Personal View site logo
Art vs. "Art"
  • 161 Replies sorted by
  • You don't have to take all of Lynch with joy and admiration -- Twin Peaks bored this viewer to death, if anyone cares to know -- but can you really watch, say, Mulholland Drive, with its highly inventive arrangement of material, and take no interest in it at all?

    Yeah, there was nonsense and silly mystification in Mulholland Drive as well, but we're talking about mass-market movies, a medium whose popular dramatic conventions were exhausted about 90 years ago, not a classical art form for a small audience.

  • Shian, you're in a hole, stop digging.

  • We're talking about Art. Now the inherent problem with Art is that it is subjective. But what is bullshit to me, is when people refer to a certain artist's vision as "GENIUS" simply because it is odd or offbeat.

    What Banksy exposed was that most people - whether they be fans, critics, artists, etc - don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about. They can't distinguish brilliance from garbage. And most, when confronted with garbage, are afraid to call it such because some pretentious snob will tell them, "Oh, you poor troglodite. You just don't get it." So they go the complete opposite and call it "Genius". But there is a default setting that any time even you yourself don't "get it", declare it to be brilliant so people will think you are brilliant for "getting it."

    Banksy is brilliant. MBW is a fucking idiot. Most people can't tell the difference. Lynch is the film equivalent of MBW.

    If you can't tell the difference between MBW and Banksy - don't paint. If you can't tell the difference between Lynch and Terry Gilliam - don't tell stories.

    And I mean in a blind test - if each artist were to create an original work, and not put their name on it, and then Show/Screen the work I'd really love to see how many people would be absolutely wrong, and then afterwards say, "Oh, that makes total sense, I absolutely see it now." Fuck off.

    By declaring trash to be genius you devalue genius.

    For the record - I'm referring to his original works, not adaptations or directing other people's stories.

  • oh my! i fear i can't take anything serious anymore that shian says.

  • @shian

    If you don't like Lynch style, you can enjoy The Elephant Man and Straight Story, that are not maked in Lynch style and they have 3 acts, a solid story and no surreal-onirics thinghs that you don't appreciate in Lynch work. Other discriminatory positions against Lynch's fans (or any other person or group of persons) in the dramatic way you had put them, are out of this present, or i strongly force myself to believe, every day, that they are. That makes you a fool in my eyes. I'glad you are into color correction and not into politics :-)

  • Chaplin was genius, Fellini was genius, Hitchcock was genius.

    Lynch is not in the same league, not even Tarantino nor Boyle : they're just "good", not genius.

    That's all I've to say.

  • I´m sorry but you are out on a limb here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. And post-modernist narrative may not be your cup of tea. But there are no similarities between mr brainwash "art-work" and david lynch films. None whatsoever.

    For a guy who supposedly is

    fucking dumbass, no talent, deficit on anything resembling a valid and enriching storytelling aesthetic

    he has a remarkably coherent and consistent filmography.

    (Mind, I have never met the guy in person so I can´t say much about him)

    As for geniuses.. well, as westerners we live in a culture which idolises individuals and that alone is stupefying. When it comes to culture – really good works are very, very rare.

  • @ shian

    no offense, but such an emotional rant provides little incentive for users like myself to want to participate in a critical, logical and productive discussion about art/film. your comments only demonstrate that you despise the work of lynch.

  • I don't post much, but I had too.

    The fact you you can find nothing worthwhile in a david lynch film is proof that you have no idea what makes a movie valid or worthwhile. David Lynch doesn't tell straghtforward and obvious stories, his films are more about mood and a creeping sense of dread. Just because thats not what you look for in a movie, doesn't make them less valid or crap by any means.

    There's no fooling anybody in Lynch films, there is just the story that he tells, which is unconventional, but not crap by any means. You make something even remotely close to what he makes and then you can talk. What have you contributed to the film world that is even remotely close to what Lynch has?

    Also, the fact that you would never work with anybody who likes Lynch is ridiculous, and sad. If I ever found my self on a crew with you, I would walk out and never look back. People like you are what is wrong with the film industry right now.

  • Interesting. Now that we've heard your perspective, it makes me want to ask for some examples Shian. Please, don't think I'm saying you're wrong or right, I would just like to see why you have this view on Lynch since we can definitely see your stance on the subject.

  • Man, you just destroyed the 90s for me :) So I was fooled into looking forward to the next episode of Twin Peaks every Friday night during high school? Dang! Didn't you even enjoy The Straight Story?

    (On second thought: I haven't seen any of his recent movies. Last one was Mulholland Drive.)