Slashdot Mirror
Critic Cites Revenge of the Sith As "Generation's Greatest Work of Art
eldavojohn writes "Art critic and University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia Camille Paglia has written a book that not only claims George Lucas is the 'World's Greatest Living Artist' but also that 'Revenge of the Sith' is our generation's greatest work of art. That's right: Titian, Bernini, Monet, Picasso, Jackson Pollock and ... George Lucas. If you thought you understood art but you hated Episode III, it might be difficult to understand how her book 'Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art from Egypt to Star Wars' ends with 'Revenge of the Sith.' There is a possibility that the art world remembers this generation by examining that movie."
And I thought my opinion of art critics couldn't get any lower.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
That or she's into some nasty nose candy.
Okay, I get it. Art is subjective. Sometimes someone's "best movie ever" is another's pukeorama. I know this.
But, no.
Just no.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Slashdot trolled by feminist academic.
The sad thing is that I might have bought this before the three prequels came out.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
...Revenge of Revenge of the Sith?
There's the problem, none of them really "our generation".
Enough said. Always been a fan of the bonkers commentary that Brian Sewell comes out with myself.
yeah ok, not that film!
But read the article, its basically saying all the creativity these days goes into movies and video game art, not into more traditional art which is becoming old and stale. And she's likely correct.
Nonsense ! YouTube Charts tells me that Psy, Justin Bieber and Jennifer Lopez are the greatest artists !
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I once knew a kid who, whether through a mental disability or through general weirdness, liked to smear his poop around places in public. I would consider him a greater artist than George Lucas, except for the fact his works could be considered an imitation of Revenge of the Sith.
This is just classic trolling. I'm surprised (a) that people take her seriously, and (b) someone of her stature would do this for attention.
...she gets a refund for her failed Master/PhD study.
Seriously. What a joke /sheldoncooperquoteregardinghowardwollowitz
Die Jar Jar Binks, die!
Now I am worthy of my own Slashdot article.
If art critics and movie critics would just blindly follow the popular opinions, there would not be much point in having them around.
We can check what's in the IMDB Top 250 without needing their help.
Same with Picasso... I'd much rather look at a peaceful picture of mountains than his morbid creations. It takes a critic to like it.
Any so-called art critic and professor who wants to put George Lucas next to William Shakespeare needs to just drive off a cliff.
Yeah, the Star Wars universe is pretty awesome, but it's hardly a cultural masterpiece that stands alongside works of art hanging in the Louvre.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Srsly, how do I troll?
While I agree that our highest art right now is the movies, I would put Quentin Tarantino down as the greatest artist.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Entire Star Wars section added solely to gain publicity for the rest of the work.
Mission accomplished.
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
I had to triple check the movie title due to my disbelief. What kind of moron would say that? The acting was awful, the art was laughable, storyline was boring, and the pacing was horrible. It was the second worse movie of the 6 just after episode 1, and has almost ruined Star Wars in my mind as a die hard fan.
The concept a critic would even give it a thumbs up, let along make this statement is both laughable and appalling.
There is nothing starwars that is the greatest work of anything. Unless its marketing.
This man Camille Paglia is a moron.
Criticism is most valuable when it tells you something you don't know. What could be more unknown than the opposite of an "obvious" unpopular opinion? Perhaps inventing reasonable arguments contrary to the consensus on a piece of art can lead to meaningful new ways of interpreting it, no matter how apparently correct the consensus may be.
Of course, the critic might not be doing any of that. I probably didn't read the article, much like this critic probably didn't watch the movie. I'm just inventing a reasonable argument contrary to the consensus, you see...
So... you are saying that "our generation" just really sucks?
Actually, you can know how good a work of art is in objective terms. Just look at how many people copy it. Take a painting from 1700's. The ones that were most heavily copied in their day were the most influential. The ones that were still being copied in the 1800's could be seen as great art.
How many people have copied ''Revenge of the Sith'. I know I saw it, but I don't even remember it. During Halloween you still see kids copying the first three movies. The 1977-1983 movies.
Anyone with half a brain knows "Revenge of the Sith" had a political message.
I submit Shigeru Miyamoto as the greatest living artist. His creations are at least as iconic and influential.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Didnt he just paint a bunch of fat, naked women fondling angels and ogres?
