Are You Excited For New Tarkovsky Film?
Other urls found in this thread:
Looks dope
If you "look forward" to watching Tarkovsky, you do not understand art, frankly. His films are not to be enjoyed. They are to be endured, suffered, and by the endurance, we are edified. One does not look forward to watching Tarkovsky the same way a child does not look forward to taking their vitamins, but later, when it's over, when you are strong, when you reach the destination, then you rejoice.
If you enjoy Tarkovsky, you're literally a pleb.
But that's wrong
really makes you think
Said the serf to the aristocrat.
That's deep.
I absolutely lost it at the change in music.
epic post
clap clap clap
Hardly an aristocrat cunt. More of a pseudo intellectual I enjoy arguing with.
If you want to bring up arts that's fine. Art is subjective though. How look at one particular thing does not mean you can make a generalization of how others will react to it
how is the first one ? havent seen it
I agree. Tarkovsky films are a medium through which, for an ephemeral moment, we shed our mortal coil and transcend into divinity. Although it is painful, life is pain, and it is through Tarkovsky's pain that we see the blinding rays of light that sometimes bless the corners of our rooms, even though he has left us.
In other words, kino.
>pseudo intellectual
>Art is subjective though
Absolutely lmfao at your life, kid.
Have you even read Sculpting in Time?
what happened to foreign filmmakers
Is this a movie or vidya? Literally can't tell.
Tarkovsky died in 1986
People die when they are forgotten, user.
What is a man?
No
Honestly?
I don't even have a point or argument I want to make. I come to this board to argue and it seems you have the high ground because it's 3am and I'm out of energy
it's a joke
I enjoy tark. Sorry to hear you cant :(
He sucks ass and stalingrad was a horrible piece of judeo-bolshevist propaganda
Read Paul Valery and how his thoughts developed if you really want to see why you're a pleb
FUCK OFF IVAN
>talking about tarkovsky
>"here, read this unrelated philosopher"
>don't provide any explanation as to why
Your post is literally just you dropping a name of a semi-obscure thinker to try and act superior. Very, very pathetic.
"N- no! I enjoyed 10 minutes of watching a man drive through traffic! Really I did! Aren't I clever? Can I have a biscuit?" Sorry to hear you're a moron :(
post top 10?
You sound pretentious as shit. People can enjoy good movies, you not enjoying them doesn't make you an intellectual.
>They are to be endured, suffered, and by the endurance, we are edified
Can a person not enjoy edification? Can a person not look forward to self-improvement? Lol.You sound like an edgy 16 year old who thinks that not having fun is super cool.
Btw, what I posted is literally Tarkovsky's view of his own art. Gg, fags.
source?
If you think children are incapable of understanding life, then you are the ``surf'' that needs to pull their head from the ``terf''.
And I should care because? A lot of artists think a lot of stupid shit, it shouldn't influence what you think of their art.
>giving a pretentious namefag replies
>not just filtering him
Sculpting in Time.
It's amazing how quick when intellectually threatened people are to call others pretentious. The truth is you didn't enjoy the 10 minute car journey in Solaris - no one could and Tarkovsky didn't intend for it to be enjoyed - but feel the need to pretend to enjoy "good" things so you can tell yourself you're intelligent. Pathetic.
>being this much of a tryhard pretentious retard
>I get this filmmaker more than you!
Pathetic.
Couldn't go past 97 seconds. Too honest for my taste.
Paul Valery isn't unrelated or that obscure.
He's the man who is very largely responsible for the 'death of the author' viewpoint in literature and the arts, and this came about from his original completely opposite perspective, that art could be 'perfected' in some way to be objective, which made him very relevant.
I namedropped him because he was relevant I saw you yourself namedropping Sculptures in Time and thinking you're somehow superior and 'aristocratic' when you're really just ignorant and pretentious.
Seems namefags can only dish it out but can't take it.
I'm not interested in enough in Tarkovsky to read through all of his mangled philosophy just so I can prove you wrong. Just quote him please, since you have the book on hand.
And btw if you're going to be pretentious you should at least google how significant a dude is before you call him semi-obscure.
One of the fastest ways to out yourself as a pleb is to call a 12 time Nobel Prize nominee a 'semi-obscure philosopher'
The badguy looks alot like Bane.
Not to sound gay or nothin, but that song is pretty hot.
There, there, little peasant. Watch enough films, read enough books, and one day maybe you'll be like me, and not a petty, personal, squabbling little pedestrian child on the curb.
The book by the filmmaker in question is relevant. A certain philosophic perspective isn't, retard.
Lel used to hate you but god damn I lol'd
POST TOP 10 PLEASE!!!!!!
You got fucking BTFO, you don't even know who fucking Valery is yet keep insisting on your intellectual superiority, this is beyond sad.
Get superior education.
If you're not interested or knowledgeable enough to comment, fuck off, you silly cunt. You have nothing of value to say. The best you can offer is what this dipshit is providing - complete irrelevancy used to prop up a fragile ego.
It's not like you'd just responded to a dude talking about the subjectivity of reactions to Tarkovsky or anything
>you didn't enjoy the 10 minute car journey in Solaris - no one could
Have you never just enjoyed watching clouds go past, or looking at nature? In the same way, I genuinely enjoyed the journey. It was peaceful, it allowed me to reflect on the film. It's only unenjoyable if you've got no patience, which I suspect you do if you seriously can't eke any enjoyment out of Tarkovsky.
Reminder to ignore tripfags
I knew he was but there was no reason to bring him up. There still isn't. No justification has been provided. This is pathetic. You didn't know a thing, you got rekt - get over it.
