I would cite the philosopher Wittgenstein in this fact.

In one of the few parts of the book that I both agree with and was actually clearly written, Wittgenstein makes the claim that the notes you see on the page correspond to the notes you hear coming from the gramaphone (yes, a gramaphone...it was a while ago.) ;) The AMBIENT SOUNDS are NOT denoted in the score, and thus we may understand then to be NOT part of the compositioon, but rather an outside source with its own coding and its own, unique sounds and structure to it, its own cause...

But as that horrible sneeze from the fellow in front of you was NOT signified in the score, we can recognize that, as we know the score is a reflection of the notes on the page, which in turn are signifiers for the various notes the instuments in the score play, that the sneeze is a seperate entity and NOT part of the music, but rather merely part of the atmosphere...

But unless you want to suggest the conductor poured some sneezing powder into the air to cause that man to sneeze, it is purely incidental and can in no way be called part of the conductor's art, as he did NOTHING to eleicit such a noise, and it certainly may not be called part of the composer's work as he wrote no notes for "Sneezer #1," and so it is not part of the musical process altogether.

If you are reading this sentence right now, and understand what it means, you are, in fact, utilizing the RULES of a form of expression, and hopefully udnerstanding why there must BE rules...

Because either we have rules so we agree what each signifier means and you don't get offended by believing that when I type the word "Belgium" I am, in fact, uttering a rather nasty swear word (if you get the reference...all I can say is so long and thanks for all the fish) because we know that there is a structure to the language and certain letters MUST, arranged in a certain way, ie into a particular word, MUST "code" for that word and not for any other, and if we DON'T have rules, and we adopt that stance...

Then, again, we have One Rule in that there are "no" rules.



I'm not saying that rules have to be dogmatic, abgemacht, far from it, they can be very loose...

But there MUST be some rules, for the reasons given, and if you doubt that still...

Please give for me a valid sentence that does NOT contain letters, words, punctuation, or any of the components that we who utilize such "rules" of signifying in such a manner utilize.

And Draugnar, Ansel Adams DOES count as an artist, but photographers do more than just snap a shot, they set up lighting, contrast, compositional elements...

And then DEVELOP the pictures (at least they used to, with the non-digital cameras...some still do.)

So they DO take action in their art and ARE artists...and are not akin to the "blank canvas" example.

Or, in other words, they are not merely a mirror, which reflects an image but only that and does not make a conscious attempt to create or convey, they merely reflect.

Adams conveys and creates with lighting and the rest to express himself, therefore he is, in fact, an artist.

@Thucy:

"Obi I would say that the conflict in 2001 is between man and the universe and that the conflict is one of the most powerful and terrifying I've ever experienced."

Your example of "it'd be absurd to not look at a painting if there were no people in it" (I paraphrase there) does not apply here, as painting in no way requires people...of course there is nothing that requires people to be in paintings, we can paint landscape, and we haven't violated a fundamental Law of Painting (and for those of you who are about to be up in arms about this notion of Rules and Laws again, my I state again that I consider a "Law of Painting" to be...well, a painting needs PAINT. A sentence needs WORDS. A sculpture msut be composed of MATERIAL. And so on.)

Films are different.

Films require conflict, as dramas do, and films are dramas (I use that term to mean that they have dramatic stucture, not that all films are dramatic in the sense they are heavy or even tragic, of course.)

Drama requires a character of SOME KIND...doesn't have to be a human character, of course, but some character, as drama is produced by a character coming into some kind of conflict.

I would ask you--WHAT about 2001's opening, about 20 shots of just still landscape, gives me a character or any conflict? There is no context YET given, beginning of the film, so no in-pfilm context yet for all this, and we have no characters, no established conflict, these landscapes surely aren't conflict, they may appear barren but we cannot call them "conflict" as conflict requires two parties and so far we only have one, the landscapes...

Where's the conflict?

On the monkeys--now we have conflict, we have characters vs. characters/environment and as a result we have conflict...

From a SUBJECTIVE standpoint I'd say it's conflict that goes on for FAR too long and could have been shorter and just as effective, but at least the idea of seeing man's first steps with the bones and learning to smash and kill is a neat idea...but for 20 minutes? Sorry, but I feel that's overkill--again, from a subjective perspective.

ALL THE SHOTS OF THE SHIPS FLYING...

