Jump to content


Photo

more 'fine art' focused?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Andrzej Ford

Andrzej Ford
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Student
  • Brighton / London / Portsmouth - UK

Posted 21 January 2010 - 03:22 PM

hi, i'm basically looking to find other websites. Preferably forums similar to this that are more fine art focused, so far all i have found is http://www.lux.org.uk/ .

and i was also wondering if anyone knew about fine art film magazines that are worth subscribing to. i guess similar to Frieze, but film orientated.

When i say fine art film, im talking about hopefully contemporaries who are along the lines of Malcolm Le Grice, David Hall, David Lynch and Bill Viola.

Thanks in advance


n.b. trust me i dont think there's anything wrong with these forums but it would be nice to not have to waste cinematographers time with fine art moving image.
  • 0


#2 Andrzej Ford

Andrzej Ford
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Student
  • Brighton / London / Portsmouth - UK

Posted 21 January 2010 - 05:50 PM

Sorry by the way; this probably isn't the right location for this thread. But I couldn't find a better location.
  • 0

#3 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 January 2010 - 09:45 PM

...but it would be nice to not have to waste cinematographers time with fine art moving image.


First things first: attempt a definition of 'fine art moving image' ...

then, 'wasting time' ... who / wha ?
  • 0

#4 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 January 2010 - 10:20 PM

There's no such thing as 'fine art film'. The term 'fine art' is an antiquated nonsense term. Tacking it in front of photography or cinematography or any other art form only makes one sound pompous and exclusionary.
  • 0

#5 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 21 January 2010 - 11:21 PM

This is the first time I have heard "fine art" applied to movies. I guess it is possible to make a case for that association. But, I also think that that case could much more easily be argued. Fine art is more commonly applied to exclusivity in presentation like painting, sculpture and the like. Movies are a little more of a populace medium, therefore, on the common side of art. I don't think I've heard the phrase applied to TV or newspapers or billboards either. While these mediums can be artistic or have art in them, they're targeting towards commonness excludes them from being "fine". Warhol is the most well known for efforts to make art film: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Andy_Warhol.

If you know of any web references to any film as fine art, Id love to get a click to it. This would be an interesting presentation to me.
  • 0

#6 jacob thomas

jacob thomas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 January 2010 - 12:35 AM

hi, i'm basically looking to find other websites. Preferably forums similar to this that are more fine art focused, so far all i have found is http://www.lux.org.uk/ .

and i was also wondering if anyone knew about fine art film magazines that are worth subscribing to. i guess similar to Frieze, but film orientated.

When i say fine art film, im talking about hopefully contemporaries who are along the lines of Malcolm Le Grice, David Hall, David Lynch and Bill Viola.

Thanks in advance


n.b. trust me i dont think there's anything wrong with these forums but it would be nice to not have to waste cinematographers time with fine art moving image.


As far as I know neither of these exist, but I would like to be proven wrong. Frieze often has good articles on film.

I don't think you'll get too many helpful responses as the notion of 'fine art' for many will have negative implications about non 'fine art' filmmaking.
Also 'fine art' communities in my experience are open to discussing the conceptual aspect of their work are inclined to discuss the technical.
  • 0

#7 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 January 2010 - 12:42 AM

I think a link to the wikipedia article on Warhol just goes to prove what I suspect is the OP's original concern ...

ah well - :rolleyes:
  • 0

#8 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 22 January 2010 - 03:09 AM

I like this one: http://www.theauteurs.com.
  • 0

#9 Andrzej Ford

Andrzej Ford
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Student
  • Brighton / London / Portsmouth - UK

Posted 22 January 2010 - 06:12 AM

First things first: attempt a definition of 'fine art moving image' ...

then, 'wasting time' ... who / wha ?


Well I think it would be as simple as a piece of fine art that involves moving image, http://www.screenonl...8256/index.html would be a stop animation example. And i guess i have probably not completely thought of the implications of saying fine art will cause. i mean i didn't mean to offend anyone if i had. but the quay brothers for example are fine artists who have decided to use the medium of stop animation to be the vehicle of their messages.


There's no such thing as 'fine art film'. The term 'fine art' is an antiquated nonsense term. Tacking it in front of photography or cinematography or any other art form only makes one sound pompous and exclusionary.


i'm not being pompous and/or exclusionary, because i appreciate all types of art from illustration to performance, the more common case seems to be other artists being anti- fine artists. and yes the term is old, but then i guess a better choice of words would be contemporary and conceptual art.