Must remember:
Write drunk, edit sober.
(BEFORE POSTING, don't forget edit part)
Note that it says "in our generation". The OP actually limits it to the last 30 years. So comparisons with Monet, Shakespeare, Titian, Bernini, etc. are missing the whole point. Art in the last 30 years? Hasn't been much noteworthy. That time frame doesn't even permit the original Star Wars movie. Oh man, now I feel really old.
And the worst art critic of our generation award goes to...Camille Paglia. Honorable mention goes to Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia for hiring this tool. Even Jar Jar Binks was quoted as saying, "Meesa thinks she's a nutcase."
This is the same idiot that describes herself as a "dissident feminist" (whatever that is). Perhaps she is also a dissident art critic. Let's call a duck a duck. She's a heretic.
There's the problem, none of them really "our generation".
That was meant to be a chronological ordering of great artists that she followed in her book with Lucas being the ultimate.
Paglia has been trolling the feminist establishment for for years. Now she has broadened her trolling to sell more books. It's boring and this post is troll bait.
Avatar is way better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ygUoVOtFY
Jar jar is the character that defined a generation of Americans, not my generation mind you, but a generation. I suppose that Bella defines the current youth.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
If she had picked a less controversial piece nobody would talk about or buy her book.
I never expected to agree with TFA. I mean, come on; if Revenge of the Sith is truly the greatest work of art produced in the last thirty years, then the artistic state of humanity has fallen far indeed. But then I went and read the thing, only to find that the critic is pretty much saying exactly this: that it is the greatest work of art produced in the last thirty years, because the artistic state of humanity has fallen so far.
Obviously she's saying it to be provocative, but is her underlying message that Lucas is a genius, or that our generation venerates garish reheated tripe? We have extended and expanded copyright into such a giant cash spewing regulatory juggernaut that it has drowned out art, strangled cultural commentary, and left nothing of media production but self-loathing prostitution of regurgitated, once-great story lines. Maybe she's just a senior citizen taking a shot at "these damn kids these days".
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If you have a few hours to kill, Red Letter Media has an awesome review of Episodes I-III. The review of Episode I is fantastic, and very poignant. http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/
Yet the picture in the article is not from Ep. III?
Camille Paglia, why?, Why!. YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE!
Clearly, Contemporary Art is getting harder to understand. What a bunch of morons we are, for not appreciating a truly expression of the beauty.
To be fair, there are a couple really good scenes in Revenge of the Sith. As a whole the movie is indeed pretty lacking, but if the whole movie had more scenes like the following, it could have been something truly grand:
The best is the scene (sans dialog!) where (eh, am I really going to spoiler this?) there is one character looking across the city toward where another character is doing something atrocious. That is a brilliant scene, where there is actually a glimpse of emotion, conveyed not by dialog or effects, but simple imagery and the score.
It's too bad, really, that the rest of the movie is so full of cliche and noise.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
That's what she does for a living -- she makes goofy statements (like calling herself a liberal AND extolling some of the virtues of neo-conservatism) to tweak people.
Her Wiki page has a Naomi Wolf quote, from 20 years ago, describing Paglia as "full of howling intellectual dishonesty."
Most well read people treat Paglia as a talking point, not as a serious critic.
George Lucas is the only one of those people who has been alive in the last 30 years, let alone produced "art". Titian and Bernini have been dead for hundreds of years (unless there's more modern artists also using those names of course, but you'd expect a better reference than those famous single names) and are ridiculous to include in a "this generation" category.
From the blurb, it doesn't sound like she's talking about him as a screenwriter or director, but rather as a visual artist and mythmaker. There's an argument for him being a great artist there, I think. Greatest living, perhaps not.
Opinions are like assholes, every body has one. As art critics (in fact, all critics) are only heard when expressing their opinions, it kind of stands to reason that the reaction stinks.
Having said that, the majority of artists who today are considered the real greats, responsible for some of the finest art works in history, were either completely unappreciated during their lifetime and died penniless and destitute, or they were appreciated for things other than their artwork and derived income from sources other than their artistic endeavours.
