Jump to content

Art critic Camille Paglia: RotS is the greatest work of art in the last 30 years


indy4
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.vice.com/...e=vicetwitterus

Q: Well, what about Revenge of the Sith? You say it's the greatest work of art, in any medium, created in the last 30 years. It’s better than... uh, Matthew Barney or Rachel Whiteread or Chris Ware or Peter Doig?

A: Yes, the long finale of Revenge of the Sith has more inherent artistic value, emotional power, and global impact than anything by the artists you name. It's because the art world has flat-lined and become an echo chamber of received opinion and toxic over-praise. It's like the emperor's new clothes—people are too intimidated to admit what they secretly think or what they might think with their blinders off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Damn, I'm still sheep after all.

On the other hand, I probably never hated it as much as everyone else at JWfan.

She doesn't believe video games are art.

Fuck her.

Why? Perhaps it doesn't do what she believes art should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for her, but she might disagree with you on that, Koray. If art doesn't do anything, then it's probably not worthy of being called 'art'. The reason why we remember a painting, a piece of music or a video game is because it does something.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite what the dictionary says, it's undeniable that the word 'art' is used in two ways. Maybe it's time that the dictionary gets updated on that.

Maybe it's time that people stop being stupid.

I've heard it so many times, and from people who are a lot smarter than you and me. Especially to artists, not everything is art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Koray would answer that with "one person's mundane is another's art". It's a clause which always gets thrown around in this debate, even if I find it it to be utter bullshit and no different to saying "Transformers 3 can't really be shite if someone is moved by it."

Nothing statements as a form of arguing tool are no different to weasel words on Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything can be art if it fits the criteria of the definition. It's not a complicated matter, you all just incorrectly think it's something more than a noun.

I've explained it before. You don't say "That film is not art." It doesn't make sense in the English language. Instead you say, "That film is not very good," which is the same as saying, "That film is not very good art." The latter is redundant which is why the former is more commonly used to evaluate art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art has nothing to do with the skill or even some kind of abstract values or aesthetics or that it isn't mundane. It is what the current artistic circles consider art.

I can put a cardboard box in a gallery and put a name tag on it and call it art and it is art as much as Michaelangelo's works or anything by Bernini. It may not be as fine as those works but undeniably it is my own expression and the fact that it is in the gallery it is certainly accepted as art. What and what is not art is usually defined not by the masses but those who choose the canon of significant art.

It is another matter if you consider it personally acceptable as art.

But I would have to disagree with Camille on ROTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbh the definition of what art might be is of little interest to me. What matters most is that I never let the definition cloud my judgement when watching Revenge of the Sith.

Art, by definition (:P), cannot cloud anything. Revenge Of The Sith is still a bad movie, but it's art. I said the same thing for Transformers 2 and you loved that post so much you made it your signature. Don't get why you feel differently now.

Art has nothing to do with the skill or even some kind of abstract values or aesthetics or that it isn't mundane. It is what the current artistic circles consider art.

I can put a cardboard box in a gallery and put a name tag on it and call it art and it is art as much as Michaelangelo's works or anything by Bernini. It may not be as fine as those works but undeniably it is my own expression and the fact that it is in the gallery it is certainly accepted as art. What and what is not art is usually defined not by the masses but those who choose the canon of significant art.

It is another matter if you consider it personally acceptable as art.

But I would have to disagree with Camille on ROTS.

Finally a sane person!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art has nothing to do with the skill or even some kind of abstract values or aesthetics or that it isn't mundane. It is what the current artistic circles consider art.

I can put a cardboard box in a gallery and put a name tag on it and call it art and it is art as much as Michaelangelo's works or anything by Bernini. It may not be as fine as those works but undeniably it is my own exp<b></b>ression and the fact that it is in the gallery it is certainly accepted as art. What and what is not art is usually defined not by the masses but those who choose the canon of significant art.

Sure, but does this post account for the cretinous academia who presume to know better than everyone else what art is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.