Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 10/08/09 11:11, Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
> >>          At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from
> >> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
> >
> >    Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> > making the film.
>         
>         In the end, it's the output that matters. They're selling a product: 
> Not the effort that goes into the product.

  Art can be admired in more than one way. Often it's not only the end result
that matters, but also the *performance* and the skills shown in the work can
be a target of admiration as well.

  For example, if a highly skilled guitarist plays a superb piece of music
which is extremely hard to play, I can admire both the end result, ie. the
music that I can hear, *and* the skills that were necessary to produce that
music.

  Lack of skill doesn't make the music itself worse, but if high amount of
skills were necessary to create the music, that in itself is admirable as
well.

  Likewise for movies: I don't only admire the end result, but also how it
has been created.

>         If we're talking about purely artistic endeavors that are _not_ made 
> mostly for commercial purposes, I can see your point. But if I'm buying 
> a chair and I have two choices: One made in a factory and the other hand 
> built, and I can't distinguish between the two, why should I care how it 
> was made? I want the chair to be comfortable.

  Because art and entertainment is not about what is most comfortable and
practical. It's a completely different category, not comparable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message