It’s an opinion yes, good or bad enough as any other, but I think different standards are used. You can talk about film as an art form, as pure entertainment, as commercial product, etc. In all these cases you use different standards and most probably come to different conclusions. What I meant to say with this reference to football, is that I tend to overlook shortcomings in B-movies that would ruin a movie made by a Leone, Ford or Peckinpah. In a similar way my expectations are different when I watch a home of the local KFC Turnhout (they play in third belgian division) than when I’m watching Bayern - Arsenal on television.
No, for me it’s all the same.
I try not to judge films differently whatever their ambitions are (remember Convoy). The question is not if a film is art, but how much it entertains me. But if it is entertaining it is art, more or less. If it is boring it is garbage.
[quote=“Stanton, post:11202, topic:141”]No, for me it’s all the same.
I try not to judge films differently whatever their ambitions are (remember Convoy). The question is not if a film is art, but how much it entertains me. But if it is entertaining it is art, more or less. If it is boring it is garbage.[/quote]
but i’ve seen lot of movies which i thought of as a garbage, but still they entertained me
I accept that I have probably used wrong wording. My intention certainly wasn’t to be offensive. I like civilized discussion of this forum (although we know that Guns Don’t Argue). So, kissy-kissy absolutely (though in a way I’m glad I’ve stirred thing up a bit, good discussion is healthy from time to time 
).
Then you think wrong.
Garbage is garbage and not good, when it is entertaining it can’t be garbage, otherwise it won’t entertain you. When garbage entertains you it is no longer garbage. Art = entertainment
Question is not what is art and what not, but on which level you find your entertainment.
For me, these kinds of questions become quite difficult in relating my opinions to others, as I often make an inward study out of finding meaning within films that isn’t actually there. A piece of garbage can yield quite a lot of value sometimes.
[quote=“Stanton, post:11205, topic:141”]Then you think wrong.
Garbage is garbage and not good, when it is entertaining it can’t be garbage, otherwise it won’t entertain you. When garbage entertains you it is no longer garbage. Art = entertainment
Question is not what is art and what not, but on which level you find your entertainment.[/quote]
disagreement
[quote=“Stanton, post:11202, topic:141”]No, for me it’s all the same.
I try not to judge films differently whatever their ambitions are (remember Convoy). The question is not if a film is art, but how much it entertains me. But if it is entertaining it is art, more or less. If it is boring it is garbage.[/quote]
In this aspect we simply have different opinions. I can appreciate the so-called lower art forms, but I don’t share the postmodern view that says there are no higher or lower art forms or that (to use the Paul Feyerabend motto) ‘anything goes’.
I watched, for example, a Kommissar X movie last week, and thought it was good fun, at the same time I wouldn’t ever call it art.
Weird way of thinking, stanton.
If art=entertainment, then the opposite also applies. This, of course, is not true. Pure crap can be entertainment, but pure crap is not art. It’s pure crap.
Art = anything artificial. Hence, ahem, art. So, anything from a Michael Bay movie to artificial sweeteners is art. You judge how entertaining either are 
I’m with you. Despite what one may or may not find in a given piece of art, this doesn’t affect the skill and intent which created the work.
I came out, put a coin in the juke box, sat down and listened to the latest. The latest wasn't any better. They had the beat but not the soul. Mozart, Bach and the Bee still made them look bad
I can entertain myself in a striptease joint, but the girls on the pole are not doing what I would call art.
Or are they ?
Anyway entertainment its one thing art art is another it goes beyond that, art its a lot more than just mere enternainment which is somethig that’s supose to be fun, at least to me
[quote=“El Topo, post:11211, topic:141”]I can entertain myself in a striptease joint, but the girls on the pole are not doing what I would call art.
Or are they ?[/quote]
Depends on the girl
And the joint. After a joint you may have the feeling it’s all art, hi hi hi
Indeed :-X
Stanton, that’s the greatest bullshit I’ve heard since SD days. Congratulations!
