Trash Humpers

  On 6/8/2010 at 7:36 PM, Boxing Day said:

You now Trash Humpers is art because a Thread about Trash Humpers became a heated debate about what is art , and the meaning of it.

exactly.

  On 6/8/2010 at 7:38 PM, blicero said:

  On 6/8/2010 at 7:36 PM, Boxing Day said:

You now Trash Humpers is art because a Thread about Trash Humpers became a heated debate about what is art , and the meaning of it.

 

exactly.

I never said it isn't art. I can easily accept the idea of creating something with no aim, a point that there is NO point

My argument however is that Trash Humpers is thus a shit film because of it. Its relevance as a piece of art standing by itself can do all it likes really.

I just don't care to watch someone pretty much making a self indulgent wank off as he directs something and then stand by it as a great film and that because I didn't enjoy it that means therefore I "didn't get it man" and whatnot.

As a piece of art though, again it can do what the fuck it likes because there are worse than it for sure.

  On 6/8/2010 at 7:45 PM, blicero said:

That one isn't a bad one either imo! I've been to a modern art gallery in Paris and a Urinal was indeed one of the exhibits.

I'll stack the likes of a room that literally has a light that flicks on and off every so often to be possibly one of the worst offenders...

Modern art feels to me like this: I could have done that!!! + YEAH BITCH YOU DIDN'T :D

and that's just fucking lazy imo, little talent and little effort.

  On 6/8/2010 at 7:50 PM, Macca said:

  On 6/8/2010 at 7:45 PM, blicero said:

That one isn't a bad one either imo! I've been to a modern art gallery in Paris and a Urinal was indeed one of the exhibits.

 

I'll stack the likes of a room that literally has a light that flicks on and off every so often to be possibly one of the worst offenders...

 

Modern art feels to me like this: I could have done that!!! + YEAH BITCH YOU DIDN'T :D

 

and that's just fucking lazy imo, little talent and little effort.

get yer lern on:

  Quote

Marcel Duchamp arrived in the United States less than two years prior to the creation of Fountain, and had become involved with Dada, an anti-rational, anti-art cultural movement, in New York City. Creation of Fountain began when, accompanied by artist Joseph Stella and art collector Walter Arensberg, he purchased a standard Bedfordshire model urinal from the J. L. Mott Iron Works, 118 Fifth Avenue. The artist brought the urinal to his studio at 33 West 67th Street, reoriented it to a position 90 degrees from its normal position of use, and wrote on it, "R. Mutt 1917". [3][4]

 

At the time Duchamp was a board member of the Society of Independent Artists and submitted the piece under the name R. Mutt, presumably to hide his involvement with the piece, to their 1917 exhibition, which, it had been proclaimed, would exhibit all work submitted. After much debate by the board members (most of whom did not know Duchamp had submitted it) about whether the piece was or was not art, Fountain was hidden from view during the show.[5] Duchamp and Arensberg resigned from the board after the exhibition.

Fart for fart's sake!

I'm going to respond in two parts.

First, let's grant that art (the activities of making and experiencing artworks) can be its own point. This isn't unintelligible; we do other things for their own sake, too. Aristotle claims that we all want happiness for its own sake, the idea being that there is no further reason why you would do things that make you happy (or live a good life) beyond the fact that they make you happy. You don't need to ask for yet another reason why, or a further explanation.

Nevertheless, someone can try to do things that make him happy and get it wrong. He can misunderstand what it actually takes to live a good life. So, just because he says he is doing something that makes him happy doesn't mean that it really does. Similarly, Korine can be trying to make art (and to make it for its own sake), but failing. And my claim is that just because he thinks he is making something that counts as art, something he thinks is in some way compelling or meaningful to watch for its own sake, doesn't mean that he actually is making something so compelling or meaningful. I think this movie is a failed attempt to make art, and so it doesn't actually count as a case of making art for art's sake.

(In fact, my claim was even stronger: That he is not even trying to make art, let alone trying and failing. And I think this because he has nothing thoughtful to say about how we are to understand this movie as a piece of art.)

