Kris Kristofferson

[jurica]

back to Tarantino:
Bee, nobody is saying that Tarantino is shit and everybody who likes him are morons. Linda asked our oppinions, and i gave mine. i'm no expert, and i don't claim to be wiser than all those professional reviewers who adore Tarantino. still - i have my oppinion, and i don't see why i shouldn't give it when asked.

here's the rest of the oppinion:
when it comes to art, you say: who can say that Picasso is better ot worse than, say, Rembrandt. well, they all are famous artists. the question is: can you say that Picasso is better than my little nephew who can barely draw a tree and a house? if you can say that, then discussing the quality of art is possible. it's just that all greats are of great (simillar) quality.

talking about QT, and his postmodern treatment of influence, i'd like to know if you are familiar with his Hong Kong, Chinese and Japan influences. because, if you are not, your comprehension of his movies is totally different from mine. ever since i know of myself, i adored far east cinema. first it was kung-fu movies, then stylish violence, now it is authors of a Wong Kar-Wai and Takashi Kitano sort.

we've seen before how everything is in the eye of beholder. remember Hitchcock and Eisenstein? well, perhaps our former experiences resulted in us 'looking at the same thing and seeing it differently'.

when i saw first Reservior Dogs, than Pulp Fiction, i wasn't bored, but i didn't see what all the brag was about. do you remember how they called these movies 'original', 'never before seen', 'as if a director came from another planet'? well, they aren't. noting new there. just amusing movies made by a good craftsman with little or no original ideas.

...and 'on the purpose of art':
since Bee is saying 'isn't art all about playing' i must say: i strongli belive NO. i think the whole idea that 'art is nothing serious, and shouldn't be discussed much' comes from those who are either afraid that their poor artistic attempts are going to be seen trough, or those who are afraid of the influence the art may have on society and their undeserved possition.

an example: Okujawa and Visocky are, now late, Russian singers songwriters who had a large influence on crowds with their mixture of poetry, music and social critisism. they were often in jail and spent a lot of time abroad because the goverment was afraid of the influence they had on Russian people. now, that they are dead, and Russia is a sort of a democratic country, as a Serbian writer was told by his Russian college: 'they still don't like them here. their courage under the last regime puts to shame those who served it, and are equaly ready to serve this new one'.

that's a sad truth about artists who are more than 'playing children' and society: they offer society their innocence, and get repaid with scorn (see Bob Dylan's Shelter form the Storm).

here's some ideas about art (or 'the purpose of art', i will not go into easthetics here) that philosophers share:
- art is supposed to let you see trough the eyes of an artist, thus being able to look at yourself and everything around you from more points of view, which enables you to be more tolerant, understanding, and to see you own mistakes
- art can convey new ideas and oppinions
- troug art, you can experience different lifestyles and thus have better idea as to what is the right way of living for you
- art can teach history, philosophy, and a whole range of other sciences in a amusing and useful way (not Troy or Gladiator, but it is possible)
- art encourages a 'sense of wonder' thus encouraging you to learn and explore
...
i've probably forgotten some.

i myself firmly belive that art should not be dismissed as useless fun or play. why did communist authocratic states hold the art under their firm control, and why do todays authocratic corporations invest a lot of money in producing and advertising expensive but uttery dumb movies, books, music... if not out of fear from the knowledge that art can spread?

[linda_lakeside]

Here you all are! Yakking away for pages! I want to jump in and yak with you but I must get some more sleep. I just wanted to check my mail. Hopefully, I'll find some time this aft. to put in my 2 cents, rubels, Euros, pence, whatever, in.

I better sleep fast.

See ya.

Linda.

[bee]

I think it is a marvelous, almost childlike attitude, like playing, which is most attractive in art, when same time it is done with professional mastery.

- Jurica, this is what I said. What you concluded it totally something else, far from and on the other side what was in the essence of my observation.
Perhaps the best example to my perception - and this is only one dimension of the whole spiele- most attractive- that is what is said- would be Mozart. In no way I was to dissmiss the seriousness of art.
You did not respond on the subject, but drifted to the different area of social and political consequence, which was not the subject and wasn't in a circle of mine analyses here at all.

when it comes to art, you say: who can say that Picasso is better ot worse than, say, Rembrandt. well, they all are famous artists. the question is: can you say that Picasso is better than my little nephew who can barely draw a tree and a house? if you can say that, then discussing the quality of art is possible. it's just that all greats are of great (simillar) quality.

This is an insult to my intelligence- thus I come to conclusion that further disscussion on the subject from my part has ended.
Are you personally involved in any arts, or just a consumer? Just out of curiosity.
Just one thing- Jurica you can be quite sure- the critics of film are very well aware of Hong-kong, kon-fu etc. movies, or every movie which have ever existed. I know that market for hong-kong movies and such were mostly in eastern europe and the 3 world countries.

[tomsakic]

Hmm, bee, this about market: Takeshi Kitano is very popular among US critics, and where is the mass market for such movies? It's US of course. I think that Quentin learned all he knows from watching those movies when he worked in video rental stores (at least that's what he said). Most directors/movies even became known to the west when he talked about thir work (like Tetsuo) and most of them are now even issued as "Quentin Tarantino Presents". That title on DVD is surely a trademark now. You know what kind of movie you can expect.

Btw, I'm very proud of Jurica. His first short (animated) movie not only made into the main programme of prominent international festival for one-minute movies here in Croatia, but also won a prize. Also, his first works in comix are very promising

[jurica]

when it comes to art, you say: who can say that Picasso is better ot worse than, say, Rembrandt. well, they all are famous artists. the question is: can you say that Picasso is better than my little nephew who can barely draw a tree and a house? if you can say that, then discussing the quality of art is possible. it's just that all greats are of great (simillar) quality.

