My head hurts people.
What does my head hurting mean.

"Films require conflict, as dramas do, and films are dramas" - No. Films require images of some sort, and sometimes sound, to be recorded on some medium and then to be shown to an audience of some description or another. The audience need not pay attention, you could argue that a film needs to have motion to be distinct from a picture, but beyond that, I just don't see how you can make a claim more specific than that.

@obi - I officially dub thee troll. You can claim that the argument that I "get" something and you don't isn't a valid argument, but that is disingenuous. If universal understanding were a requirement for a concept to be valid, there would be anly a handful of concepts: I pooped my diaper, something hurts, I'm tired, I'm hungry, mommy is warm and feels good. Those are the concepts a baby understands. Your logical fallacy that, if you don't understand it then it can't be art means there is no art as a newborn baby *never* understands art as long as it remains a newborn baby.

As such, you are either a troll or are just an idiot who thinks only his view could possibly be reight and he is the definitive answer of all things. Either way, iKm wasting energy on you and I am through doing that.

@Mafialligator:

"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."

EXACTLY!

I AGREE TOTALLY!

but that is PRECISELY why I would say the blank canvas is not art...the ARTIST has done nothing, the AUDIENCE had done it all for him!

You said it yourself, without your interpretation it is nothing...

Do we say the same of, say, 2001?

Absolutely not--2001's art.

The difference?

Arthur C. Clarke WROTE it with ideas in mind, and Stanley Kubrick FILMED it with ideas in mind.

Two VERBS, ACTIONS...the "artist" who leaves the canvas blank has not committed an action, at best he has committed an inaction--he has done nothing, he may have thought, may have conceived, but art is expression, and expression is communicated through art, adn art must be created, and cannot be created through mere thought, otherwise...

I have just thought of a 1,200 page book, the greatest novel ever--am I now a great novelist?

No--and neither is a blank canvas, not acted upon, a wpork of art.

As for the "Just because you don't understand it..." comment, I do not treat it as an argument because it is NOT an argument, it is a tautology full-stop: I'm right, you're wrong, and if you cannot see that, well, you simply don't get it.

An argument needs evidence to support its claim--and there is no evidence within the claim "you don't get it" to support it's audacious stance but the feelings of the one making the statement "you don't get it," which hardly seems evidence...

Why, if all I need to substantiate my argument is my own personal feeling, I can end this discussion right now by saying "My idea is rioght, yours is wrong, and, well, if you disagree...you're wrong, because you just don't get it."

"You just don't get it" also can be awfully akin to "You don't agree with me and are therefore wrong," which, again, is not an argument but a tautological proposition--and a rather pompous and self-serving one at that, and one tht can accomplsih nothing.

A Christian priest does not prove Jesus rose from the dead by saying "You don't believe it? Well, now, you just don't get it, you haven't seen the light!" and, consequently, an atheist does not prove God doesn't exist by saying "You still believe God exists? Then you just don't get it and your point of view is just wrong!"

It isn't an argument, so I cannot and will not treat it as an argument.

As for out discussion on films, I'll redefine what I mean to see if it helps:

You have stated that "a film" is a series of images recorded onto some medium, possibly with accompanying sound.

Fair enough, as that would match a technical understanding of the term, and that is a legitimate example, as a newscast certainly doesn't need plot and characters.

So let me attempt to fix my terminology:

2001 is a film in that it is produced in the manner a film is technically, but theatrically is lacking in elements that would lend itself to being a theatrical release of a theatrical film (by which I mean "movies," films generally shown in theatres, which DO have plot, character, conflict, etc...even something like "Fantasia" has conflict and a character to go with the music, Mickey Mouse in the wizard robes trying to deal with the brooms.)

I SPECIFICALLY charge 2001 with being overly-vauge to the point of not having a definite plot (it has an INTERPRETIVE plot, you can interpret 2001 many ways, but it still is loose enough to fit nearly any description, and I would argue that it could surely be consideed a romance as if Dave turns into the Star child at the end and children are a sign of fertility and the Star child symbolizes the universe as a whole being feminine then CLEARLY 2001 is all about man's love affair with the universe itself, and it's Freudian desire to revert back to a fetal stage, as the Child does, as it is one of security) with the exception of HAL, as I already mentioned.