Again--where's the conflict? We have something moving from Point A to Point B, and at first we don't know what's moving where and why and so I'd argue if there's any kind of conflict there's conflict from sheer audience confusion as to what the hell is going on, which CAN be a good thing but, like the monkeys, can also be overdone, as I feel it is done here--there's trying to show the enormity of space and how long things take and how small we are...

And then there's watching it for three minutes on end and you got the message after, say, a minute--MOVE ON...

And before I adress the one part of 2001 I genuinely LOVE, a word to those who may at this point be rready to point out that this all reflects the vastness and enormity of space and how insignificant we all are and so on and so forth on that interpretive path:

Let me just say I would be FAR more inclined to believe that and side with that point of view, at least more generously, if there was some kind of hinting at it, as I'll demonstrate in a moment--no need to hold my hand, but even just a single piece of dialogue, or the reaction on someone's face...ANYTHING but a man falling asleep in space, watching his pen float in midair, and watching a woman carry juice on the ceiling for about five minutes.

Now, an example of how I think this can be done WELL, and where 2001 DID do this well (which is part of the reason I've very hard on it, I come down harder on a film when it has ideas and expresses it BEAUTIFULLY in one part and yet the rest of the film lacks that when it clearly had the potential than a film like, say, "Independence Day," wehre I KNOW logic is taking a back seat to guns and aliens and watching the White House get blown up, and where a Dell laptop can ionfect an alien computer with a virus that wipes out their advanced alien computer network, I KNOW it's silly and really the film equivalent of doodligna dn just for fun, it's not an artistic failure because it was never trying to be artistic...2001 tried to be artistic, and in all but this spot I feel it either failed, overstretched the point, was vague to the point of just trying to pass itself off as being deep when in fact it has no meaning without the lovely interpretations, or some combionation of that):

HAL.

I. LOVE. HAL.

THAT is the shining example of how to make a piece that is REALLY open to interpretation, and yet gives us real IN-TEXT/SCRIPT/FILM justification for that, and justifies its own points.

HAL and Dave (who I find bland, actually, but if I get into a debate on every part of 2001 I'll be here until 3001) and their scenes are BRILLIANT. HAL panics--we get a real sense he panics, adn is doing really the opposite of what he intendes to do--safeguard the mission--by killing the people. We can even speculate that he doesn't FEEL good about it, as he certainly seems to be calculating this and doing it only because he feels he has to--he's not a merely a computer run amok, he's a PERSON, and he's on a long journey, and he's SCARED. He's a GREAT antagonist (and I classify him as that only in the context that he clashes with Dave, who is generally held to be the protagonist in some form or another, at least one of the protagonists) because aside from his aesthetic features--that red, unblinking eye and voice...EXCELLENT choice for a truly creepy villain!--he has MOTIVATIONS.

And we KNOW he has them, we see conflicts with him, and he gives a reason why--the mission is too important.

NOW WE CAN SPECULATE! We have two characters, a conflict, and a base motivation why,,,NOW we can speculate as to what that all MEANS, what the glorious skin is now on top of this skeletal start that we have!

Does HAL represent God, and Dave Man, and Dave shutting HAL off symbolizes the idea that we outgrow our protectors and caregivers, as HAL once was to the crew, and in doing so bite the hand that feeds us? Is this akin to Nietzsche's "God is Dead, and WE have killed Him?" (Hey, the film's famous score is CALLED "Also Sprach Zarathustra!") ;) Or is that Monolith God, HAL the hegemony over the crew, and Dave a representative of the prolateriate rising up against that? Is it man reclaiming himself from the machines, as we saw the first tool, bone clubs, used by the monkeys at the start?

I don't know...but we can at least DEBATE about these because we have DEFINITES HERE. We don't have to speculate about everything, we have a common ground from which to build...

We KNOW HAL says "I'm sorry, Dave, but I'm afraid I can't do that."

