ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Artistic Excellent versus Notagic Fondness

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Off-Topic Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:01 pm    Post subject: Artistic Excellent versus Notagic Fondness Reply with quote

________________________________

I've come to realize over the years that the difference between the appreciation of something because of its artistic excellence]/i] and the viewers [i]nostalgic fondness has been the cause of several debates on All Sci-Fi.

I'll try to explain. Confused

A person's devotion to an older movie or TV series can be caused by either their appreciation for its artistic excellence, or for the nostalgic fondness they have, based on their childhood memories.

Nostalgic fondness comes from having happy memories from seeing movies or TV series as a child and enjoying them . . . in spite of their poor quality. Sad

Unfortunately, as we grow older, we develop more sophisticated taste (which often simply means we become jaded and bored), so we loose the ability to be thrilled by the things which we loved in our younger days.

Conversely, the appreciation of artistic excellence comes from recognizing the intrinsic value of a creative endeavor.

If a movie or TV series is the result of skilled cinematic artists whose work excels in quality and creates a unique experience for the viewing audience, then it will be appreciated by the intelligent and discerning viewers who recognize its value.

Bear in mind, however, that artistic excellence]/i] and a person's feelings of [i]nostalgic fondness are NOT mutually exclusive. Very Happy

For example, I have nostalgic feelings for Forbidden Planet because I saw it in 1958 when I was ten years old — as well as other viewings in later years.

But over those years, as I've grown older and developed more discerning tastes, my appreciate for Forbidden Planet has NOT diminished. In fact, my appreciation for the movie's true greatness has grown, because I've acquired a deeper understanding of the film.

And so, gentlemen, here's my point.

The folks who object to the alterations in older series — like Star Trek TOS — seem to be basing their objections largely on nostalgic fondness, rather than an appreciation for artistic excellence]/i]. Shocked

They seem to think that if the episodes don't look exactly as they remember them, the changes are bad! They're judging these changes based on their [i]nostalgic fondness
.

On the other hand, the folks who embrace the new methods of film making are judging the results in terms of artistic excellence.

As they've grown older and their standards have changed, they welcome the changes which give these older movies and series an appealing new look which measures up their more enlightened standards!

I know I'm simplifying the issue, but in general this seems to explain the puzzling "blanket objection" that certain people seem to have towards aesthetic improvements in certain productions which just don't compare well to more recent films and TV series.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotpens
Starship Captain


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 871
Location: The Left Coast

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem I've always had with the redone effects in the remastered Star Trek TOS has nothing to do with nostalgic fondness. It's simply that most of the CGI stuff is not an aesthetic improvement!

I know, we'll always disagree on this issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scotpens wrote:
I know, we'll always disagree on this issue.

Well, not at much as you may think. Very Happy

In a recent TOS post, one of the members (not you, but I can't remember who it was) pointed out a scene in which several shots of a Romulan cruisers looked really good in the original, but the new version was pathetic! :shooc:

I even stated in the post that if someone had used that scene to counter my defense of the "enhanced" FX, it would have been quite a blow to my argument. Sad

As for the matter of what I like and what you don't like, I concede that "artistic excellence" is judged by each individual. Frankly it amazes me that so many "priceless paintings" which sell for millions of dollars simply look like framed drop cloths — or worse, the crayon drawings of elementary school kids!

For example, famed artist Edvard Munch's "The Scream" was sold for $119 million at Sotheby's in New York in 2012, making it the most expensive artwork ever sold at an auction!

Seriously? THIS is what passes for great art? Rolling Eyes



__________


The image below is one of the first acrylic paintings I did, after doing a few oil paintings and wanting to try a different medium.

Despite the fact that I normally take a week or more to finish anything as detailed as this painting, it was finished in just two days!

The portrait is of a 14-year-old boy whose parents hired me to do his portrait in graphite. This version of the portrait (done just for myself) was painted back in 1980, using one of several dozen slides I took with different lighting.
]


__________


Maybe if I gave it an enigmatic title — like About to Smile — and sold it at auction, I'd get a few million bucks for it.

My point, of course, is that beauty is indeed in the eye of beholder.
Very Happy
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Tue Feb 01, 2022 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ralfy
Mission Specialist


Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 488

PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2022 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I value nostalgia only when I have free time; otherwise, I consider artistic excellence, especially for works I have not seen (new or old).

About Munch, consider the documentary "Secret Knowledge""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-0UXBcjlRY

As revealed by the narrator (which should be relevant for this forum because he does production design for movies), paintings became more realistic as artists began to use various technologies (as simple as grids created using string and wooden frames, and more elaborate using mirrors and lenses), which also made works easier to do, which is why more rebelled later and engaged in impressionist and abstract art.

For example, Munch likely knew how to draw and paint in terms of realism (like Picasso), and with the aid of plumbs, levels, grids, mirrors, and lenses, could come up with more realistic works. For those who don't plan to view the documentary, here's a simple example:

Take a model in costume and props (like colorful fruits in a basket, and on a table). Arrange mirrors (including shiny metal) in such a way as to project the subject onto a nearby blank wall. Take paper and trace the subject, then use the tracing for the canvas.

It's been easier to do the same for many decades: trace from photos.

Given that, artists probably thought, What's the point of engaging in academic realism when anyone can be trained to do it? Where's the artist's individual expression? Hence, Munch's "Scream".

Finally, to go back on-topic, can we say the same thing today? I've seen behind-the-scene clips of even TV shows from over a decade ago where computers were used to fill in the background of anything from halls to streets to spectacles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

And now, with TV shows like Mandalorian, it's become even easier: instead of green screens with computer images filled in later, they can now broadcast the images on to large moving screens and shoot scenes that way, such that the actors can literally see their environment, i.e., a virtual set:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufp8weYYDE8

In addition, stories can be mined from shows like spaghetti westerns and Lone Wolf and Cub to make space-age versions of shows Westerns and historical dramas from the 1950s to the 1970s.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Off-Topic Discussions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group