Consider HAL's story as opposed to the rest of 2001, just take HAL for a moment against the rest of 2001's points.

We have definite characters--HAL, Dave--with definite objectives that are given via dialogue and explicit actions--the success of the mission--and we have a definite conflict--HAL panicks and tries to kill Dave, who naturally struggles against being killed.

We can give defionite attributes about HAL's character--he's calculating. He's thoughtful. He's overly-cautious. He's even passionate, to an extent, about finishing the mission (or as pasionate as a computer can be.)

NOW...

Can you describe the Star child that way, and give me such traits as those? Can you give me definites like those from which we might make our intepretations (ie, HAL is smarter than Dave but Dave has the advantage of human ingenuity and empathy, and so we can interpret a theme of logic vs. compassion...HAL provides everything for the crew and holds heir fat in his "hands," so to speak, but once they learn what he plans to do they turn on him and Dave kills him...perhaps HAL is an allegory for God and Dave a living reminder of Nietzsche's idea that God is Dead and WE killed him...)

All those came from points in the film that were DEFINITELY--not speculatively--established.

Can the same be said of the star Child?

How about the Monoliths' presence, where are the in-film definites there?

And I dub YOU, Draugnar, "Misunderstandee of Posted Response."

You COMPLETELY took what I said out of context.

I did not say that something isn't art jsut because I don't understand it.

I said that you cannot USE THAT PHRASE as an ARGUMENT to support the idea that I am wrong.

And even literally, that is correct--arguments generally follow "If this, Then that" or "This because of that" forms (GENERALLY, let's not examine every form known to man."

"You just don't get it" tells me the THEN, "THEN you just don't get it," but not the IF, unles the if is "IF you disagree with me THEN you just don't get it," and if that IS your argument's final form...

Don't you think "If you disagree with me then you just don't get it/ware wrong" is as dogmatic as you accuse me of being, and rather pompous and tautological as well?

"My head hurts people.
What does my head hurting mean."

You should stop head butting people.

please dont bump this ridiculous thread.

If you think it's so ridiculous, fiedler, why pop up just to say so, as you've said nothing the entire conversation?

Or are you just THAT bored...

LOL Crazy A...

@obi

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't follow what you were saying in that last post to me.

Again, I don't think you are seriously misrepresenting what I'm saying by bringing language into this. Language is a medium with which to form art. It's like paint. There are inherent limitations to paint. For instance, if you paint underwater, nobody will be able to discern what the picture is of. Now, someone *could* paint underwater and claim it's art, just as someone could write in an imaginary language, but they would be producing a different, abstract type of art.

So, the real question is: who makes these rules? Clearly, they aren't self-evident, or we wouldn't be having this argument. Is there a committee? Or, is it what the general populace agrees to? In either case, they're arbitrary, non-binding, and worthless.

Most things in life needs rules. Art is not one of them.

@Obi - It isn't about disagreeing with me or anyone. Your arguments have been that if you don't see structure it isn't art and if the artist didn't alter anything it isn't art and, finally, if it doesn't have conflict (which you have contradicted numerous times on 2001) or an overall story arc that *you* comprehend then it isn't a theatrical movie.

My argument is, if you aren't seeing the story arc, then that is a limitation of you ability to comprehend that which others see and not a limitation of the movie in question. If a blind person can't see a photograph, does it mean the photo isn't artistic? You are applying your limits to all of humanity. I've never seen a bollywood movie, but they still exist. your argument that you don't see it therefore it doesn't exists is like playing peekaboo with an infant. If they don't see you, they don't know you are there.

But again, I believe you are being intentionally obtuse to get a rise out of people, and that is what a troll does best. Congrats on being the troll otehrs ahve been calling you for a long time.

If you want to say that "4:33" isn't music, go ahead. But it's definitely art. Cage is making a point, and an important one: sometimes we need to shut up and pay attention to our environment. "4:33" is designed to get people to be quiet and pay close attention to subtle cues--the way people do when they're waiting for something to happen...you could say that it's meant to trick people into meditating.

@Draugnar: what your argument basically boils down to is, "a lot of other people get 2001, so that makes it a film." The problem with this, in the context of modern art, is that a lot of people who claim to be highly sophisticated "get" objects of art that look ridiculous to most people. So "it's art because a lot of smart people say it is" has limits as an argument.