And by knowing that definitively and agreeing on that axiom within the film, we may NOW ask why.

ps you dont need a conflict to have a film (Koyaanisqatsi) and ps 2001 has a conflict.

also i already explained why those long shots are in there:

"to show the audience how advanced the species is and as "special effects porn" for a 1960s audience who had never seen anything like that before."

also to add atmosphere, as i said.

you should also keep in mind that this was filmed in a special sort of "high definition" kind of film that had just come out, they wanted to showcase it. the detail that was there was never adequately expressed once it left theaters until blu-ray and imax. so again with the special effects porn.


like i said, sorry you get bored in the middle of the space dock scene, but no one ever said a movie is never ever ever ever supposed to bore anyone.

this is same reason btw that 2001 has an overture: atmosphere. does anything happen in an overture? no. not at all, and rightly so. 2001 has an explicit overture, and then has scenes that serve the same effect. if it's too much for you, go watch star trek

@obi

You are seriously confusing issues here. You are right, some forms of ideas cannot be expressed without restrictions. Language, for instance, is (sometimes) one such restriction. But, even that can be bent. What about one of your heroes, William Tiberius Shakespeare? He is know for making up words all over the place. Is Shakespeare not art because he broke the rules? For that matter, is Shakespeare less "art" if it is translated for another country to enjoy?

So, no, I don't buy for one second what you're saying about language.

Now, you bring up another good point. Without rules, how can we critique art? Well, we can't. I'll be honest, art critic is probably one of the professions I despise the most. They contribute nothing and take an awful lot. So, for me, the concept of critiquing is irrelevant, because it shouldn't be done. The only question should be: do I enjoy this?

Is my position a little clearer?

Re: 2001 - So the extanded expository sequences make it a "bad" film in your view, but the conflicts still make it a film. And again I say drama is Greek for action, bot conflict. And your view (and that idiot confused matthew's) is your opinion. I'll take Kubrick's and Spielberg's opinions over yours anyday. Lot's of movies have long drawn out sequences of nothing in particular. It's called ambience.

Re; Rules - Do you delight taking quotes out of context? The intent was clearly that art has no rules. Not that no rules exist at all. Now I agree the musician who coughs (although it's usually an audience member) did not have intent behind the cough so it isnKt part of the art. But when Miles starts ripping into a improv solo in On Green Dolphin Street, that is art within the art of the trio or quartet's performance of the art that is On Green Dolphin Street, yet he has nothing written down and even breaks the compositional structure of the chord progression with intentional dissonance and odd "sound effects" that were never thought of before. Listen to one of his renditions of the Disney classic Some Day My Prince Will Come. If there were rules, he'd be breaking about every one of them, yet it is still art of the highest order.

@ topic:
I would say it would be a rather unoriginal/boring painting, but it works. After all, in many mediums, the white is simply unpainted canvas/paper, but the snow/flower/clouds it represents are not just blank spots on the canvas. By extension, one could do the entire canvas that way.

that's asuming that it's intended by the artist to be something, like a blizzard or whatever. Otherwise, it's just dumb.

I think context plays too large a role to make a judgment about the artistic qualities of silence/blankness. A great blankness amongst a exposition of color and structure could be interpreted much differently than a blank canvas on it's own. Everyone hears/sees things differently when their senses are deprived. What paths can our imaginations lead us down when we cast aside the chains of our own perception?

OK.......

@Thucy:

First of all, I wouldn't say "if you don't get 2001, go watch Star Trek" as if the latter was inferior...Trek's long had a reputation as having some great stories with deeper meanings...and characters FAR more memorable than 2001, if you want to play that card, aside from HAL, the 2001 characters are totally forgettable (folks somehow just don't quite remember Freaky Monkey 6 that much...) whereas Trek...well, most people will know Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, and Captain Picard, at least, and they'll likely know OF Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, Data, and Worf in some capacity.

Really, you've missed my point--again--about 2001 entirely.

I'm not saying a film shouldn't have atmosphere, not that 2001 doesn't have it--it has TONS.

I'm saying that it's all/mostly atmosphere and no/not a lot of DEFINITIVE story behind it, ie, HAL's case being a definitive one, and one I highly praised.

You can tell me it has atmosphere and grand meanings for ever on...but if we can't even agree on a few basics, ie, the story, then that's just speculation and not substatiated.

With HAL we have some definite traits, and can from that BUILD an interpretation...but what's the Star Child mean? There are NO in-film speficis about him, and so he could be and mean ANYTHING...and so he means NOTHING at the same time, as, again, if it can mean anything, that meaning is just not special or meaningful.