>gets BTFO
>I-I-I-I knew who h-h-h-he is h-h-h-hehe y-y-y-y-you got rekt
Filtered
Get higher education, stop reading and watching shit on your own.
POST TOP 10 (third time)
>trying this hard...
>There was no reason to bring him up
Jesus, what's it like to be this retarded? You consistently ignore posts that point out the reason he was brought up
Well I suppose someone's always going to be irrelevant if one person's too plebeian to know who they are because they were too busy stickying the pages of Sculpting in Time
Oh so you were just pretending to be ignorant? Good one
>discussion about tarkovsky
>no one has read his book (i have)
>change the subject completely
>I WIN I WIN I WIN
All because you were threatened intellectual. How insecure. How pathetic.
Tarkovsky?
Wasn't he the one who did Dexter's Laboratory?
>enjoyed clouds go past
Kek fag, go outside to experience that beauty not through a screen
Death of the Author was Roland Barthes yo. And honestly I think that idea is a load of shit having been forced to study it for years.
>he starts going on and on about what Tarkovsky meant
>gets reminded of death of the author
>calls its author obscure
>gets reminded of what it is
>I-I-I-I a-a-a-a-already knew h-h-h-hehe you're all p-p-p-p-pathetic
>no one has read his book (i have)
lol
>A book read by a thousand different people is a thousand different books.” -- tark
if you dont understand this it means art is subjective
>change the subject
I mean sure it's not like you quoted a post pointing out why that was a relevant response oh wait
Russian capekino looks even worse than marvel crap
Look how disingenuous you have to act in order to pretend to be on my level. I used the word "semi-obscure" not "obscure," and I used it in order to highlight the irrelevancy. You and others have clung to that in a desperate bid to try and live down your shame of inauthenticating experience to try and pretend superiority (the same being done here, actually).
>you
I'm not those other two guys user, I wasn't even talking about any book lol, why did you quote me?
What the fuck did you think I was talking about? I enjoy clouds going past in real life, that's my point.
>only replies to the most idiotic post
>deliberately ignores further posts blowing him the fuck out
>still thinks he's intellectually superior to anyone
dude just give it up, you lost
You used words therefore I'm justified in bringing up Wittgenstein because he's a linguist and that means it's related.
Do I need to say it?
P
A
T
H
E
T
I
C
51:45
52:51
What did the samefag mean by this?
The ideas were largely first brought up by Valery with his machinic ideal of art, and his own response to it along with others like Poe, etc.
Valery's response was to then change his view to the 'reader as producer' theory of art which was a decisive turning point in the modern artistic thought. You're right that he didn't name it as 'death of the author' but the theory behind it is essentially equivalent and was brought up before with Valery, which is why I said 'largely' responsible.
I'm one person responding to a bunch of people in a quicktime conversation. That's the answer to both of you retards.
...
>all those meaningless polysyllabic words in order to try and sound smart
jej.
...
But you quoted me, despite me not talking about anything you were talking about. Makes you seem a bit insecure desu.
Yes that IS what subjective means, great point.
>Wittgenstein is a linguist
kek
You're really determined to show off how much of a moron you are aren't you
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, monsieur.
It could be a pretentious chicken.
lmao
...
Really makes me think.
also
Or, as in this thread, a herd of unintelligent swine.
That's interesting. Barthes uses the idea of a painting to demonstrate this 'reader as producer' idea, where traditional interpretive styles would 'dig into' the painting, where modern ones should 'build on top' of it. I just disagree with it on a really fundamental level, and for more reasons than I'd care to list. Doesn't change my appreciation for Tarkovsky though.
A herd spearheaded by you
If a dude driving through traffic for 10 minutes is an important component of the work of art it's a part of, then one shouldn't have trouble enjoying it, as long as one can properly contextualise that segment in the aesthetic whole.
Have you ever listened to noise music? I do, and enjoy it in the same way I enjoy listening to a baroque tune, or hip-hop. With noise music, as with Tarkovsky or Ozu films, you can 'train' yourself, so to speak, to get the normal kind of enjoyment out of them by familiarising yourself with the aesthetic techniques of the artists in question. This is even more true for non-narrative films, like those of Brakhage or Jack Chambers.
I am the intelligent, enlightened individual against the uneducated herd, monsieur, not the one leading them. Can you not see the thread? How the confederacy of dunces clammer against their better?
So you endure and suffer through something for edification, a point in which you read a higher level of appreciation, which was my initial point.
>Wittgenstein is a linguist
>doesn't know who Valery is
>my interpretation of a filmmaker is the only one there is
>art is not subjective
>I'm an enlightened individual
I don't even give a fuck what Tarkovsky said about his movie, or whether or not he intended for that sequence to be enjoyed (though I'm skeptical of your interpretation of Sculpting in Time, which I did read several years ago). I enjoy that sequence in Solaris for several reasons, one of which is that it's very nicely shot, and nobody, not even Tarkovsky, can take that away from me.
replace suffering with enjoyment
>Gets rekd
>Starts being ironic as an attempt to say he was only pretending to be retarded
Sad!
It is a question of defining the terms. Enjoyment would be a purely emotional, bestial experience of the kind derived from jump cut action films. You suffer through Tarkovsky to transcend that level and attain higher appreciation. There is a difference in the experience.
Petty pathetic baiting from a petty pathetic person.
>what's it like to be this retarded?
It's gotta be super relaxing when you're that stupid
Ah, monsieur, I see now the ave you have to grind. You are the poster from the previous thread who got BTFO. You got BTFO again, sad to say.
>you suffer through long shots
How?
Hot damn my man
>only insults as reply
>defending saying that Wittgenstein is a linguist