@obiwan: I would suggest that you're missing the point. Art is a form of communication, and so something that communicates is art. In film, a narrative based in conflict isn't the only way to communicate. Even if 2001 is nothing more than a series of images, if those images inspire the feelings that Kubrick wanted people to have, then it's a successful work of art.

Anyway, 2001 gets across a story. At the beginning the hominids are facing extinction because they don't have technology, and a monolith brings them into the next level of evolution, with mixed results. At the end, humans are facing extinction because they do have technology (something that doesn't need to be said during the Cold War). and a monolith brings them to the next level, also with mixed results.

@pastoralan - my argument is that all the elements obi claims a movie needs are in 2001. He is either to dense or to stubborn to see them. This is a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one. He can say it is a bad movie if he likes. That's his opinion and, while I would disagree, he has every right to have it. But to say it isn't a movie at all is demonstrably wrong.

@Draugnar: I understand your argument...but some people say that about art that is rather more questionable (Google "A Dead Shark Isn't Art" for a great example). It's possible that you and I see something in 2001 because we've learned to see it from the outside.

Possible, but not in fact the case.

I think what obi is getting at is that, if an musician doesn't play notes, he isn't making music. If a sculptor doesn't sculpt, he hasn't created a sculpture, because our mind gives meaning to it, not his hands. I'm not going to touch on film at all, but if an artist hasn't attributed anything to the art, then it is not his to claim. Personally, I hate what art has evolved into. I am a classics guy. I like the Renaissance sculptors and painters, and well i don't mind anything else really until the early 1900s, where art started progressing from being abstract. Simply not pleasing to me. That's just an opinion though.

And I would reinforce the opinion that "4:33" isn't music. I would like to see whether Wynton Marsalis or any other musician would call it music. Now, to be sure, natural sounds have been incorporated into music. Holsinger for one loved to do it, but it was written in the score

@GF: "if an musician doesn't play notes, he isn't making music" - Utter bullshit.

First, there is something called a "rest" in music that is rhythmically placed to flow with the intoned "notes" to create the melody.

Second, many jazz musicians find alternative ways to play their instruments beyond the usual "notes" and sometimes they involve doing unusual and out of the ordinary effects like making "kissing" sounds in a trumpet or clicking the reed on a saxophone or clarinet. These aren't notes and aren't in the score. But they are still very much music.

Now, I agree 4:33 is not music. But it is art just as nature recordings (Songs of the BlueWhale) which arrange the sounds as if it were a performance, but never uses an instrument even in a bizarre off-beat way isn't music but is still art.

@Draug - I am a musician not by profession, but by passion. I've been first chair in a few bands and lead in a jazz ensemble. I know a bit about music.

As for your first claim, yes there are rests that musically enhance a piece. What I was going at is a piece that is all rests, such as 4:33, is not music. Usually there are notes before and after rests.

For your second point, I am aware of the shakes, trills, growls, flutter tongues, etc. that are alternative ways. Actually a lot of these are written in the score though. For solo sections they aren't though (obviously because its improv). But I am sorry if I made it seem as if such things weren't musical. I agree with you there

Catching up again, as I REALLY want to comment on those last few exchanges...

@Draugnar:

"'if an musician doesn't play notes, he isn't making music' - Utter bullshit."

Well--that's CERTAINLY an open-minded and well thought out counter argument...about as good as "you just don't get it."

Really, Draugnar, you're usually a lot better at putting together an argument that isn't so simperlingly tautological...I'd expect a "I'm right, you're an idiot" response from someone like Miro Klose, but not you...why are you arguing this way?

"Second, many jazz musicians find alternative ways to play their instruments beyond the usual "notes" and sometimes they involve doing unusual and out of the ordinary effects like making "kissing" sounds in a trumpet or clicking the reed on a saxophone or clarinet. These aren't notes and aren't in the score. But they are still very much music."

I agree with you as well, that IS music because...well, notes are being played. They're not the conventional notes, not the usual sharps and flats and the like, but they're sound effects done to produce a certain rhytym or effect, and that IS music, or at least has an argument to be considered music, I totally agree.

I also agree that rests are not only a part of music, but a vital part.

