Film is the lowest form of art

may be less open to a variety of interpretations and enjoyment this ends up turning into a "where's the art" argument, and lately I've been on a huge productive agency trip. Interpretation is overrated; there's usually a "right" way to be subject to a work of art. I'm sure Hitchcock would agree.

The movies (as we Americans generally call them) are mostly full of cheap laughs and brassy effects, and most of them are pretty shallow, too. But the best of them are quite good art. If you ask me, the lowest art form is the limerick.

Sure, but tis also hard to peel off your skin......

Hang on, while I get highbrow for a sec....*ahem*: Film (as a medium) has always given filmmakers an avenue to express themselves, so I disagree about it being the "lowest" form of art. Sometimes, it hasn't been expressed well, but you can't blame the entire genre for that. For every idiot film like "Freddy Got Fingered", you will actually have a decent counterpart like "Ran" or "A Woman Ascends The Stairs". (Both are Japanese films, but they still count.)

Southern also uses the phrase "really monstro drawback and boss pain in the ass creativewise"!

I don't know how we've managed without a ranking system. Perhaps we can ask FIFA to help? Points could be given for appearances in some newspapers and taken away for appearances in others, and for the average length of words and sentences in the articles, and some sort of ratio between the coverage and the number of people who trouble to experience the art.

Literature, films, photography, bookmaking, print-making, design, music, architecture (etc.) are most interesting to me because they aren't one-offs, things to be hung behind velvet ropes and looked at or sold to the elites for prices no normal person could hope to afford, they're to be experienced, democratic and populist.

Film is best at that, in the way it creates connections as no other form can. I've never had a painting send me away drained reeling the way watching Bully for the first time did, and I never had one create a world for me as heartfelt and real as Dazed and Confused or The Straight Story. Those aren't even the ones that most people would classify as great works (nor would I, though I'd come close on the latter two). Cinema done right can't be surpassed.

First of all, I've only seen a handful of Picassos or Van Goghs in person in my life, but because of a decent education, a curiousity as to the history of painting, and things like the internet, reference books, etc, I can tell you what a Picasso or Van Gogh looks like, and probably can name you, in great deal, at least a few of their works. I've only ever seen my favorite painting of all time twice, but I know a shitload more about it than I would ever get from looking at it in person.

And I think that film's equivalent, sorry to say, is that the majority of people don't watch the "great masters"/"great works" in a theater on film; they watch them on DVD or VHS - a lesser quality replication that serves you well for repeat viewings or extended perusal, and probably allows you to become more familiar with these titles than you would if you waited to see what comes to town. I mean, the immense experience of seeing Lawrence of Arabia on the big-screen in 70mm is a monumental point in my film-going life, but it's not the kind of thing I think most people are able to do.

But looking at Guernica on an 8x10 page, or a 12x20 poster or a screen isn't the same as seeing it in person. When you're talking about something on that scale (or, say, a Jackson Pollock painting), a flat reproduction can't do it complete justice.

Watching Citizen Kane on a new DVD is pretty close to the real thing - or better in many ways, I'm guessing, compared to 1941-era theaters in Middle America.

Gee, how did this troll/provocation only attract 44 total posts, even after being revived twice?