Him and Picasso were alive at around roughly the same time, except one is much more famous and praised than the other, despite both their work being great, and in tarkovsky's case, some of the best his medium has to offer.
Do you think Cinema will ever reach the artistic praise as Painting or Music?
what does Picasso have to do with Burt Reynolds?
it already has in retrospect. film is now considered a serious area of study, even more than during the 70s-80s, and especially more than film's identity in stalin's soviet union
I don't think Cinema will get high praise then painting and music NOW in this day and age. I think in the 60's-70's it was, but then 80's just degraded all art.
The real issue is Video Games. They show a greater potential for expression then any standard movie does. Beyond that VR will always be better then any 4D movie that can be made.
It seems absurd I know, but Video Games have the potential of being for Adults and Movies for Kids. That makes sense, since to really make and enjoy the video game I think you need to understand the tropes which can be more clearly stated in movie/tv format.
I know it's the opposite, but it's not like I am saying Anime is the future for adult entertainment...
Why are you comparing a movie director with a painter? Oh right you're fucking retarded
Tarkovsky has a language barrier. A lot of people have problems with watching Russian movies. With Picasso's work language in any conventional sense is irrelevant. Also, there was quite some time in between their primes, which, since it's been only such a short time ago in the greater scheme of things, makes the difference quite impactful.
Tarkovsky was average at best. Sorry to burst your bubble.
obvious trolll
The post is questioning whether film will be as highly praised as painting you idiot, this has to be a troll or you are just stupid
>Why are you comparing a movie director with a painter?
the answer is right there in the second paragraph
no, but I know it seems like it. Video games aren't used properly, but given enough time the same systems used for video games could make a full immersed movie.
Would you consider the HOLODECK in Star Trek a Movie or a Computer Game. NPCS, and they play sports in it.
The future is not going to be watching 2d static images.
video games will never become an art form because its more about the player than the creators interpretation on life
>more about the player than the creators interpretation on life
funny you say this when film like STALKER requires practically self insertion and playing along
explain? are you saying it requires to follow the story? or are you saying it requires you suspend your disbelief?
A good video game has elements of movie, but also freedom to create your own story.
The latest Metal Gear Solid game, V, had very little story elements compared to the others, (aside from audio tapes) but since it allowed players to free form a narrative is why it was popular.
Metal Gear Solid was the first real transition of Game to use the thematics of Movies. Most people abhor it's storyline. So the demographic for video games is what makes it terrible, the potential for video games as art is great. I mean they have Art Departments...
I mean with youtube now, making movies is not that hard. There are more indie movies then ever before, but it's either low budget indie or high budget blockbuster, nothing in between.
DUDE KBG radioactive poisoned him to death because he wanted to direct movies outside Soviet Union and not come back and then they did the same to his friend Parajanov when he discover it LMAO
There's basically a character selection, do you follow the professor/teacher or the guardian. If the meat mincer scene wasn't effective for you, you probably weren't thinking of it from professor's PoV
Video games will never be art because they have developed during this autistic time in history where everything is a joke. Youtube is the worst medium and has single destroyed the meaning of quality work. You look at all these "creators" out there, all the do is make shitty 5 minutes sketches or 20 min lets play and repeat the word content. There is no substance to this, nothing to be learnt, its all a cheap laugh than forgotten, this is how video games will be
As a kid I kept thinking Picasso is some favous dude from XV century or some shit
I see video games getting more serious on some levels to become more competition to movies that after MGS was released you saw a big surge in video game movies for that reason.
I mean this is why there are 8 hour let's plays that people watch.
Youtube made almost every video game into a movie. Judging by views, you could argue that Video Games are seen more as art then movies. Youtube is not some minor site like Sup Forums, there is about 50% of the world has visited it, and the most popular channels are the video game ones.
It's a thing, and it is shit, but this is what pleb art IS. IT'S SHIT. This is why video games give yuo the chance to enjoy the same art in different ways, Movies are shit since they want to be seen by everyone to make money, so you're left with Marvelcrap.
But a Mass Effect game gives you the choice to enjoy it your own way and style and pace, so it still address the pleb masses while still leaving room for a deeper meaning.
It gets lost by a lot of people, and the real significance of these messages is lost to almost everyone, especially the big business money makers.
It's a potential market that could be exploited, that isn't. When there is a better focus on making a game that kids and adults can enjoy you'll know.
To be honest the CoD Black Ops III game had quite a deeper story it to then most people recognize and yet everyone just thinks of it as a 420 blaze it 14 year old multiplayer game for autistics.
Not a thematic story that has nice emotional beats with dynamic settings, and even an alternative version that twists the same story all around.
It's weird.... there's more depth to the Call of Duty Zombie storyline then most Movies.
He was born in the 1800's so not that young of a guy, dude just lived a long fucking time.
Did you know Paul Revere and Karl Marx were alive at the same time (for five days)?
Really makes you think.
You keep brining up this point of only big studios are able to make sellable movies when this is no where near true, There are inbetweens between indies and blockbuster and majority of them fill the screen. And if anything, Video games would be much more "studio" restricted than movies. A game requires so many people to make it happen while a film can really come from the mind of 1 person. And the reason these gaming channels are so big is because the only people watching them are kids with short attention spans, theres a reason why they all yell and make fart jokes
For me, art is about pretension.
Meaning that a work must be done and presented as ART.
The maker or makers have to try to create art in the first place.
A family home video made by one of the family members and kept in storage is not art.
But when a person tries to create art by making a home video that is something entirely different.
The intention matters and determines the result and the way the result must be treated.
For me great art must be connected to our lives. it has to try and change the way we look at the world.
For me, art's goal is not to stir emotion like some here might say, stirring emotions is a means and the goal is changing the way one thinks of the world, of people etc..
It is about stating something for which we dont have words yet.
Lord of the rings, for example, is not art, it is entertainment, it is myth and fantasy but its goal is not to be a work of art in the sense of forcing the one experiencing it look at life in a different manner.
Its main selling point is the creation of a fantasy world, which is great and entertaining and pleasing but it is not art.
I dont mean to say that art is better than entertainment or simple escapism, it is different.
As I see it art should challenge you. It is a creation which presents something not necessarily uncomfortable(as in a political provocation) but something that challenges the way you look and understand the world.
It can be politically controversial but only as a means towards a deeper more important message.
A good art film should be the visual equivalent of a philosophical treatise.
I dont know of a single game that was made as an attempt to make art.
What are some Tarkovsky essentials? Planning to marathon some of his works.
He has so small filmography there's no excuse to not watch it all.
Just marathon through a tarkovsky best scenes compilation.
>he knows the name of directors
>he pretends old movies are good
>he likes foreign movies
>he obsesses over crappy movies that no one has ever heard of
Profound. Is this your personal neckbeard opinion or borrowed from somewhere?
Its my own neckbread opinion based on reading academic works on art.
I read tarkovsky's book and the book he himself mentions called "what is art" by Tolstoy.
These two are interesting and both present certain interesting opinions about art but i would not call them amazingly insightful.
Read frankfurt school members and their opinions about art and some post modern ideas of art and kitsch, and of course from the perspective of sociology.
I also study film.
and played tons of computer games.
Passive aggresiveness is dull.
I think such opinions are a bit above Sup Forums's pay grade.
99% here only watch capeshit and spectacle flicks and think that art is simply what they like.
What a load of fucking shit.
Can somebody explain why is Picasso so praised? I have recently been to his museum in Vallauris with several of his works and i just dont get it. One painting was just brick on table.
You're trying to tell me thats not Jack Black on the right?