The value of art depends on the values of the art critic

>The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
>Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
>The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
>The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
>The critic is the real artist.
- Roger Ebert

Other urls found in this thread:

scaruffi.com/cinema.html
rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself. It's all about them. They have mastered the "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" universes or whatever, but their objects of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion. Anyone who would camp out in a tent on the sidewalk for weeks in order to be first in line for a movie is more into camping on the sidewalk than movies.
>Extreme fandom may serve as a security blanket for the socially inept, who use its extreme structure as a substitute for social skills. If you are Luke Skywalker and she is Princess Leia, you already know what to say to each other, which is so much safer than having to ad-lib it. Your fannish obsession is your beard. If you know absolutely all the trivia about your cubbyhole of pop culture, it saves you from having to know anything about anything else. That's why it's excruciatingly boring to talk to such people: They're always asking you questions they know the answer to.
>"Fanboys" is an amiable but disjointed movie that identifies too closely with its heroes. Poking a little more fun at them would have been a great idea. They are tragically hurtling into a cultural dead end, mastering knowledge which has no purpose other than being mastered, and too smart to be wasting their time. When a movie's opening day finally comes, and fanboys leave their sidewalk tents for a mad dash into the theater, I wonder who retrieves their tents, sleeping bags, portable heaters and iPod speakers. Warning: Mom isn't always going to be there to clean up after you.

Why does he hate nerds so much?

go back to read Barthes you fat frog.

I'm glad he's dead.

Made a lot of good points here though:

critics are usually hacks who've never created anything themselves

what a joke of a person, glad he got jaw cancer and died looking like a fucking handpuppet

He's right.

He's not entirely wrong, but to be fair, The Phantom Menace was a huge thing to even non-SW nerds.

In a way of course, he is right, but he exploits semantics in a way that makes it sound like he discredits the work of artists, when really he's not. What I think he's trying to say is like a projection only gets real when you put a screen in the focal plane, art only becomes art when it is perceived and processed by other people, in particular critics who quantify the extent of the work in the context of other work, only then art becomes "real".

>>The critic is the real artist.

That may be. But the critic is the artist who was too afraid to create. And that's even worse than making something that sucked.

Problem is, every artist is a critic. You can't learn how to make art without learning how to tell if it's good or not. Not unless you're completely insane

>tfw Sup Forums doesn't know about based scaruffi

Spot on. Fuck fanbois

>its a "Ebert gives a good review to a black movie just because its black even though its awful" review

Good point.

This is hilarious projection considering Straw Dogs obviously made him uncomfortable as the beta male that he is.

This is bang on.

hey Booty Call is an underrated masterpiece and Ebert was spot on in his review

>"The critic is the real artist"

I don´t think so, I think he´s the one that identifies the elements, his quote makes much sense as saying that a forecaster is the one that changes the temperature or something like that, no, he just knows when is time changing thanks to elements he knows.

does god hates critics?

How much weight would you say he gained here?

he was right about brazil though.

Only the theatrical cut.

At least 50 pounds, unless he has extremely bad fat distribution

Hey, you're not quoting Ebert, you're quoting the greatest music critic who has ever lived.

He's also the greatest movie critic now.

scaruffi.com/cinema.html

Ray Carney is superior

Too bad he didn't die before he revealed his faggot level and railed against Trump (just like Ebert would have done).

Ebert's review of Tim & Eric's horrible movie is legendary though.

That is spot on but it doesn't take a genius to understand that
>FANBOYS: BAAAAAAAAAAD
>NORMIES: GOOOOOOOOOD

>Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
i think you mean All
if you want to get into transmedial influences and shit spread over philosophy the original thought doesnt even exist

is there anyone more insufferable than a talentless hack who thinks hes in charge of determining whats good or not? i mean, here at least we know that everyones an autistic retard. but those people think they have any value whatsoever. if you think critics are worth anything, you might just be retarded

everyone does

Did he really say that? Wow.

>greatest critic
like saying that diarrhea is the greatest form of shit

he's not saying normal people are in any way less cowardly. Also It's not that the opposite of fanboy is normie in any way. It has gotten somewhat cool to be a 'nerd' in that sense. This should be especially apparent to you since you're on Sup Forums. People here often bitch about those 'LOL i am such a nerd' people, who make media into their identity, instead of just taking something for what it is. Your post reduces the text to something blatantly false and idiotic.

>lel the world is so postmodern everything is subjective there are no true values

This is hell. Can anyone even build cathedrals anymore?

>its a "Ebert gives a good movie a bad review because it insults his precious Catholicism" review

It's already been said that Ebert never said it, Scaruffi did, but Sup Forums ignores it because we're stupid and can't read.

This couldn't have been worded more brilliantly.

Reminder that Armond White exposed Ebert for the fraud he is and made him apologize for criticizing his review methods.

This is completely accurate Everything Ebert said about video games not being art was also accurate.

>"the person viewing art is giving it merit"
>"lol jk it's only art when I say so and not the common retard"

everyone knows about crazy legs

The hubris of every critic and Ebert is that they think their opinion is the ultimate truth. A good critic won't say that something is good or bad based on their own preference but based on some internal merit which is impossible. Thus critics are useless by default.

>The critic is the real artist

Stupidest thing I've ever heard.

True art appeals to ultimate truths. This whole "beauty and truth is in the eye of the beholder" idea is pomo bullshit and look were it's gotten us.

The critic is basically a dumbass elevating himself from other dumbasses to tell the dumbasses what is good and what isn't.

The problem is, how can anybody be sure it's objectively the ultimate truth? You simply can't prove anything one way or another.

It's all that animal fucking he's doing.

Faith, reason, logic. I don't know anymore. But we need to find a way.

Then art is entirely subjective. Everything can be art. Anything can be art. It's not a sacred word and it shouldn't have a holy meaning nor should it be followed religiously.

I can't be an artist so I'll complain about it
no one needs a critic to enjoy or value art

rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art

Based

Yeah and I can also be a girl if I want. Gender is entirely subjective.

This is what that kind of thinking has led us to.

>made him apologize for criticizing his review methods.
Source?

The exact opposite happened. Many years ago Ebert wrote a blog post that defended Armond because at the time Armond was getting a lot of shit. But Ebert changed his mind and shit on Armond after he found out that Armond had shit on great films like There Will Be Blood and praised garbage like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The funniest part is Armond got upset over Ebert's diss and said "Criticizing colleagues is not what we do" even though Armond had relentlessly shit all over Ebert for years.

>Can anyone even build cathedrals anymore?


Like you'd care. Rather hang around at the mall than visit a cathedral.

>The funniest part is Armond got upset over Ebert's diss and said "Criticizing colleagues is not what we do"
And ebert admitted he was wrong after that. Gay nigga wins again.

>American """"critics""""

Artists themselves often say they don't want to attach any meaning to their work, and that it's up to the audience to define it.

Also, especially when it comes to film, no artist would even turn on the camera if he knew there wasn't a reasonably large crowd of people interested to watch their movie. When they create they keep in mind what the people like and are capable to understand.

>A. Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
>I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

Ebert was a pretentious fat bastard and I'm glad that he and his fellow faggot Siskel are dead and taking Satan's needle barbed magma hot semen spewing cock up their asses and in their mouths for eternity!!!FACT!!!

Irrelevant.
You can't prove your view is objective, denying this is like denying that you're smarter than an animals.

Touché, but I still think Ebert ended up coming out on top in that situation. Armond could've intelligently responded to Ebert but instead he acted like a crybaby hypocrite.

>The hubris of every critic and Ebert is that they think their opinion is the ultimate truth

I don't think they do.

>based on some internal merit which is impossible

Objects in the world are useless outside human preferences. Critics are human, not aliens. They generally like what most people like.

But Ebert actually wrote one great movie

>its a "Ebert pretends to like a black movie because his black wife would get mad" review

Okay EBERT we get it. YOU LIKE BLACKS

That paragraph is so retarded.
He says that videogames must be on par with masterpieces to be considered art instead of comparing it to any piece of art. Art isn't some elitist sticker you slap only onto the best of the best

>The critic is the real artist.
Probably the most artful thing he did in his life was that load of bullshit justifying his own existence.

Protip: Not everyone's an artist, but everyone IS a critic.

You can't prove anything to a people who don't believe in reason and logic.

>Raphael wasn't the real artist, the tourists queuing to see the Vatican apartments are the real deal
>the other guy is a mean mechanical conduit to produce a combination of stuff, me sitting here looking at it, I am the artist
Imagine the level of retarded smugness you have to reach to even form this kind of bullshit in your mind, let alone to tell it to the world.

No wonder this fat retard says critics are the artist. he is a critic and obviously wanted to be artist

no you fucking retard, gender is not subjective thing like art. Goddamn you are dumbass

fuck you, I'd crawl out of my solitude to sit around in the corner of some yuge, comfy, musty cathedral

What is a "critic" then?
A dumbass who erected himself from a sea of dumbasses telling other what is good and what isn't. What does he know what the artist felt when he made the piece of art? What does he know about the motivation?

You can be for yourself. Even if the whole world sees you as a faggot you can think of yourself as a girl. But don't expect the world to think and believe what you think and belief.

A normal person specialized in interpreting movies. Anyone would agree with them if they had their mastery of film history and the cinematic language. The motivation of the author doesn't really matter, the work has a llife of itself. Artists generally don't have motivations in terms of conveying meaning and messages.

Yes it is. I've said it is, plenty of people believe it is, so it must be. My truth is entirely different from yours.

The whole world wouldn't see me as a faggot tho, many people would even call me brave. If you can't see how the lack of ultimate truths, replaced with no truths or several personal truths, has led to this, then you're just not looking very hard at all.

You're so fundamentally wrong it hurts.
Are you telling me artists have zero subconscious intentions and motivations? Why are they painting canvasses and making films and writing books then?

>Anyone who would camp out in a tent on the sidewalk for weeks in order to be first in line for a movie is more into camping on the sidewalk than movies.
Damn...

There were at no point in history an absolute truth. Nothing everyone knew or believed it. We're just living in an age where we've realized that. Most people that is.

>Everything Ebert said about video games not being art was also accurate.
It literally wasn't, his idea of a game being something that can be won or lost is completely outdated and its the central premise of his argument.

People don't need to believe in a truth to make it absolute, it's absolute only because it is absolute. That's some more of your pomo thinking at work.

>movies Ebert gave 4/4 stars:
Knowing
Prometheus
Avatar
Crash (2004)

>movies Ebert gave 3.5/4 stars:
Cars 2
Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The Matrix Reloaded
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Anonymous
The Karate Kid (2010)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Paranormal Activity
2012
Brüno
Junior (1994)
The Amazing Spider-Man

>movies Ebert gave 3/4 stars:
Paul Blart: Mall Cop
Speed 2: Cruise Control
Transformers
The Matrix Revolutions
Ghosts of Mars
Deep Blue Sea
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
The Santa Clause 2
Garfield: The Movie
Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties
Jennifer's Body
The Omen (2006)
Straw Dogs (2011)

>movies Ebert gave 2.5/4 stars:
The Omen (1976)
The Thing (1982)
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Wild at Heart
Naked Lunch
Rushmore
Reservoir Dogs
Grindhouse
Caddyshack
Spider-Man

>movies Ebert gave 2/4 stars:
Straw Dogs (1971)
Die Hard
A Clockwork Orange
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Big Trouble in Little China
Prince of Darkness
The Fog
Starship Troopers
Basic Instinct
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
Lost Highway
Brazil
The Fisher King
Fight Club
Bottle Rocket
Papillon

>movies Ebert gave 1.5/4 stars:
Day of the Dead (1985)
A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors
The Usual Suspects
Dead Man

>movies Ebert gave 1/4 stars:
Blue Velvet
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
The Frighteners
Scrooged
The Raid: Redemption

>movies Ebert gave .5/4 stars:
Hellraiser

Superior version of that copypasta coming through:

>movies Ebert gave 4/4 stars:
Knowing
Prometheus
Avatar
Crash (2004)
Salt (2010)

>movies Ebert gave 3.5/4 stars:
Cars 2
Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Anonymous
2012
The Karate Kid (2010)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Paranormal Activity
Brüno
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Snow White and the Huntsman
Junior (1994)
The Matrix Reloaded (he gave the first Matrix a 3/4)
The Amazing Spider-Man (he gave Sam Raimi's Spider-Man a 2.5/4)

>movies Ebert gave 3/4 stars:
Paul Blart: Mall Cop
Speed 2: Cruise Control
Transformers
The Matrix Revolutions
Ghosts of Mars
Deep Blue Sea
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
The Santa Clause 2
Garfield: The Movie
Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties
Jennifer's Body
Total Recall (2010)

>movies Ebert gave 2.5/4 stars:
The Omen (he gave the remake a 3/4)
John Carpenter's The Thing (he gave the prequel the same score)
Once Upon a Time in the West
Full Metal Jacket
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Rushmore
Wild at Heart
Naked Lunch
Reservoir Dogs
Grindhouse
Caddyshack

>movies Ebert gave 2/4 stars:
Straw Dogs (he gave the remake a 3/4)
Die Hard
A Clockwork Orange
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Army of Darkness
Big Trouble in Little China
Prince of Darkness
The Fog (1980)
Starship Troopers
Basic Instinct
An American Werewolf in London
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
Lost Highway
Brazil
The Fisher King
Fight Club
Bottle Rocket
Papillon

>movies Ebert gave 1.5/4 stars:
Raising Arizona
Day of the Dead (1985)
A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors
Phantasm
The Usual Suspects
Dead Man

>movies Ebert gave 1/4 stars:
Blue Velvet
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
The Frighteners
Scrooged
The Raid: Redemption
Phantasm II

>movies Ebert gave 0.5/4 stars:
Hellraiser

Damn, if only I could talk about the weather, food, travel and politics like all those courageous non-fanboys folks.

On a more serious note, it's not just fanboys that are boring to talk to, it's the vast majority of people. Very few people can talk about random fun stuff in life, they see it as silly and would rather go all "serious". Now that i think about it normies are fanboys of normie stuff, everything that was said in this post can be applied for example to young moms.

googled it. he really did rate paul blart mall cop 3/4 stars...

lmaoo into the garbage he goes

i see why hes a favorite to retards like stuckman. truly a retard critics' favorite reviewer

Hell, everybody is a critic. You can't, not, be.

Except that artists actually create things for other people to evaluate. Critic do nothing but give their take on it.

>The Good The Bad The Ugly is 4/5 but I'll give it 3/5 because director didn't invite me to party with underage prostitutes, I'll blame it on fact that it's Italian western so it must be shit

t. Ebert

>Very few people can talk about random fun stuff in life, they see it as silly and would rather go all "serious".
Very true

What?

>the artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic of the critic
There is not a single person who has done more damage to art criticism than Ebert

Oscar Wilde was a retarded faggot and this retarded jawless faggot parroted him