However, the very term "rest" indicates it is a PAUSE in the music for that instrument, a break in the action, not the entirety of the action--hence the reason I still do not consider "4:33" music at all, whatsoever.

I repsonded previously to someone--can't remember who--as they pointed out that a canvas CAN have blank spots to act as white, clouds, space, etc., with the paint around it. And I agree totally.

Again--WITH PAINT AROUND IT. Or the musical rests--even it was a 4 minute and 33 second rest--WITH MUSIC or at least SOUND around it.

No paint, no paionting, and THAT is what I mean when I say no structure, the structural element of that art form, which IS self-evident, contrary to what you've said, as at the very least it is given in the term it self, ie, "painting" literally means "to paint" and so with no paint or objects or even tears or dents approximating paint, a blank canvas cannot be considered a painting; music is trickier as it admittedly has a looser definition, but I think we could all agree that fragrance is NOT music, that an omlet is NOT music, that a table is NOT music, as these correspond to the senses of smell, taste, and touch, respectively, and music is an auditory art, or at the very least is auditiory first and foremost, as an example of this, to REALLY stir the pot and return to a former controversy, Lady Gaga's music videos--regardless of how I feel about them I must admit that they ARE music, and that it IS a video. HOWEVER, let's say, for the sake of argument, Lady Gaga made a video with absolutely no music or even sound in it, it's a totally silent peice called "I'm Filthy Rich, Even If I Am A...Dog." (obiwanobiwan would like to point out that he usues such a title humorously, does not wish to insult the Great Lady Gaga, and hopes the Gaga fans will recognize that and not turn this into a three-front discussion with 2001, the blank canvas/blank score issue, and then Gaga on top of it...I said her music was music, that's more than I would've said before, let's leave it at that, eh?)

A music video...with NO music and NO sound and not even any dialogue or on-screen notes or text.

Is THAT a MUSIC video...or simply a video?

"Video" corresponds to the visual, it is surely that...

But music? Music requires sound, SOME sound, ANY sound, at least to start off with...no sound, no music, and hence it would not be a music video, and for that same reason I cannot consider "4:33" a musical piece.

It IS self-evident that music requires sound, as it is contained within the very definition or, to put it another way, it is absurd to think of the art form without its sensual medium.

It would be absurd to say that I have created a movie that can never be seen (not even that it's all a blank screen, it just can't be seen period, no tape even exists, it just cannot be seen.)

It would be absurd to say that I have a fragrance has no scent--fragrance IMPLIES smell in its very name.

Likewise, "painting" implies...PAINT, or, again, if we want to be liberal with out definitions in the face of new artistic movements, we can scale that back to make the statement that "painting" requires some physical change in the canvas that the artist brought about intentionally (I'm sorry, but if you trip over your shoes and splill a tub of paint that forms the Mona Lisa, that's not art, it's an accident...art requires intention, as is self-evident by the fact that art is something "to do," and that generally can be linked to intention...otherwise we're forced to call that mucus from your last sneeze art, and at THAT point it's just all downhill.)

It IS self-evident...

A blank canvas--no paint, or at least physical, intentional change, no painting/

4:33 of rests with no sound before or after--all it IS is a rest, a cessation of sound, and as sound is the necessary medium for music, we have then removed the necessary medium for music, and so a work that is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence is not music.

Is it art?

To be honest I'd still say no, but I'll leave this question of "is it art?" alone until the first issue is resolved, as that is a bit trickier to answer, as there is no glaring violation as is the case with the other two cases.

But is it MUSIC?

Absolutely not.

Is the blank canvas a PAINTING?

NO.

Is it art?

Again I'd say no, but again I'll hold off my argument there, as I suspect if you are still reading this you already have a point of contention to make--which is fine with me, by all means, I'm always of the opinion that you should keep going in a discourse like this until it is resolved, as with Gaga, where I'll STILL call her an inferior artist, but as there was a good enough case yo persuade me I was wrong, I must and ion this dialogue now HAVE acknowledged she is an artist--and so I'll hold off.