Now, my second and deeper issue is that I'm not yet convinced that it makes sense to grant what I granted above, that art is in fact an activity we can engage in for its own sake. There are many activities we wouldn't accept as simply being done for their own sake: 'Why are you making breakfast?' 'To make breakfast.' -- No! 'Because I'm hungry.' 'Why are you hopping on one foot like that?' 'To hop on one foot.' -- No! 'Because I have bunyans!' (lol) Why should we accept that it is sensible to answer 'Why did you make that movie?' with 'To make that movie'?

Certainly, we do things 'idly,' we might say, for instance, whistling, or putting on a CD, or picking out the blue shirt today, "just because." But that means, 'just because I feel like it and for no other reason'; and we don't want that to be Korine's answer -- 'I made this movie just because I felt like it' -- for, if it is, why should anyone else give a shit?

When you claim that we can make art for its own sake, you seem to want to say something more substantial than that we make art because we feel like it, right? But my problem here is that I don't have a sense of what you could mean to be saying.

erm, what?

  On 6/8/2010 at 7:45 PM, blicero said:

This is different. Duchamp didn't just do this for the sake of flippin a pisser. He is posing a question about art, namely, how are we to understand art in the 'modern' age where the conventions we relied on in the past to make sense of and enter into an aesthetic experience have come into question? He asks this question by questioning those conventions in the extreme. The point, as I understand it, isn't so much to decide whether "Fountain" is or isn't art, but to realize that we used to know how to answer the question 'What is art?', and now we don't, and that this is largely definitive of how art is made in our time.

That says a whole lot more than if Duchamp, interviewed, were to say "Huh huh, pissing on stuff is kool, heh m heh."

fuck

l2subjectivity.

Encey, have you seen it?

please say yes

unless you haven't

No, but I think the reviews and his description in the interview gives me enough to go on.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Who gives a fuck why he made the movie or why he thinks people should give a shit about it. Harmony may not be the most articulate director, but he has a different perspective on filmaking and puts a lot of hard work into his visions which are more often than not, very successful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-IGcCfLdAo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4JIkmzWfn0

  On 6/8/2010 at 8:09 PM, encey said:

No, but I think the reviews and his description in the interview gives me enough to go on.

yeah mate, as much as I have pre bias against it already from what I've read and heard of the film I can't exactly form a solid opinion because I haven't seen it yet unfortunately....

The worst censors and arbiters against freedom of speech never did see "those films" or read those books. So it doesn't paint in good light to shandig it without seeing it....

After all, my previous posts are on how it "looks" from here. Not exactly how it is, I'm willing to walk into Trash Humpers and walk out going "hmm ok" and obviously hold a much more enlightened opinion which I could then obviously more happily state as my suspicions would have either been confirmed or disproven.

there are more than enough films coming out this year which better tailored to your crappy "tastes", encey and Macca.

  On 6/8/2010 at 8:38 PM, 24ourange said:

Who gives a fuck why he made the movie or why he thinks people should give a shit about it. Harmony may not be the most articulate director, but he has a different perspective on filmaking and puts a lot of hard work into his visions which are more often than not, very successful.

hmm from everything I've read and seen this seems... a tad lacking.... filming on now ancient equipment (old VHS Stock), little to NO editing (as stated from his interviews), little to no cohesive narrative (as stated by many people who have seen it, critics alike and himself for stating that it is an "emotion" film. And generally unless there is a hard to do aesthetic - Like in Eraserhead where Lynch took Five Years to make certain props just right or in Tetsuo where Tsukamoto had all the actors do everything painstakingly slowly whilst filming just to speed it all up for effects that would last only a fraction of what it took to film- then it just looks lazy, all Korine did was film on old VHS stock no extra effort needed there then. The lack of specific narrative also means he has no timeline continuity issues to think about either and doesn't need to think about what he is filming as much).

Korine has also stated shooting to be "really really short" as well, again how much "hard work" could have been accomplished there?!?, the cast and crew were small too so it wouldn't have been difficult to organise either...