@abgemacht:

The difference with Shakespeare, or anyone who makes up words--I'm guessing "phaser" wasn't really in the vernacular all that much until Trek--is that we can deduce what that word signifies from existing, known signifiers (ie, words) and from phoenetic clues (ie, "phaser" souns like "laser" and it shoots, well, basically laser beams, hence we can probably figure out what it means.)

Now, if ALL the words were different and no one knew what they meant and there were no existing words or clues to provide hints, then yes, in THAT case we would not have art or, perhaps more correctly, we would have unintelligible art, as no one could interpret the words. As art must be interpretted and received in order to be meaningful--a beautiful book that is never read by anyone ever is art, but ultimately worthless art, as art is ebout expression and, generally, aims at eliciting feeling or even influence or action, and so if it is never read it may be beautiful, but it is ultimately irrelevant--an unintelligible work of art, like a sentence made of the invented words "Glepop re'cht ddim sooochimglibble v sondhipwachixqolor!" is ultimately closed to any and all useful interpretation, as it could mean anything and, as I said in 2001, if it can be anything, it means nothing, and is irrelevant.

I want to state that again--it can be NICE, LOOK nice, ie, 2001, but if it's so open ny interpretation fits, it is ultimately meaningless.

Does this mean that we should play Art Police and say that things MUST adhere, otherwise it's not art?

Of course not...but we DO see the need for structure of some kind (and as a side note I'll add that a good deal of the words Shakespeare invented were extensions. updates, outgrowths, or otherwise had roots in pre-existing terms, and so, like "phaser" could be likened to "laser," he is and was totally intelligible with those terms, giving context clues...a GREAT example is alos one of my favorite bits of trivia about Shakespeare: "Hamlet," appropriately enough, contains the first ever usage of the word "compuslive." Now, KNOW that Hamlet is a character who, well, today we'd call compulsive, perhaps even obsessive-compulsive in his internal questioning, and the word "pulse" was already in use...so between Hamlet's actions, the pre-existing word, and what that word meant, ie, the beating of the heart, we could and can see what COMpulsive means, a likewise with sort of beating and throbbing that's connected with emotion which, classically, is connected, again, with the heart.

HARDLY a blank canvas no artistic clues, THAT is the example I'm against here.) :)

You raise one other point that I hesitate to adress only because I know it'll make this an even more contentious position for me...but when have I been afraid of THAT. ;)

I would oppose the idea that at is solely for, and the determination of "good" art is predicated upon the idea of something being "fun."

"I may not know art, but I know what I like."

We have said art is expression--and I would say there are few, if any, actions more significant or, at the very least, ever-present in mankind's existence than the expression of ideas.

It is THAT which allows us to have not only a quantitative difference amongst ourselves, but a qualitative difference as well-I DO NOT mean to say that people are inherently better or worse based upon their ability to do art, such a notion is absurd.

But there is certainly a qualitative difference between what I write as opposed to what Shakespeare wrote and what a four year old with a six-word vocaulary can write.

Equality is all well and good in politics--well, it's the best course in practice, anyway--and in social life, but in terms of expression and ability?

I think not.

Bentham COULDN'T be more wrong when he makes the statement "Shakespeare's poetry is just as worthwhile as pushpin." (a type of bar game)

And to avoid being branded with the Bardolotry label, I'd say the same for Keats' poetry, and for Poe's, and for Tennyson's, and for Homer's, and even for someone I care less for, Plath's.

There is a QUALITATIVE difference in not only how we express our idea but, by extention, what those ideas ARE.

Ideas are our most precious commodity, without them, truly,

"Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more;
It is a tale told by an idiot,
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nithing."

Macbeth, Act V, Scene 5...and after the infamous "To be or not to be" monologue by Hamlet, my absolute favorite selection from all of Shakespeare's works, "Macbeth" and "Hamlet" being my favorite plays of his...

Art isn't merely a matter of "that looks nice."

Art is expression, expression ideas, and ideas our world--and the greater the ideas, the greater the world can be.

Art and Science, Religion and Philosophy, ALL make up The Human Art, the Art of Life.

And to trivialize THAT is akin to...

Polonius: What do you read, my Lord?
Hamlet: Words, words, words...

And "the rest is silence." ;)

@baumhauer:

But in your example the clouds are not painted, but there IS paint, to give them context...paint, hence we can calll it a painting, even if every little inch isn't painted, that's OK, and can even be truly effective, like leaving a word off the end of a sentence and ending on elipses for a monologue.