(P.S.--As for 2001, I really meant that to be a passing example and not a full-scale discussion, and I don't really have any true desire to continue discussing that unless you want to...I'll acknowledge it's a film but only in the technical sense, I still would argue that, with the exception of HAL's part, there is no defined story and any one that is alluded to is one based purely on fan speculation and interpretation, which are both admirable and even necessary for plot, character, and theme analysis, but when I get the sense the ONLY glue holding these speculations together are the speculations themselves, or that the film otherwise is so loose with its imagery and any possible plot that it can be interpretted enough ways to work itself around to the absurd end of that specturm then I simply am not of the opinion that can constitute a "film" in the sense of the term I am referring to...you're welcome to disagree, of course, I'm not going to tell YOU "You just don't get it" to make my point, but unless you really want to discuss the film further, I'd rather leave it to the side and focus on the issue at hand, the one I started the thread for, the blank canvas/blank musical score case, and from there an exploration into the mediums of art.)

I would agree that the blank canvas and 4:33 are not paintings and music, respectively. However, I still think they both are art. So, I think we're in agreement?

Now, I would like to talk about 2001. Can you please list CONCISELY the features you believe a film must have and why they must have them. And, just because I feel it's necessary, let me reiterate: CONCISELY

@pastoralan:

To adress YOUR adressing MY point on 2001 (wow, a bit odd-sounding there):

I agree and have agreed--2001 IS art.

It's the "film-as-a-film-with-a-plot-that-has-a-symbolic-meaning" part I disagree with and, as stated above, am content to let that diagreement rest unless anyone really wishes to debate that issue further.

To adress your statement that "4:33" is not music but definitely art...

Again I agree it's not music, but again I have an issue calling it "art..."

I think the best I can possibly term "4:33" is a "concept," but I don't think "art" is applicable (and yes, I'm aware of the term "concept art.")

I have at least two main objections to calling "4:33" a work of art:

1. As it's 4 minutes and 33 seconds of music NOT being played, and thus an art form NOT being performed or allowed for, and there is no other art form that it seems applicable too--certainly not a film, it's not a play, it's not a book, not a gourmet dinner, not a fragrance, not a dress, etc.--I cannot see how it fits as anything but the absence of art without those forms. It will undoubtedley be argued that "not all art must be in an art FORM," as if that last word were a tautological, imperial, tyrranical term that rules over art and defines and confines it, but, in fact, I would argue that is not at all the case. As I have mentioned already, art forms are self-evident, they occur naturally--sound, we discover rythym, and hence music, which is dependent upon those two principles to exist. More easily seen, a painting, again, requires paint, or at least something approximating painting or at the very least the action of interacting and pysically changing the canvas to meet and communicate the artists' desired expression. "4:33" is in the absence of all the above, and only communicates by NOT communicating, by being silent. That's a nice CONCEPT, hence my allowing it that term, yes...but the OTHER portion of my requirement for art, creation, is not met. To create silence is to create nothing, especially if you are RECORDING that silence. Recording silence is akin to leaving the canvas blank--maybe you're making a statement, and maybe that can be called a concept, but there has been no CREATION, the whole point of your statement was the ABSENCE of creation, and so as it meets the first criteria I'd have--a concept--but not the second--that something was actively created (and as the concept's creation is a given for the first one, that clearly isn't enough for the "creation" in the sense I mean here, or, again, I have the concept of my having written a 1200 page novel that is THE Great American Novel...who treats THAT as if I've created that novel?)--I cannot consider it art.

2. This is a bit odder than the first one, perhaps, but...well, do you NEED an artist for the art? As "ArtIST" is derivative of "art," it would seem as though one is meant to be associated with the other, that one creates the other...but do we need an artist to leave a canvas blank? ANYONE can do that. Do we need an artist to be silent, to allow for silence? Again, it seems anyone can do it...am AMOEBA can allow for silence, and he'll certainly leave the canvas blank--how can we call Andy Amoeba an artist, though? Art, as I've said, seems to require a concept and a creation to represent that concept; a concept, however, should seem to have to be intentional, by which I mean that it's only my concept to leave the canvas blank if I MEAN to leave the canvas blank, do so knowingly, expecting a purpose--THEN, while I still don't have art, I DO have a concept, it'd seem. But to not even intend to leave the canvas blank? Why, I have MANY pages of paper I've left blank unintentionally in my lifetime...have I then mass-produced this new kind of "art?" No, and so, as the action could be acheived without the artist, I cannot see leaving a canvas or score blank as art.

@abgemacht:

I WOULD list those things about 2001...