This is an insult to my intelligence- thus I come to conclusion that further disscussion on the subject from my part has ended.
Are you personally involved in any arts, or just a consumer? Just out of curiosity.
Just one thing- Jurica you can be quite sure- the critics of film are very well aware of Hong-kong, kon-fu etc. movies, or every movie which have ever existed. I know that market for hong-kong movies and such were mostly in eastern europe and the 3 world countries.

hmmm... yes. you still have the same attitude here as you did on 'political issues': you get offended easily whenever you find someone not agreeing with you, and more important: YOU DO NOT READ OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS.

just fo example: you say 'Jurica you can be quite sure- the critics of film are very well aware of Hong-kong, kon-fu etc. movies, or every movie which have ever existed.' (which is, by the way an insult to your inteligence larger than anything i can say or write, since it's farely obvious that no man can be aware of 'every movie which have ever existed') - and from my previous thread, you ignored (or didn't read): 'Linda asked our oppinions, and i gave mine. i'm no expert, and i don't claim to be wiser than all those professional reviewers who adore Tarantino'

please, do spare me the effort of quoting myself everytime i discuss something with you, by simply READING my posts. well, anyway, you didn't start reading before, so i don't see a reason to start now.

yust for the sake of someone who may have too much time to waste and read this long thread (not that i expect YOU to read it):

i consider myself a simple consumer of art. i do write, film, draw and play music. some of it was published, some was not, but i'm not as proud of my efforts as Tom is ... my main purpose in creating 'art' is to understand the process better, and to comunicate back. i think it can improve my comprehension of other peoples efforts. in other words: i try to understand art better by trying to create some.

regarding Hong Kong movies and easter europe, you should know that Bergman, Fellini, Tarkowsky and even our idol, Leonard Cohen, had their strongest market in eastern europe, while they were (Bergman is an exception) totaly ignored in the US.

Rambo, Rocky, Terminator... well they did indeed find their largest market in the US. that's something to be proud of!

one more thing: your Academy has awarded a China produced kung fu movie an Oscar for the best foreign film!

[tom.d.stiller]

Btw, I'm very proud of Jurica. His first short (animated) movie not only made into the main programme of prominent international festival for one-minute movies here in Croatia, but also won a prize.

Congrats, jurica. Is there a chance to take a look at your prize-winning piece?

tom

[linda_lakeside]

Yes, jurica, good going! I'll bring the popcorn! (like the prospect of free popcorn is going to entice you into running off about 300 copies). Nonetheless, congrats.!

[Kush]

You are quite ex-clusive in your taste for art jurica - in the literal sense of the word. You exclude a lot and have a very poor opinion of whatever you don't like. (e.g., too American followed by adjectives of cheap and pathetic). Popular culture is art in itself....this is the age of democracy so Rambo and Terminator are the art of the democratic masses. If a great number of people like them then it must be good, it touches something in a large number of people.
Heck even Leonard Cohen prefers to live in LA...next door to Hollywood.

[tom.d.stiller]

You are quite ex-clusive in your taste for art jurica - in the literal sense of the word. You exclude a lot and have a very poor opinion of whatever you don't like. (e.g., too American followed by adjectives of cheap and pathetic). Popular culture is art in itself....this is the age of democracy so Rambo and Terminator are the art of the democratic masses. If a great number of people like them then it must be good, it touches something in a large number of people.
Heck even Leonard Cohen prefers to live in LA...next door to Hollywood.

Dear Kush,

I didn't understand jurica's position as anywhere close to esoteric, or "ex-clusive". It was rather a somewhat polemic reaction on bee's denigration of directors that definitely had been influential on more or less "popular culture", more or less "democratic art" as of interest " mostly in eastern europe and the 3 world countries".

Cheers
tom

[Kush]

Point taken.

Actually there's a moot point....Michael Jackson (present troubles excluded) has probably meant more and brought more joy to greater number number of people all over the world than Leonard Cohen ever will.
So what is art?

[linda_lakeside]

What is art? A matter of opinion.

Linda.

[bee]

It was rather a somewhat polemic reaction on bee's denigration of directors that definitely had been influential on more or less "popular culture",

TomST- What gives? shock:
Where did I "denigrate" any director? Jurica was talking dawn on QT, implying that he is the only one who has "discovered" where QT influences come from, the Hong-kong, kon-fu etc. dissing american critics like they didn't know about it at all, which is tottal absurd, to what I said the absurd thing that they know every movie in the universe, to see how he likes that- he does not. He does not like to eat his own sh-t.
Then he starts dissing me- offering me to recognize the difference between child's drawings and that of Picasso.
Then he offers statements about art right out of his conspects from the classes he took at the artschool, which made my stomac turn, then he lectures me about not reading his posts, when he himself is not even able to follow what was the subject on.
Just give me a brake Tom, my friend
I can only imagine what his animated film was about- americans with torsos like pigs and the heads of horses making chru- chru sounds, that perhaps is his film at the best.

[tom.d.stiller]

Just give me a brake Tom, my friend

I'd love to give you a brake, my friend. But instead of using it you'd keep on speeding like that:

I can only imagine what his animated film was about- americans with torsos like pigs and the heads of horses making chru- chru sounds, that perhaps is his film at the best.

or that:

He does not like to eat his own sh-t.

or that:

when he himself is not even able to follow what was the subject on.

tom

[Insanitor]

Yes, please...someone give bee a 'brake'...or a muzzle

[bee]

Yes Tom- my friend- he does not like to eat his own shit. He likes you to eat it and he would say- bon appetite!
I am not about to share it with you, you can share it with Insanitor!