Granted, George Lucas is never going to die penniless (but if he wants to give me all his money 5 minutes before he dies, just to prove me wrong, I am not going to complain), so he does not fall into the penniless category. Equally, he is not appreciated for anything he has done outside of the Star Wars franchise, unless you count the setting up of Industrial Light & Magic and similar business ventures, so he can hardly fall into the "artistic genius who earned money in other ways, with his artistic genius only being appreciated after his death" category, even allowing for the fact that he is not dead.
Personally, I can come up with a list of potential "Best artist of our generation" candidates that is longer than the credits for all 3 Star Wars prequels put together and which would not contain the name "George Lucas", but that is going to be my opinion, which is no more valid than Ms Paglia's effort.
Her comment in the article (haven't read the book) reads more like a criticism of the stagnant art world than any real praise of the film itself.
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. Itâ(TM)s better than... uh, Matthew Barney or Rachel Whiteread or Chris Ware or Peter Doig?
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 clothesâ"people are too intimidated to admit what they secretly think or what they might think with their blinders off.
Having read a little bit of contemporary literary fiction I can say that she has a point - professors over-intellectualizing dull professorial and uninterestingly self-absorbed topics seems to rule the day and makes me yearn for another Orwell or Hemingway - authors who wrote engagingly about big subjects and who were somewhat populist authors.
Same thing for the artists. I actually kind of like Barney and Whiteread and when you view their work through a sensible conceptual lense at least it makes some sense. But really, it's not about anything important so much as it's about something intellectually interesting to the artist and maybe their friends and some critics (maybe you could argue Barney gets to something fundamental about identity but the expression is so formalized that it doesn't have much personal impact). His work means something only to a select few.
So I think that this is the point that Paglia is making and she's picked a bit of an over the top counter example to shake things up in the art world. I mean, if a leading critic (or at least a famous one) says that the supposed best contemporary artists are worse than a mediocre Star Wars film that will help her to force the conversation she wants to have. If anybody cares, at least.
So she writes a book that really no one would have cared about or heard about otherwise and she desperately needs attention to get sales so what does she do? Make a really stupid, idiotic, wholely untruthful claim and says things that will insight the very fanbase she is writing for. She just wants attention, thats it because lets face it NONE of us have ever heard anyone else ever say much good about george lucas so she comes out with this outlandish claim that defies us all because she wants us to pay attention to her because attention means more sales.
Im european and i will get a Nobel Pease Price.
George Lucas is as Monet as me is to Gandi.. (there is no connection)
It's because the art world has flat-lined and become an echo chamber of received opinion and toxic over-praise.
So she's railing against over-praise by... over-praising something. Maybe there's genius in that, but I think she believes she is being deep, which is ironic, and doubly so when you read what she said just prior to that:
There's too much gimmickry and irony and not enough intuition and emotion.
Gimmickry? I'm not sure it's possible that he could have included any more in the movie (everything from "gimmicky" CGI to story gimmick - I mean come on, Anakin BUILT the two 'droids? Really? It's a big fuckin' galaxy, I ain't buyin' it. And yes I know, that reveal wasn't in THIS film, but still...). Irony? Well, not only is her choice ironic considering WHY she says she chose it, but the irony of Lucas eschewing his younger self's statement that (paraphrasing here) technology should not win out over humanity is a most perfect example of the meaning of the word. And if she was looking for emotion, boy did she pick something with an overdose.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
Those who can't create, critique.
Art critic defies popular wisdom? What a great way to generate publicity for mediocre work. I mean, sheesh, she somehow manages to fit discussion of depictions of the penis in art into one of the interview articles, and then starts slagging other critics about their views. Brilliant and classic stuff, for a critic, which is a pretty low standard. Sure to generate some sales, though.
If you carefully re-arrange the letters Sith... you'll get a better word to describe the movie...
Successful professional troll is successful.
What a lot of BS!
...that 99.99% of /. readers don't get sarcasm unless it's tagged for them. This group would include, apparently, the submitter and editors. Oh, wait. She was actually serious...
And..., if one bother's to RTFA, one realizes that she's talking about the visuals. We are all agreed that the movie was a turd, but the visual art within it is not without merit. Too bad most of it was actually created by artists whose names only appear in the smallest print in the closing credits, but hey, she's an art critic and knows dick about how motion pictures like that are actually made.
destroys George Lucas when it comes to art. I think shes trying to be off-the-wall here for off-the-wall's sake. More than likely, it is to bring attention to her book. As far as Alex Grey goes, I believe his greatest work is the CoSMic Christ collection of paintings. This coming from a non-religious agnostic.