No, it’s not.
My statements above are of course overly simplified. But it all goes back to ideas which are now already 100 years old.
This means that everything can be art when we are prepared to view it as art. What is art and what not is an arbitrary definition made by the audience, or at least a part of it, and is build by a societal consensus.
And in the end the origin of the word art lies in things we can also call entertainment.
These are all pretty complicated things, but in the end we can get on a complicated way to some easy solutions. And one of these is that there is no truth in the world but only opinions, and art is created by opinions, and will change when the thinking changes. And so on …
It’s complicated, but not in this sense. What art is, or what higher art forms distinguishes from lower art forms, is of course a convention, a ‘social construct’ as some people prefer to call it these days, but that doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary, or that there’s no such thing as higher or lower art forms. The rules of a game (like for instance football) are also a convention, a social construct, and the rules may change over the years, but there are rules, and they cannot be neglected.
Objet trouvé or readymades like Duchamp’s Fountain are the end of all art. Duchamp had a good sense of humor and some think it was all a joke to him (I share this belief) and in general jokes only work once.
[size=18pt]It’s art, motherfuckers![/size]
I always approach miscellaneous movies on different terms. Once some film’s values issue from its conceptual resonance, aesthetic beauty, thought-provoking themes etc., to my way of thinking, the film constitutes a work of art intended to stir one’s emotions, compel its viewer to contemplate some philosophical notions and touch one’s soul.
The moment some other motion picture neglects some aesthetic and structural conventions and doesn’t give a fuck about any transcendent imagery, philosophical or social nuisances, but it is regarded as something worthwhile solely on account of some implicated WIP stuff, a girl moaning in a very arousing manner and masturbating another female or some main hero kicking asses of villains, I consider it to be a pulp and whether a good one or bad one, it is up to its viewer.
Art is to sublimate our mundane existences, garbage is to divert. The instant some flick merges sublimation and entertainment, it becomes the most accessible and a lot of films do that so as to gain as large audience as possible. And it should be so.
As scherpschutter mentions above, it all depends on a definition, but in my view, it ought not to exceed the boundaries of common sense too much. Even if there are lower and higher forms of art, I’d forgo calling a work of art any film ever made such as Snuff (1976). In Tarkovsky’s Solaris, I don’t expect Kris Kelvin to jerk off on Khari’s face (at least for no reason whatsoever) and I don’t want Shaft to start rambling on about his existential malaise for 30 minutes in Gordon Parks’s 1971 crime film.
And as I see it, we shouldn’t stick to one definition as it might become quite preposterous at some point.
Just because something was made by artists doesn’t mean its art, a B-movie its a B-movie, or some arthouse productions are nothing than pretentious shit. Normally art is innovation, beauty or the some type of human creation with theje ne sais quoi factor.
But to be honest I conceed that what’s art to me may not be to others
in the end its all about definition
Art definition -The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:
Subjects of study primarily concerned with human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects):
Leon Tolstoy (one of my favourite definitions)
Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious idea of beauty or God; it is not, as the aesthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man’s emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of humanity.
Oscar wilde
Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known
Francis Ford Copolla
An essential element of any art is risk. If you don’t take a risk then how are you going to make something really beautiful, that hasn’t been seen before? I always like to say that cinema without risk is like having no sex and expecting to have a baby. You have to take a risk.
Nietzche (another favourite)
We have our Arts so we won’t die of Truth.
Jose Luis borges
All that happens to us, including our humiliations, our misfortunes, our embarrassments, all is given to us as raw material, as clay, so that we may shape our art.
Laura Esquivel
To know how to produce a work of art is to know how to discard the extraneous.
Robert M Pirsig
Art is anything you can do well. Anything you can do with Quality.
Nabokov
Art at its greatest is fantastically deceitful and complex.
Albert Camus
If the world were clear, art would not exist.