Short Cranks Exemption

[Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt]

David Nevin Friedman writes, addressing Greg Montalbano:

> Shawshank Redemption is merely a MOVIE, not a FILM?  Where did this come 
> from.  Shawshank Redemption is definitely not just a MOVIE.  It is an 
> artistically done film depicting the struggle of one person as indicative 
> of that of humanity as a whole.  This, it seems, is a common trait ALL 
> art has. 

 Everyman representing us all, you say? Very narrow definition. And a 
little medieval (as in: pre-Renaissance Morality Play). But maybe, by 
focussing on the didacticism (didactism?) you have put your finger on 
something. Not that the Sh R is not an artistically done film, or 
nothing.

>        Or do you have other requisites for something being art?  

Many many _many_ WONDERful definitions out there. Like, you 
know, it has to be upLIFTing, and provide enCOURAGEment.

>                     And, 
> as far as Tim Robbins is concerned, your trite comments are unwarranted: 
> Tim Robbins directed Dead Man Walking.  Are you going to tell me that was 
> merely a MOVIE and not a FILM?

The Player, now there was a good little pictire, and spot on 
(something).
 
> Art critics have every right to be arrogant, as a lot of crap is put out 
> there, but just because something veers away from the traditional 'aura' 
> of good art (as I suspect you seem to think of Shawshank Redepmtion) does 
> not mean it is bad art.  

No no, Shawshank Redemption is _too_ ordinary, so much traditional 
feel-good happy escapism it hurts. That is the objection.

>             Artists from Shakespeare to the Velvet 
> Underground have been labeled 'bad artists' according to the prevailing 
> opinions of the time; each came into their own, so to speak, however.

Despite, and notwithstanding, too! Here's a rough rule-o-thumb guide 
for the beginner (not you, of course). If it is a box office success, it 
sucks. If it wins an Oscar, it's dangerous as well. A lot of fun can 
be had discovering the exceptions proving this rule. But that's 
advanced stuff, don't try it without some protection - if in doubt, 
wear a condom.
 
> (I know it seems bizarre to mention Shakespeare and the Velvet 
> Underground in the same sentence: I am just trying to convey the breadth 
> of artistic categories that have been ridiculed by those claiming to have 
> an objective 'truth' on what art, beauty, et., is.)

Excuse me, but didn't you just categorically define art as, and I 
quote: 
            " depicting the struggle of one person as indicative of that 
of humanity as a whole.  This, it seems, is a common trait ALL 
art has." 
Sounds pretty dogmatic to me. Almost like someone who is 
ignoring the "breadth  of artistic categories that have been ridiculed by 
those claiming to have  an objective 'truth' on what art, beauty, 
et., is"

Correct me if I'm wrong

Confused
Cape Town
hag at iafrica.com