This is the first time I have heard "fine art" applied to movies. I guess it is possible to make a case for that association. But, I also think that that case could much more easily be argued. Fine art is more commonly applied to exclusivity in presentation like painting, sculpture and the like. Movies are a little more of a populace medium, therefore, on the common side of art. I don't think I've heard the phrase applied to TV or newspapers or billboards either. While these mediums can be artistic or have art in them, they're targeting towards commonness excludes them from being "fine". Warhol is the most well known for efforts to make art film: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Andy_Warhol.

If you know of any web references to any film as fine art, Id love to get a click to it. This would be an interesting presentation to me.


Video/Film has been used within contemporary/conceptual art since 50s, with artists such as Martin Arnold ( ), who cut up films including Andy Hardy and also used the film To Kill a Mockingbird, and through the technical aspect of cutting films he tried to extract new narratives from the original film

And yes Andy Warhol made some impressive and interesting art videos, but along with other big names it's an arbitrary thing to talk about usually. But continuing the case of video art being there, Dali, Duchamp and Man Ray all produced video/film art. Moving image art is still just as valid as conceptual art as sculpture today, for example Mark Leckey won the 2008 Turner prize with moving image art.

and continuing http://www.lux.org.uk/ is very good for upcoming events and news around artists using the medium of moving image.
But Paul if you're still interested in seeing how it has been used, names worth youtube/vimeo-ing are David Hall, Malcolm Le Grice, Bill Viola and Zbigniew Rybczynski's "Tango" is a very interesting piece (which won the Oscar for best animation over Raymond Brigg's "The Snowman"


As far as I know neither of these exist, but I would like to be proven wrong. Frieze often has good articles on film.

I don't think you'll get too many helpful responses as the notion of 'fine art' for many will have negative implications about non 'fine art' filmmaking.
Also 'fine art' communities in my experience are open to discussing the conceptual aspect of their work are inclined to discuss the technical.


Thanks, and yeah Frieze is probably the best thing out there that I've seen; and yeah i definitely regret using the term 'fine art' film, and wish i originally used conceptual/abstract based moving image.

I think a link to the wikipedia article on Warhol just goes to prove what I suspect is the OP's original concern ...

ah well - :rolleyes:


not sure if i get this, maybe because im still tired. thanks anyway





And i really wanted to end with i didn't mean to insult ANYONE with this thread, i just ignorantly used a dated term (that is still used today in Universities for course titles), and wish i said conceptual/abstract moving image.

Anyway Thankyou for your responses
  • 0

#10 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 January 2010 - 06:29 AM

not sure if i get this, maybe because im still tired. thanks anyway


I think you do: "but along with other big names it's an arbitrary thing to talk about usually"

Its me who is tired ! got to learn to stop typing when I feel this way :ph34r:
  • 0

#11 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 22 January 2010 - 08:03 AM

There's no such thing as 'fine art film'. The term 'fine art' is an antiquated nonsense term. Tacking it in front of photography or cinematography or any other art form only makes one sound pompous and exclusionary.


I agree... and I watched his 'fine art' and tho I was courteous (some would say sympathetic)... I still don't get what the hell he is doing! :blink:

See This Thread
  • 0

#12 Andrzej Ford

Andrzej Ford
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Student
  • Brighton / London / Portsmouth - UK

Posted 22 January 2010 - 08:12 AM

I agree... and I watched his 'fine art' and tho I was courteous (some would say sympathetic)... I still don't get what the hell he is doing! :blink:

See This Thread


Yeah, and that's probably because I'm only a student. But do you think you can watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020530/ and understand it instantly?

And I don't think you can say Salvador Dalí or Luis Buñuel aren't consistent and respectable artists? Plus I'm sure the clip in this film where they give they are about to cut across a woman's eye and then cut to something else, has been seen by almost all competent film makers "fine art" or not.

<--- Please watch this for the mentioning of Dalí and Buñuel to make sense.
  • 0

#13 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:04 AM

Andrzej,

What I like about you is that you are a strong willed person and no doubt that will be crucial for you in your 'fine art' career! Hey, just because some of us don't get it doesn't mean you should stop. Keep doing what you believe in. Negative responses are to be expected especially in your chosen field. Don't let them stop you.