Here are what I consider the 5 qualities of great art:
Powerful – It has an affect on your mind and emotions and is compelling.
Accessible – The affect it has on you is worth the effort you put into appreciating it.
Elevating - When it moves you, it moves you toward personal growth.
Universal – It can move people from different cultures and different time periods.
Perennial - It has the same power the second and third time you experience it.
This link explains it in more detail:
http://www.kensken.com/archives/52
And the Star Wars movies are notorious for one thing and one thing only... bad acting.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Quick, where is James Cameron!
But seriously?!
Nothing about Star Wars is art. Weak plot, dry acting, poor direction. Yes the visual effects are stunning and this is the one biggest contribution Lucas and LucasArts/Films has given the world, but even if it is art, its not the greatest produced this generation. Art should invoke more emotions then just sheer anger and utter disappointment.
This just proves that art criticism is nothing but vapid subjective commentary. I mean it is so obvious that this is a controversial statement only made to try and sell a book. I don't think anyone that is amazed by ROTS is worth reading though, IMHO, and I have already wasted too much time on this.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
My ex and I used to argue over this point constantly. She was a "fine arts" major. What you and I call art, she claimed we confused with craftmanship. If it "evoked a feeling or response", it was art in her book.
Some of the junk she thought was art, created a "feeling" in me. I "felt" it was crap.
"...art and literature have sadly been relegated to PhD's and ever-narrowing groups of intellectuals who 'get it', never bothering to ask if it's worthy of being gotten in the first place"
Hey, at least Star Wars (as a whole, perhaps not this particular horrible episode) is at least something that has had a major influence on Western culture. That's a lot better definition of Art than the usual postmodernist tripe.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
She's an academic with a new book 'Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art from Egypt to Star Wars.' What better way to create buzz about an otherwise obscure academic exercise than to create a kerfuffle with an obviously provocative statement. It got us all discussing it, so I guess it's a successful marketing ploy.
All the really great sigs are already taken.
Camille Paglia has always been good at generating publicity. Think about it, an Humanities Professor has got a mention on slashdot. That's like having Linus Torvalds guest starring on Dancing on Ice.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
on Revenge of the Sith: this movie failed to convince me that Anakin's life was so horrible that he would become Darth Vader. The scenes that she seems to gush over at the end of the film seemed like a rushed, slipshod mess to me. Genndy Tartakovsky's Clone Wars series did a MUCH better job of convincing me that Anakin would go to the dark side. It also made General Grievous look less like the overhyped, toolbag that he is portrayed as in RotS.
SW Ep 3...she doesn't get out much, does she.
I mean, does SW Ep 3 have a 15 minute Jar Jar Binks torture scene ending with his dismemberment and death? Didn't think so. Thus, it does not qualify as anything remotely resembling 'art', much less 'greatest of all time.'
Could her nose get any browner, shoved so far up Lucus' ass?
Surely they can't be talking about our gen-gen-generation?
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
This is Camille Paglia, BTW, so there shouldn't be any surprise that stance is controversial.
interviewer:
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?
Paglia
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.
So what is the purpose of art? Look at any definition, and most explanations will include something about "being aesthetically pleasing" (which covers a lot of ground) or "experiencing one's self [in relation to the world that is reflected in that work]". Add to this Star Wars' massive, world wide influence. She makes a good case.
George Lucas is kind of {a|the) Nickleback of film. A lot of people love to hate them, but for all of the hate, they seem to continue to make millions of dollars from their creative work.
Star Wars (even episodes 1 - III) is one of the better realized visions of an alien, fantasy universe (to make it to film). To spit on it is kind of spoiled and certainly immature. It is a monumental work, and with crazy massive appeal. I think that what people fail to realize in themselves is a desire to tear down and destroy that which is elevated. It happens with other celebrities, politicians, athletes.
One last thing: Neal Stephenson made this point: the portrayal of Anakin Skywalker was an impossible job. What we see in The Clone Wars is Anakin as "the poster child for PTSD". There is this significant back story that doesn't make it to the movies because it is assumed that the fans have already watched Clone Wars. In that context, Anakin Skywalker's portrayal in the movie makes sense.