One thing that I DO agree with Korine on, quite strongly, that he did mention in his interviews was the fact that it takes too long to get down and film stuff nowdays, its honestly mind boggling how much paperwork and money you need to throw around to film legit. So I entirely agree with him on that, but it has little bearing on the actual quality of the film itself....

  On 6/8/2010 at 8:45 PM, phling said:

there are more than enough films coming out this year which better tailored to your crappy "tastes", encey and Macca.

ugh christ, Didn't you actually read what I typed??? I'm saying from everything that I've seen and read it doesn't look like it will be good... I will definitely try and see it and see for my own eyes whether it IS shit or not.... I'm not saying its shit folks, I'm just saying judging by all the evidence in plain sight that it doesn't look like anything massively special (and with all those film festival awards, somethings gotta click surely...)

I'm very open to Trash Humpers being a good film which I'll only know for sure when I see it.

PS: I quite like the ideas and aesthetics in Korine's other films, so yeah I'd be quite happy if it didn't suck

Good thing there's things like Iron Man 2 to balance out this bullshit. Also, I reckon a film's quality depends on how "hard" it was to make, and ALSO, a cohesive and linear narrative is necessary to make a good film.

  On 6/8/2010 at 8:48 PM, Macca said:

And generally unless there is a hard to do aesthetic - Like in Eraserhead where Lynch took Five Years to make certain props just right

 

no, it took him 5 years because he had no money to film.

  On 6/8/2010 at 8:55 PM, sneaksta303 said:

Good thing there's things like Iron Man 2 to balance out this bullshit. Also, I reckon a film's quality depends on how "hard" it was to make, and ALSO, a cohesive and linear narrative is necessary to make a good film.

 

  On 6/8/2010 at 8:48 PM, Macca said:

And generally unless there is a hard to do aesthetic - Like in Eraserhead where Lynch took Five Years to make certain props just right

 

 

no, it took him 5 years because he had no money to film.

Nothing wrong with detatching the brain and going to see something like Iron Man. I don't judge a film's quality based on how "hard" it was to make, Kubrick filmed all of Eyes Wide Shut in England and spent years working on it yet I think its his worst film out of the lot. You don't need a cohesive and linear narrative either...

also I remember reading that it took 5 years to get some things right, I never read that he had no monies! thanks for sharing that info

yeah he had a nice interview on the eraserhead dvd

  On 6/8/2010 at 8:59 PM, sneaksta303 said:

yeah he had a nice interview on the eraserhead dvd

ooh, never seen that! will check out for sure :D

I get so pissed off in threads like these, and I realize, everyone has their own opinion, but it seems to me something like this should not be judged until viewed in its entirety. To call it "failed art" without having seen it... Well, that surprised me Encey.

  On 6/8/2010 at 8:52 PM, Macca said:

  On 6/8/2010 at 8:45 PM, phling said:

there are more than enough films coming out this year which better tailored to your crappy "tastes", encey and Macca.

ugh christ, Didn't you actually read what I typed??? I'm saying from everything that I've seen and read it doesn't look like it will be good... I will definitely try and see it and see for my own eyes whether it IS shit or not.... I'm not saying its shit folks, I'm just saying judging by all the evidence in plain sight that it doesn't look like anything massively special (and with all those film festival awards, somethings gotta click surely...)

 

I'm very open to Trash Humpers being a good film which I'll only know for sure when I see it.

 

PS: I quite like the ideas and aesthetics in Korine's other films, so yeah I'd be quite happy if it didn't suck

based on what you typed i think you kind of… missed the point.

  On 6/8/2010 at 9:03 PM, sneaksta303 said:

I get so pissed off in threads like these, and I realize, everyone has their own opinion, but it seems to me something like this should not be judged until viewed in its entirety. To call it "failed art" without having seen it... Well, that surprised me Encey.

Totally agree, I'm just a bastard for pre bias :P

Also, I'm not sure how you can fail at art... isn't that impossible....