But I'm saying if it's ALL blank, with NO paint or anything, it has no context, no structure, and therefor no substance, and so cannot be called art, and much less a painting, as it lacks ANY paint.

@Draugnar:

Someone--can't remember who--already adressed that issue of improv, and as I already said that IS art, I agree with you, because improv stems from SOMETHING...you have jazz music and then from the initial notes FROM THERE go into imrpov not on the page, or start a scene from a scenario given like in "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" and it's still a scene, still has defined parts, ie, the defined scenario, and the definited starting point in the case of jazz improv.

I'm not railing against improvisation.

I'm railing against the idea of art with NO structure or style, ie, the blank canvas constituting a painting.

You can paint WHATEVER you want in a painting, go wild, improvise, sure...

But there'd better be some paint on that canvas, or some berry juice standing in for paint, or dents, or rips, or SOMETHING...if it's nothing but a blank canvas, it's nothing but a blank canvas--and NOT art.

okay then obi, as i said earlier, the film is very obviously ABOUT (as in - the story) man's evolution, first from apes, then to the "space fetus-thing" spurred on by the monoliths. This isn't one of those "up for debate" things - it is what it is.

The symbolism in between is immense and grand etc etc i know you're tired of hearing it.

but the point is, there is story. this is the story.

Strange monoliths have appeared eerily at certain times in man's history, and afterwards very strange things have happened to mankind. This is the story of the next "strange thing" [cue opening theme]

that's a bit less... sophisticated, but that's the story in a nutshell. HAL and Dave are merely characters who are caught up in that story, in much the same way as Joan of Arc was caught up in the Hundred Years War etc.

W/e. Lol. Sorry you think it's bad, because you're missing a great experience. It's my favorite film

(p.s. trek is inferior. lol. it's still fucking great, i love it, but it's inferior, because it's entertainment-centric instead of art-centric. now YES i know it COULD be considered art, i am not here to tell you it is not art. i am just saying they made it for the same reason they made piranha 3 lol)

@Thucy:

LOL Piranha 3...

My continuing issue is that the FILM could very well be about that...

But what if it's about man's DE-evolution? We go from monkeys to men to a FETUS, and as no explanation or definition as to what the star Child is or what it's nature is, for all you know it COULD be a sign of de-evolution, punishment, that now we've overstretched our boundaries and were punished for it.

It's so open for interpretation I just think anything could apply...

It's ART...just not a FILM, in my opinion--I'd call it "REALY beautiful pictures that very, very, VERY slowly move," but not a film.

(And I think Trek's demographic and any "contributions" are a bit more than Pirahana 3...) :p

obiwanobiwan, Umm, OK, two points.
2001 a Space Odyssey is most certainly a film. Just because there are multiple ways of interpreting its highly symbolic imagery doesn't make it otherwise. I know you're not commenting on the quality of the work, but that's not relevant. I actually don't like 2001 A Space Odyssey very much. It's boring. He might even be right that it's an anti-film. But even so it is also still a film. Perhaps it's an anti-film and a film at the same time. Just because it doesn't do what you'd expect a film to do, it's still a film in every practical sense of the word. Since you talk about theatre a lot, I'll ask you a question. Have you ever seen Eugene Ionesco's "The Bald Soprano"? It's frequently described as an anti-play. But when I was watching it, I still sat down in a theatre, actors still did stuff on stage. It had a set, a director a stage manager, and lights. I still payed for my ticket. You can tell me it's an anti-play all you want, but if you asked me that same night that I saw it if I had seen a play, the answer would still be yes. It's the same deal for 2001. Just because nothing happens. Just because you don't understand it, and Confused Matthew doesn't understand it, and I don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not a film. A film does not need to be comprehensible, to be a film, there's no reason why it should. This argument is better developed however by talking about the blank canvas. The idea that there are certain rules that any "work of art" must follow, has spawned so many movements which sought to defy that. By leaving the canvas blank and calling it art anyway, our hypothetical artist has called into question the very idea of art, much as Ionesco does with the Bald Soprano. It asks us the question "what is a play, what is art? What rules do I have to follow for you to call it that?" I'm not saying it's a good statement. I'm not saying that a blank canvas is great art that I would enjoy. But leaving the canvas blank was still a decision. There's still intention and meaning behind it. And I think it is a little narrow minded to rob the arts of the ability to ask us that question, with a blank canvas.