Need publicity much?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo
If she had said Empire Strikes Back, she would have gotten a majority of slashdot to agree with her. We would probably grab pitchforks and hunt down any dissenters.
"Our generations greatest work of art" is clearly "Cat Playing Piano", also known as "Keyboard Cat".
This piece of art has been viewed by millions of people and requires your full attention for almost a minute. Compare this to artwork in museums, where visitors engage with the artwork for 5-10 seconds before moving on to the next piece on the wall. A very successful exhibition in a museum attracts, in contrast, only 500 to 900,000 visitors over a period of two to three months.
What you are describing is not the work of artists but of artisans.
I.e. Manual laborers who produce "pretty" and "hand-made original" objects - but that alone does not constitute art.
I'm not saying that those works can't be artistic (which is to say art-like) or beautiful or professionally and technically accomplished - but that is usually not art.
That's just production. Manufacturing. Craft.
Art is both a process and a product of encapsulation of human experience into a medium.
In other words, it is what you get when an artist describes his/her experience of some phenomenon or event he/she experienced (or imagined) through his work (be it a painting, poetry, prose, dance, architecture...) in such a way that you too experience it through your act of "consuming" the artwork.
I.e. Try "explaining" an apple to someone who has never seen it, in such a way that the result of your explanation is as close as possible to him/her actually holding and eating an apple.
"This was like going to an autopsy... You know it’s dead and nothing’s gonna change that, but you gotta do an autopsy to find out what killed it. Or who killed it.”
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith/
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
This man Camille Paglia is a moron.
Nice counter-troll, well played.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
...who really kindof dug the 3 "new" Star Wars movies? Sure, there were parts that I didn't like...the stilted Christensen/Portman love dialog, the weakness of the Sifo-Dyas plot point, but few films are perfect.
Well, I would say that the special visual effects are pretty spectacular for 2005. Lucas should certainly deserve credit for being able to lead hundreds of graphic artists around the world into doing cutting-edge CGI. And I don't think any movie before or since has had as many special effects shot in it (2,151). You could compare the Star Wars films to great works of architecture. They may not evoke great emotion, but they're awful pretty to look at!
People at the college I graduated from, at least at the time I was there several years ago, used "artistic" as a euphemism for "extremely stupid". As in (this is the conversation that coined the usage - while playing some FPS, I think Counterstrike):
"[The bomb sites] are...artistic."
"And by 'artistic', you mean 'stupid'."
"Yes."
And a few minutes later:
"We've taken an 'interesting' route. And by 'interesting', I mean 'dumb'."
"I thought that was 'artistic'..."
So yes. RotS is totally the most artistic movie of our generation.
As much as I hate Bieber and Lopez, (Psy is pretty awesome), how else could you judge subjective materials in an objective way?
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Hmm, if you're trying to argue that Revenge of the Sith isn't our generation's greatest work of art, shouldn't you try to come up with counter examples that are actually from, you know, our generation? Something bothers me about eldavojohn's summary... Titian: 1488-1576 Bernini: 1598-1680 Monet: 1840-1926 Picasso: 1881-1973 Pollock: 1912-1956
Considering the steaming wreck that has been the western world over the last 10 years..... yeah, that sounds about right.
May the Maths Be with you!
George Lucas isn't "my generation" - he's my dad's generation. Might actually explain the awkward sense of humour..
She's got chops. You shouldn't just dismiss her as "Art Critic, I don't give a shit". eldavojohn's potted bio is disingenuous and (IMHO) designed to push certain buttons beloved of /. readers - Arts, Humanities, Media Studies, Lucas. She actually makes a reasonable argument - Lucas has created something unique modern art and culture, whatever you think of the Sith movie. Take the hyperbole away fro the summary and the article and the argument's kinda interesting. Someone makes a comment further down about a game designer which follows the same logic but is (again, IMHO) on a much smaller scale.
Is is possible for an entire generation of artists to sue for libel for being described as worse than a horrible, horrible movie?
This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
It was showing a chronological line of great artists, not a grouping of current artists.
