On 10/09/09 10:27, Warp wrote:
>    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.

	My question was:

"If they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from real stunts, why 
should I value real stunts more?"

	To which you responded:

"Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
making the film."

	Yes, some people may admire it, and I have no problem with it, but no 
one explained to me why *I* should admire it.
	
	It's kind of like telling someone who likes rock music that they should 
admire classical music. At the end, what you're talking about is art, 
and it's merely a matter of taste.

>    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.

	But if he plays an incredibly difficult piece that doesn't sound at all 
good (to me), I'm not going to admire it - because I'm not really into 
how the music is made.

	When I was a kid, my father would really try to get me to watch circus 
performances (simple stuff like juggling, etc). It was all quite boring 
for me. He'd essentially try to say I should enjoy it because of the 
amount of effort and training the performers have to go through.

	I *know* they have to put a lot of effort to master those performances. 
That doesn't change the fact that they're boring. Just because I can 
appreciate the amount of work that went into it doesn't imply that I'll 
become interested in it. In fact, I suspect that most of the times, you 
first get interested in the "output", and only then will interest in the 
methods follow.

>    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.

	Sure. If you admire that stuff.

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

	That's fine. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't. Just don't expect 
others to for the same reasons.

>>          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.

	Not at all. Building stuff by hand is an art, and I sure know people 
who _would_ care. I'm just not into it, and neither are you.

	Also, perhaps you'll disagree with me, the shift to CGI really is just 
switching from one form of impressive skill to another. There's a 
Hugo/Nebula novella winner that goes into precisely this theme (except 
it was about live plays rather than movies). (*SPOILERS FOLLOW*) The 
protagonist was an actor in the old style, but during his career 
everything shifted to machine-oriented plays. He became obsolete (as did 
all live actors), and he spent the rest of his days being loyal to the 
"true" art of plays (which virtually no one was interested in) - whereas 
most of his fellow actors found some creative roles in the new system. 
Only at the end did he realize that it was really just the natural 
evolution and was better for the whole art form in the end.

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message