But as I just said that I didn't think the blank canvas or score were art...it seems we're NOT in agreement yet, after all, so... ;)

I see. Again, the danger of being overly verbose.

Let's put 4:33 on the back burner for the moment and try to come to an agreement on the canvas.

The artist had to do the following things:

1) Decide that they were going to actively express something.
2) Pick the medium in which to express that something.
3) Do it.

How is that different from anything else that you would consider art?

exactly, art is anything someone says is art. as pointed out by someone several pages ago, obiwan wants to box it up and tie it with a pretty bow. can't be done, suck it.

Because the artist DIDN'T "do it."

You brought up medium--again, "painting' intrinsically means "to paint, to mark up in some way."

That did not occur, hence it cannot be considered part of that medium, it doesn't fit any other--and is thus not art.

The issue think I see with the pro-blank-canvas arguments that have been made, or at least WHY they have been made, is because of the feeling "The artist had a vision and executed it--is that not enough?"

But when that vision is incompatible with the medium through which they are attempting to channel their meaning, we get what seems to be a paradox in this case, and, as it seems to be a paradox, I think people are inclined to say "we can't really TELL one way or the other, so best take the positive and allow it to be called art rather than the negative and spark controversy in a seemingly-paradoxical situation."

But again, I see no paradox, and would like to point out two additional reasons for my feeling the blank canvas is not art:

3. Consider my "I have conceived of the greatest, 1200-page novel ever, hence I have created this" example. Art requires conception and action...and action is ACTIVE, a POSITIVE, it is ACTIVELY created. A work of art, then, cannot be ENTIRELY negative and inactive. Not choosing to paint the canvas is an inaction; we may argue "It was an action," but then, again, we're right back to "It was an action when I didn't write words or put anything in that book." What's more, even if we granted that it was an action--which I at least currently would have to disagree with in the same way that I'd hold that a musical rest is different from playing a musical note--we are then left with the issue of creation...we acted, and what was created by our action? Not the concept itself, it was already in place when we "acted" by not acting and not painting the canvas...and not the audience's interpretation of a blank canvas, as we have not changed the canvas in any way and so not only have we not provided anything for them to interpret, but conceivably ANY blank canvas could be this blank canvas of ours, and conceivably they would get the same interpretation if we placed "my" blank canvas in place of "your" blank canvas in exactly the same manner. There is no creation, and so no art.

4. An art FORM is, again, by definition, a subset of art in general, ie, "all art forms are works of art," and "all art may be seen as some kind of an art form." A blank canvas does NOT meet the requirement to be in the painting medium, as already explained, and does NOT fit into another art form, and as we said, all art may be divided into art forms, so it follows that this does not fit into an art form and is thusly not a work of art, QED.

but obiwan, you miss the entire point, it doesnt matter if you think/feel it isnt art. As long as someone else thinks/feels it is art. then it is art.

And that's NOT what I want to do, fiedler, as i just said art forms are self-evident within the definition ("video" implies a visual medium, "music" an audio one, etc.)

And...

WHY are you even here, all you've done so far is wave your dickm around and piss on me...seemingly just to piss on me, I mean, you haven't even contributed to the discussion, just popped up every 20 posts or so to tell me to "suck it."

First--what'd I ever do you YOU to ge you so pissy, and
Second--do you have NO LIFE?

We already agree that it wasn't a painting, so that first part is irrelevant.

The artist *did* do something. He picked out a blank canvas. He chose the size. He chose canvas and not cardboard, or plywood. Decisions were made.

And your definition is absurd, fiedler, because for anything to be called something it must logically be able to be referred to as that and not have other things share that distinction, ie, there must be a qualitative difference, just like the properties of a liquid are different from those of a gas QUALITITATIVELY.

It doesn't matter how much I THINK a liquid's a gas--as long as it's in the liquid state, it is not a gas.

What's more, if everything's art, then nothing is--as then nothing can be distinguished from anything else, and Shakespeare is just as artistic as catshit.

And even if you HATE Shakespeare, I don't think anyone's really ready to say a cat's shit is akin to Hamlet's soliloquoy (whichever one you wish to pick.)

I'm sure it's very NICE cat shit, sure, why not (I'm getting sick thinking about that now...)

But there is a qualitative difference between "to be or not to be" and to be ready to go number two.