Don't tar "art critics" with the brush you use on Camille Paglia. I've been ignoring her as a bit of a sociological nutcase since the 1990s. She styles herself as kind of feminist libertarian, but as Gloria Steinem put it, "Her calling herself a feminist is sort of like a Nazi saying they're not anti-Semitic."
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I realize that many people over use XKCD comics. But the above comic
1. was on topic
2. reflected the general sentiment of this thread
3. was one I had not seen before
and
4. was downright funny.
With the way it was rated, I am not surprised that the person chose to post it anonymously.
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
Sooo..... World of Warcraft isn't this generation's greatest work of art?
For the older farts among us, Akira Kurosawa and Stanley Kubrick are still relevant. Both of them WAY greater artists than George Lucas.
Even if you strictly limit the comparison to living artists, I'd rate Ridley Scott a bit higher. Sure he made some weak films too, but his better ones beat Star Wars IMHO.
C - the footgun of programming languages
...people with art degrees have such a hard time finding employment.
Bob Dylan is a living artist, born a few years before George Lucas. His voice is not for everyone, but he is far more influential than Lucas and IMHO several of his songs rise to the level of "fine art". There are probably quite a few other musicians who are equally important. (BB King is still alive.)
So yeah, TFA is trolling and Paglia didn't spend five minutes thinking about who are the great living artists.
When it comes to visual arts, I admit I am at a loss to name someone alive today who is as great as, say, Jackson Pollock or Georgia O'Keefe. That is not to say George Lucas is the cream of the crop!
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
She's been drinking too much of that water out of the Schuylkill river.
Plinkett Reviews: Revenge of the Sith
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Your generation is just fine. The generation before you is annoyed by you, you'll be annoyed by the generation after you, and so it goes. Change becomes more difficult to accommodate with age, I can honestly report.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If the arts were in steady decline over at least the last thirty years, technology has been on the rise. The knowledge gained may still prove to have a long life, and it still counts as a monument to the generation(s) that made it possible.
Grand Theft Auto III - It is fully realized city with people, traffic, humor, music, and commentary. It influence socienty, art, and even politics. It was important enough to be censored and banned. It is the finished work of artists, 3D animators, composers, writers, motion capture actors, voice actors, and directed by Navid Khonsari. The grand theft auto games are the sistene chaples of our generation.
... it really is lovely to look at. The use of light and color is quite remarkable, although the terrible dialogue is admittedly an awful distraction.
"Sith" would have made a pretty darn good silent movie. Just run it with the score and sound effects. No cards. There, much better!
Is it bad, when you feel the Legos version of movie is superior to the actual movie itself?
Camille Paglia? Really??? HAHAHAHAHA. Paglia is one of the move overrated and vapid 'intellectuals' ever to defraud their way onto the national scene. Right up there with Andrea Dworkin.
The movie was crap but you cannot deny the beautiful and hard work done by hundreds (thousands?) of artists to make it look and sound as good as it did. Has anyone been watching the behind-the-scenes videos of The Hobbit production? Even if the movie winds up disappointing me I feel at least 50% of staff working on those movies deserves a little gold statuette and a fat pay check bonus.
More news from Duckburg at 11...
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
'Nuff said.
I think they mean that those artists were considered the greatest of the generation they were in, which puts Lucas on the same level as them. THey're not saying Lucas is greater than they are, just at the same level as "the greatest of our generation". I thought the same thing you did; the wording in the summary is just poor.
Agreed. Also, other posters are comparing GL to classical artists, and that misses the point: You can't really compare GL with say Michelangelo because the discussion is about this generations art, not all time great artists.
I think most people here would agree that GL doesn't even rate a one of humanities's great artists. The guy told a few good stories and sold a lot of merchandise, but that is about it. But what has had more impact in the last 40 years culturally than Star Wars that can be attributed to a single person? I think that calling him the greatest artist of our times is probably accurate. And pointing out how really crappy his recent work has been should be a wake up call to us about our standards in art and entertainment.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
"Art critic and University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia Camille Paglia..."
Yeah, stopped reading right there.
Akira Kurosawa and Stanley Kubrick are still relevant. Both of them WAY greater artists than George Lucas.
Nope. You are thinking of the word "greater" in terms of quality, which is a pointless metric when talking about art because quality is entirely subjective.
In terms of impact on humanity, there's no question that Lucas has had far greater impact than Kubrick and Kurosawa combined. The reason is simple, it's because Lucas is getting to viewers at a much younger age, with a more widely distributed product. Lucas has altered the lives of more people than Kubrick ever will.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The brilliant and hilarious political writer Molly Ivins wrote the ultimate takedown of Camille Paglia's absurd intellectual methods (20 years ago!). Archive.org has a PDF of the original article from Mother Jones magazine.
If you plan to read it, ignore the rest of this comment, but if you're not going to follow the link, here's the final paragraph of the article:
Let's first see if this 'expert' is getting US tax dollars from the endowment for the Arts...and cut her funding immediately, and retroactively....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
y'all got punk'd by mz seksual personnae...
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Without Kurosawa, there isn't a STAR WARS.
He was one influence. But even if you were right and that was a primary influence, it's still Lucas's interpretation of Kurosawa that is what people see.
That is what makes Lucas greater in impact than Kurosawa, Lucas has far greater reach to people at a much earlier age.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Good examples of very bad Sci Fi.
I'm sorry, but am I the only one hoping that Disney chooses to remake these? You know, with a good story?
I realize that many people over use XKCD comics. But the above comic 1. was on topic 2. reflected the general sentiment of this thread 3. was one I had not seen before and 4. was downright funny. With the way it was rated, I am not surprised that the person chose to post it anonymously.
Yeah, everyone hates to get a +5 funny.
Crackpot Critic Cites Revenge of the Sith As "Generation's Greatest Work of Art
FTFY...FTW
By that metric, the greatest artist of all time was Adolf Hitler.
Power is distinct from art in that the person wielding power directly controls lives. An artist has only an indirect effect.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This was true
Where does the signature go?
In other news; an art critics is a fool.
Later he saw humanity as his canvas. It could be argued that beyond his direct impact, his indirect impact, both intended and unintended, is in fact greater than that of any other artist.
The whole Israel-Palestine-Middle East clusterfuck is but one (major) example.
Also, consider how much art is based on or incorporates themes from the holocaust, WWII, the ideas of The Third Reich, master race, etc. etc. etc.
Ironic captcha: eludes
I'm a grandfather of 3, I'm outraged that Jackson Pollack is on that list.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Jesus how much more tedious can 'this generation' get - by which I think I mean mine (maybe - how old is this chic)
So the calibration pinnacle on your scale of cultural importance is Dr Seuss, Bugs Bunny, Walt Disney, and Norman Rockwell? I'm pretty sure that Kubrick and Kurosawa were important influences on both Spielberg and Lucas. By your metric, it's surprising we remember Newton at all.
I've grown to hate just about any idea with an immediacy transform embedded inside, because its so much a tool of the newly wealthy to forget that they ever stood on the shoulders of giants whatsoever. In the immortal words of Finding Nemo: "Mine." Seagull logic 101.
Lucas chose a curious path to illustrate the foreboding nature dark side of the force: by making the next five movies. When we were slow to catch on, he added Jar Jar. No wonder artists drink.
Shirow Masamune, Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, Genzoman, J. Michael Straczynski, Bryan Lee O'Malley, The Wachowski Brothers, Vin Diesel...
When Ian McKellen couldn't make a sufficiently robust "ugh" for his beat-down by Sauramon, they carted him off to a screening room, slapped on some headphones, set up some microphones, and starting playing the Phantom Menace.
I think the original Star Wars was a virtual particle emitted from the vacuum state followed by a long foreclosure by the Bank of Heisenberg. The whole experience integrates to zero.
The most influential artist is not the one who made by some measure more of a cultural impact than the hundreds of others artists who also had cultural impacts. It's the artist that inspired them all.
That is a common myth; but totally false. Every person inspired by another picks and chooses what they take from the original person. In the end what you see is all about what the person who created the product chose to include - and exclude.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Seems to me like that's a waste of perfectly good outrage. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm not sure where else to direct it now that all the kids are off the damn lawn.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Thank you, as a member of that older generation i find it embarrassing that just because we had the marketing numbers everybody else is derogated to the scrapeheap of unimportance.
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
I think Paglia may be an actual troll. Perhaps a troll doll in human's clothing.