But I still don't get what the hell you are doing! :lol:
  • 0

#14 Scott Bryant

Scott Bryant
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Other
  • Nevada

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:37 AM

I don't understand why people are fighting cinema being art. Isn't "Birth of the Sixth Art" by Canudo basically a required reading in school? What about Stan Brakhage, who's whole idea was to create art cinema, or Man Ray, Rene Clair (Entr' Acte), I feel like the list can go on for a while. I'm by no means a professional, but I would figure most professionals would consider themselves more along the lines of artists then tradespeople. Yes film is for the masses, and not everything put on celluloid or video is probably high-brow, but if the film professionals don't take themselves seriously as artists who will?
  • 0

#15 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:44 AM

(Personally Speaking) I do consider myself an artist... after all I paint with Light and Emulsion is my canvas. But for me, there is a line where 'art' ends and nonsense begins and yes I understand this is a subjective line for each individual. For me, just because you can throw paint at a canvas does not mean you are an artist. Furthermore, if it were not for Picasso's early realism paintings (demonstrating he could actually draw and paint a portrait without placing both eyes on the same side of the face) I could not respect his 'fine art' as I do.
  • 0

#16 Andrzej Ford

Andrzej Ford
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Student
  • Brighton / London / Portsmouth - UK

Posted 22 January 2010 - 10:28 AM

Andrzej,

What I like about you is that you are a strong willed person and no doubt that will be crucial for you in your 'fine art' career! Hey, just because some of us don't get it doesn't mean you should stop. Keep doing what you believe in. Negative responses are to be expected especially in your chosen field. Don't let them stop you.

But I still don't get what the hell you are doing! :lol:


yeah, well thanks :). If you don't understand it that's fine; maybe its my fault not making it clear enough. If you want i could tell you in a PM what i want it to be about. And thanks for the other comments.

I don't understand why people are fighting cinema being art. Isn't "Birth of the Sixth Art" by Canudo basically a required reading in school? What about Stan Brakhage, who's whole idea was to create art cinema, or Man Ray, Rene Clair (Entr' Acte), I feel like the list can go on for a while. I'm by no means a professional, but I would figure most professionals would consider themselves more along the lines of artists then tradespeople. Yes film is for the masses, and not everything put on celluloid or video is probably high-brow, but if the film professionals don't take themselves seriously as artists who will?


Thank you, Scott. This is exactly what i'm talking about, especially i think Stan Brakhage/Dali are perfect examples; and yeah this whole thread was supposed to be about finding a site EXACTLY like this. But just more contemporary/conceptually/abstract focused, because i have found this site ridiculously useful and helpful witha lot of decisions. But i just was hoping there was a place where i could talk about concepts/theories in abstract/contemporary sense.

(Personally Speaking) I do consider myself an artist... after all I paint with Light and Emulsion is my canvas. But for me, there is a line where 'art' ends and nonsense begins and yes I understand this is a subjective line for each individual. For me, just because you can throw paint at a canvas does not mean you are an artist. Furthermore, if it were not for Picasso's early realism paintings (demonstrating he could actually draw and paint a portrait without placing both eyes on the same side of the face) I could not respect his 'fine art' as I do.


Yeah I'm not sure if i completely agree with your Picasso analogy; however I do think it's a very valid point with learning the basics and foundations of a medium before you take it to a new level (especially if you want to be respect).
And yes i think everyone on this website is an artist, i just wanted to find a similar forum based site that was really accentuated towards conceptual/contemporary and maybe abstract.



And even though I haven't found the website i set out to find. This has been an interesting discussion for me and there is no doubt it'll be useful for me for my upcoming interview with a London art university.


So thanks everyone!
  • 0

#17 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 22 January 2010 - 10:35 AM

Sounds like a site you should head up yourself.
  • 0

#18 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 January 2010 - 10:54 AM

But do you think you can watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020530/ and understand it instantly?


Does the fact that a film is incomprehensible on the first viewing make it art? If so, you've just uncovered the secret to becoming an artist.

The clip that you showed is an obvious manipulation meant to create a sudden, meaningless sensation. High art evokes meaningful emotion with a transparent brush.

[edit] I find it disturbing that most film school students know that clip, but they haven't watched 'The Battleship Potempkin'.

Edited by Mike Lary, 22 January 2010 - 10:55 AM.

  • 0

#19 Scott Bryant

Scott Bryant
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Other
  • Nevada

Posted 22 January 2010 - 11:31 AM

[edit] I find it disturbing that most film school students know that clip, but they haven't watched 'The Battleship Potempkin'.


I would definitely list Eisenstein as art cinema.
  • 0

#20 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 January 2010 - 11:58 AM

I would definitely list Eisenstein as art cinema.

What is your definition of art cinema, and are you saying that all of his work fits into that category?
  • 0


Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets