Film director Ingmar Bergman died today...

[roo_ster]

Yep.

Critics.

There's a reason they're critics.

They've failed at everything else because they lack vision and judgement.

But god knows they can get jobs with any major media outlet.  rolleyes

Oh, and let's not forget who John Podhoretz is...

Nice ad hominem.

If you engaged the substance, this might be an interesting thread.

[HankB]

Comparing Bergman to Michelangelo and DaVinci as the creator of a cultural icon?!? . . .

Surely this is a harbinger of the End Times . . .

Sometimes people (and their work) are parodied because they're so bad.

Hmmm . . . if being parodied is what it takes to become a cultural icon, then Matt Groening's work stands shoulder to shoulder with Bergman's.

[Angel Eyes]

Bill Walsh died the same day as Bergman.

Guess which obit got more attention in the San Francisco area.   

-Jack

[Balog]

Saying that if you don't worship the obvious genius of one writer/director/painter/sculptor etc etc etc then you must be an ignorant wretch is not, I repeat not, the sign of a deeply cultured and mature man; it is the sign of a fanboy. I laugh when Trekkies do it with Roddenbery, I laugh when Star Wars nerds do it with Lucas, I laugh when 2nd ed. freaks do it with Gygax, and I'm laughing at you now Mike.

Oh no, my faith in Mike Irwin!

[tyme]

The objective of art/literature/artfilm, IMHO, is to challenge the audience by presenting a story/representation that's not immediately palatable.  The process of digesting it -- by maintaining focus and thinking -- elevates the audience.

I don't particularly like Seventh Seal, but I respect it.  It offers significant potential for interpretation and mental exercise, as opposed to, say, Top Gear.

[Tallpine]

Amongst my few blessings, I can count the fact that I can't recall that I've ever seen an IB film 

[Balog]

Interesting interpretation tyme, but that kinda screws most classical art, doesn't it? Michelangelo's David isn't terribly unpalatable. Ditto the Mona Lisa and most of the great Impressionist paintings. Not to mention the only work of art I truly love, Winged Victory.

[tyme]

I realized I was relying on something I should probably explain.  On the gradient of art, pictures, drawings/paintings, and sculpture are quite a bit more constrained in the stories they can tell, and they rely very heavily on cultural context, whereas in a book or movie the context can be built up independent of reality; often the point is to communicate the context in a way anyone can understand, in addition to more specific thematic elements.  The context necessary to understand most drawn/painted/sculpted art is partly history in a general sense -- which is no problem -- but also partly history of the particular category of art in question.  That strikes me as a bit incestuous, requiring understanding of the art to understand the art.  Blech.

I don't like "classical" art much, either.  The art and photography and architecture I do like, I like mostly for their (subjective) aesthetics.  The few that have more artistic qualities would, as above, rely heavily on interpretation within an externally-provided context.  Someone who's never heard of World War 2 would probably regard the Raising of the Flag as obnoxious and jingoistic.  Someone unfamiliar with China would probably regard the famous man vs tank picture as the height of stupidity, assuming a more reasonable context for the presence of tanks.

The more self-contained the art, the better the art, IMO.

Interesting interpretation tyme, but that kinda screws most classical art, doesn't it?

Most classical art is palatable?  Is that why guys tend to take art history classes just to meet chicks?    Although I can't explain why chicks like art history.

It seems to me that the ascetic philosophy applies to interpretation of art.  Substantial popularity of a piece of art distracts from proper artistic interpretation, because would-be critics end up biased by their aesthetic reasons for liking/disliking the piece, and construct their artistic criticism to agree with their personal preferences.  If you start with something that everyone finds dull, it's easier to get past aesthetics.

[Monkeyleg]

Tyme, I have no idea what your post meant.

Maybe that's why became an advertising photographer (read: prostitute) rather than trying to be an artist.

[Perd Hapley]

I think half of you are just giving your opinion as a way of bragging that you have seen Bergman's work and seen through the hype/appreciated its bold and daring statement on the meaning of life.  Or whatever.  And, boy howdy, aren't you cultured? 

Never seen any of his work yet.  Did just watch Citizen Kane for the first time, though.  Didn't really like it that much.

[Monkeyleg]

"Did just watch Citizen Kane for the first time, though."

Congratulations. Now watch D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation," and tell me why it was so important as a piece of film "art."

Once you've done that, go watch the "films" of other celebrated "art" directors, and tell me what was so special about their "films."

Mike, it looks like you're in the minority on this one, although you're doing a fantastic job of holding your own. If you enjoy Bergman, Felini, and others, who's to criticize? It's your tastes, and your time watching.

I've always had a problem with films/literature/artwork that required me to answer the question "what does it mean?"

IMO, if such works don't at the very least suggest a meaning or a message, then the "artist" hasn't done his job.

But, of course, I'm just a prostitute.

[K Frame]

"If you enjoy Bergman, Felini, and others, who's to criticize?"

Obviously everyone, apparently.

 

Can't say I'm surprised.

Disappointed, yes.

Surprised?

No, not really, I guess. 

I suppose my great failing here is expecting something of substance from a generation raised by television and weaned on The Simpsons.

"IMO, if such works don't at the very least suggest a meaning or a message, then the "artist" hasn't done his job."

So, in other words, you expect to be spoon fed a message instead of seeking one. I'm sorry, Monkeyleg, but that is anti-intellectualism at its worst. When a society tips over to that side of the balance, it truly is end times.

"But, of course, I'm just a prostitute."

To quote Xavier Hollander, You can lead a whore to culture, but you cannot make her think...

Well, I promise not to trouble any of you with items of cultural significance again. I'll limit "cultural" items to those involving who's dating whom, what rapper is beating his baby's mamma, and who threw a wicked mean pass against the Cowboys.

And another synapse dies.

[Balog]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: just because someone doesn't share your taste in movies doesn't mean they are slack jawed yokels. That's ad hom at it's worst.

And it's also fairly arrogant, isn't it? "I say this director is great. If you disagree it's prima facie evidence you're an idiot." Rampant fanboyism at it's worst.

I'd just like to point out I've never viewed an IB film, so I have no opinion of the movies in question. At no point have I discounted or disparaged the works. I merely dislike the condescending elitism in Mike's position that his is the penultimate authority on all things cultural. 

[K Frame]

"I merely dislike the condescending elitism in Mike's position that his is the penultimate authority on all things cultural."

Hum...

No where have I claimed that rank. You've chosen to assign it to me.

That, in and of itself, is very very telling.

Just curious, though.

Since I've been elevated to the penultimate position, who reigns as the ultimate?

Mr. Podhoretz?

[Monkeyleg]

Mike, you surprise me. I was expecting a well-written post about how Bergman was an important part of the evolution of the art of film.

I have no doubt that he was. My only complaint was that he bored me.

But that has nothing to do with your latest post, which in essence says that you're taking your ball and going home.

So what if I'm a photographic prostitute? Does that make you any less of a literary prostitute for writing technical manuals?

Mike, this topic is small-time compared to others. But it's obviously one that you have an interest in.

Rather than bemoan the lack of sophistication on this forum, why not explain why Bergman's films should be seen by everyone? Explain how they can enrich our lives and our minds. And I'm not kidding you, Mike.

It's no secret that I have an attitude about "intellectuals." And this thread is a good segue into an old story.

As I said, I had two years in college of film history courses. I had the same professor, although I'm drawing a blank on her name right now.

Anyway, I ran into her at a supermarket after classes let out. We were in the Campbell's soup aisle. I was looking for one soup, she was looking for another.

I remarked, "you know, Campbell's could probably sell more soup if every can didn't look the same. I've been here fifteen minutes, and I can't tell one flavor from another."

She just looked at me like I was from Mars. I was thinking marketing; she was thinking, oh, I don't know...something else.

And that's the problem I have with ivory tower intellectuals. (Mike, I'm certainly not lumping you into that class).

They have a disconnect with real day-to-day life. The "intellectuals" I've known wouldn't know how to add water to their cars' radiators.

I'm not spoiling for a fight with you, Mike. Just telling you my experience.

[K Frame]

"But that has nothing to do with your latest post, which in essence says that you're taking your ball and going home."

Yep. It gets depressing trying to beat life into a dead horse when the horse adamantly refuses to live. At that point you accept that the horse has willed itself dead and move on.

"Does that make you any less of a literary prostitute for writing technical manuals?"

I don't labor under the premise or assumption that what I do for a living is, in any way, shape, or form, literature or art. 

What I do doesn't convey concepts, conditions, or deep truths. It's a function.

Is a house painter a prostitute to fine art painting because he works with sash brushes and house paint instead of  a Number 8 fine badger and Prussian Blue?

Not all writing is literature, not all literature is art, not all art is writing.

Insert any medium you wish into the previous statement.

[Monkeyleg]

"I don't labor under the premise or assumption that what I do for a living is, in any way, shape, or form, literature or art."

Nor do I. I produce photographs of products that my clients want to sell. That's it.

I'm serious, though, Mike, about you explaining to the rest of us what viewing "The Seventh Seal" could do for our minds, bodies, or souls.

I'm not being a wiseass, Mike. I'm asking you a serious question. For the two years that I had film history classes at the university, my professor could not answer that question.

If you can, there's a university position awaiting you.

[Perd Hapley]

Since I've been elevated to the penultimate position, who reigns as the ultimate?

   See, "penultimate" means really, really ultimate.  And "infamous"...

Congratulations. Now watch D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation," and tell me why it was so important as a piece of film "art."

  I saw that some months back. 

[roo_ster]

Tyme, I have no idea what your post meant.

Maybe that's why became an advertising photographer (read: prostitute) rather than trying to be an artist.

ML:

You became an advertising photog because you have talent folks were willing to pay for.  The others became "artists" who try to "challenge their audiences" because they are no-talent hacks who need some shtick as a crutch.  The coffee-house equivalents to the velvet Elvis purveyors with audiences ready to give a Pavlovian response.

[tyme]

The others became "artists" who try to "challenge their audiences" because they are no-talent hacks who need some shtick as a crutch.  The coffee-house equivalents to the velvet Elvis purveyors with audiences ready to give a Pavlovian response.

The mere fact that they have an audience implies that they are not talentless.  They have a knack for getting people -- a few people at least -- to pay attention.  Blame that on the general degeneracy of our culture if you want, but it doesn't change anything.

I'm rewatching seventh seal.  It's better than I remember.  :smirk:

[Iain]

ML:

You became an advertising photog because you have talent folks were willing to pay for.  The others became "artists" who try to "challenge their audiences" because they are no-talent hacks who need some shtick as a crutch.  The coffee-house equivalents to the velvet Elvis purveyors with audiences ready to give a Pavlovian response.

And that is just bizarre. The value of anything is entirely and directly related to how much money can be made from it. Therefore van Gogh was no good in his lifetime a 'no-talent hack', but is a great artist now?

[roo_ster]

Iain:

Watch out for those straw men.  Such as this:

The value of anything is entirely and directly related to how much money can be made from it.

Remove the absolutist terminology ("entirely") or toss in ("economic") to qualify "value" and you have a fair statement.  As it is, it is a straw man.

[Balog]

"I merely dislike the condescending elitism in Mike's position that his is the penultimate authority on all things cultural."

Hum...

No where have I claimed that rank. You've chosen to assign it to me.

That, in and of itself, is very very telling.

Just curious, though.

Since I've been elevated to the penultimate position, who reigns as the ultimate?

Mr. Podhoretz?

I'd say that making statements that anyone disagreeing with your taste in film is limited in intellect and restricted in interest to television and celebrity scandals does indeed make claims as to your superior taste and mental prowess.

An example. O Fortuna is just about my favorite piece of music, with the possible exception of the Piano Sonata #14. Let's say I posted that anyone who doesn't recognize the beauty and importance of this piece or the unrivaled genius of Carl Orff are ignorant hillbillies who cannot appreciate music which doesn't feature a pop tart "starlet" or rapper whose pants start at around the knees. I would be setting myself up in the position of arbiter of the value of music. I would be claiming, as I've said before, that what I like is so obviously superior that anyone with the temerity to disagree is either borderline retarded or culturally inbred. That's what you are doing with IB's works, and that's why I find it irritating.