DrDre said:
I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry.Again, I think it’s really unfair and unrealistic of you to say this. Borderline disingenuous, really. Especially considering many of the arguments you’re currently leveraging against this version of Star Wars were leveraged against it in the '80s, '90s, and '00s. I fundamentally disagree with any attempt to somehow strip the legitimate, and easily observable intent to create art from the finished films, or to attempt to redefine their existence AS art based on a romanticized notion of what George Lucas is, was, and would have done had he not decided to sell everything. George Lucas is not an island, and his “vision” is not as all encompassing or unfiltered as you consistently describe it to be. The work stands for itself, and your criticisms of the work are primarily rooted in a somewhat cruel appraisal of its artistic intent first and foremost, one that I don’t think stands up to scrutiny at all.
I apologize for dragging this out as long as I did, and I thank you for being very civil and patient with me. Obviously we’re not going to agree, but hopefully some measure of understanding (not agreement, of course, but the two aren’t synonymous anyway) was reached.
Well, I don’t see why any and all forms of corporately driven expression should be considered art, just because a group of people put a lot of effort, work, and craft into it. A lot of people work hard, and are creative in developing products, doing research, motivating people, etc, etc. Yet, these people are not considered artists. However, if the product you’re working on is a movie, you’re automatically labeled an ARTIST with a capital A. I reject that notion.
So by that logic Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel can’t be considered art because it was comissioned by the church? Some of history’s most famous artwork could be considered “commercial” or “corporate” as they were partially, or completely, dictated and funded by one or more patrons. Even art house films exist to make money. Although I don’t dismiss auteur theory, I do think it’s highly overrated since even the smallest, most independent films are a collaborative and commercial venture.
I never stated art can’t also be commercial. I’m simply arguing, that I don’t agree with the idea of the designation art being automatically attached to a movie like a toy in a box of cereal, simply because people put effort into it. A lot of people put great effort and creativity into their work, or product, and they don’t get some automatic lofty term to describe it, so why should a product from the entertainment industry be any different? In my view there are other factors that come into play, which I’ve stated are a rare, and unique combination of imagination, creativity, originality, perserverance, circumstance, context, and timing. The Sistene Chappel has all of the above. I don’t think the ST qualifies. In my view the films lack imagination, creativity, and originality. They lack a unified creative vision, and seem content to mostly ride Lucas’ coattails. As such, I see the ST thusfar mostly as successful products, that attempt to emulate Lucas’ (and his collaborators’) most successful and beloved works. There are creative elements, but not enough for me personally to consider them works of art in their own right. To me these films thusfar are not much different from the Roman marble copies of famous bronze Greek statues. They are a different material, and it takes craft to make them, but in the end they are mainly a modernized commercial product based on somebody else’s artistry.