August 8, 2004
Making Movies: Art Or Business
In his Art v Business posting, Lee Penney at The Digital Peninsula asks the question: can art (specifically films) sit comfortably with business? Are films, in fact, actually art at all, or simply business?
My take on this seems to be similar in general to Lee’s in that I also feel anything creative may be considered art, but that it’s all, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder (apologies for the obvious cliche there!) What I would like to add to this is that I feel that there should definitely be some semblance of skill and technique in there, but I’m starting to digress a little…
Back to the question - are films art or business? I think the answer to this is simply yes! That may sound like a cop-out, but sitting this on particular fence is not all that painful!! :) Spending millions on making a movie does not preclude it from being artistic, but judging by most blockbusters, it certainly doesn’t help. Conversly, making a film for peanuts does not neccessarily mean that it’s suitable for anyone other than monkeys (sorry to simian readers out there for that gratuitous pun).
It’s all down to attitudes - the attidude of the director and the attitudes of those supplying the money. Lee wonders whether …big salaries are limiting the number of ‘masterpieces’ that are being produced.
I think that it’s more a question of whether the aim of making the film is to make a profit, or whether it’s to make a significant, valuable (in artistic terms) piece of work. If it’s the former, then we’re highly unlikely to get ‘art’ - if the latter, then at least there’s more of a chance.
But hell, that’s just my opinion - as I stated earlier, it’s up to the individual concerned as to what they consider art! Who knows, you may think that Spiderman 2 was as significant as anything produced by Michaelangelo!