Errr to rob the ARTIST of the ability to ask us that question,

"Just because you don't understand it."

I CANNOT STAND that defense, of religion or atheism or Conservatism or Liberalism or "Hamlet" or 2001.

Anyone can say that to endlessly defend anything, it is a fruitless and frivilous defense...

And I would argue that a film must be comprehensible to be a film vvia my Argument on Intelligibility and Art, as already presented.

And in your scenario, leaving the blank canvas blank is a STATEMENT about art, maybe...I'm not sure the extent to which I'd follow that, but it certainly would have an argument for that idea.

but a statement about art and art itself are two very different things, and it is not the latter, and, most vitally, without paint, it is no more a painting than a sentence without letters is a sentence--it simply lacks the basic component needed.

Intention is all well and good, but while intention can lead to a statement and even a discussion on art, intending to leave a canvas blank is still not CREATING art, and, thus, not art.

@obi - Just because *you* don't have a clue what the Star Child represents doesn't mean it has no meaning. To some of us, it's rather obvious. It is the next step in man's evolution and Dave Bowman/Star Child is placed to look over mankind as the rest of it eventually makes the progression to Star Children. The over arching story has been explained a couple of times. It is clear and there is no debate in it. Clarke made it clear when he wrote the novel for those who didn't grasp it in the movie, but it is there to be seen on screen. As far as the long drawn out sections, they neitehr make it not be a film or not be art. They just bore you. That's fine. I find much (but not all) of minimalism boring musically, but I recognize it as art and music.

@obi - I realize I posted the same essential argument. But you can't invalidate the argument by saying you are tired of hearing it. It is a valid argument. Different people have different intellectual skills. I understand 2001. Have since the first time I saw it (OK, actually the second as I was a baby the first time at the theater). So I say it is art and film because I fully understand it and essentially always have.

@Draugnar:

"Just because *you* don't have a clue what the Star Child represents doesn't mean it has no meaning."

See my above statement about how I LOATHE the non-argument that is "You just don't get it."

It's rather "obvious?"

Well, it's obvious to ME, Draugnar, that the Star Child represents de-evolution, the Monoliths a blank film screen turned on it's side, and the opening minutes of landscape are representative of how we need to fix the ozone layer lest our world look like that...

IT'S SO OBVIOUS, DRAUGNAR! (It's not/ Well...you just don't get it!) :p

It's not an argument...and as such I won't debate along those lines.

Along just about any other lines, but not that one. :)

OMG, I'm about to drop some serious philosophy on you.
When I look at a blank canvas and see the question, "What constitutes art?" I give meaning to a blank canvas, where none would otherwise exist. In other words, in doing so, I create something in my mind with that canvas, you could argue . There's creation in interpretation. You can't even argue that's unintelligible, because both you and I have conceived of a blank canvas and then as a result, asked basically the same question, namely "What does something need to be to be considered art?"
And I still don't see that 2001 is unintelligible? I don't understand it, but that doesn't mean that it is not understandable. Draugnar seems to have an understanding of it (one of many possible interpretations), and even if that understanding is in some ways inconsistent with certain elements of the movie, it still means the film is in some way intelligible. There are plenty of things in Star Trek for instance which defy complete understanding because they are treated inconsistently, and independently of the writers authors of unofficial novels and fans constantly come up with alternate interpretations to make everything make sense. Does this mean Star Trek is not a TV show?

Also 2001 could not just mean ANYTHING. There are certain elements of the movie which cannot be completely ignored. No matter how ambiguous the film is if I told you that 2001 A Space Odyssey was the story of a young woman falling in love with a prince who was cursed for his selfishness by a witch, to live forever as a beast, and that ultimately her love redeems him and turns him into a man, and they live happily ever after, you would not say "That's a totally legitimate interpretation of the film, I can completely see where you got that." You'd most likely say "I think you're probably actually thinking of 'Beauty and the Beast'." In that sense, 2001 A Space Odyssey communicated SOMETHING to you. You understood some things about it. Therefore it must have meaning, because you were able to interpret enough at least to know that it was not Beauty and the Beast. (And whatever you may protest, I'm sure you interpreted a great deal more than just that.)