Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GrandTheftAuto.net - Website Re-Launch

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Ph3L1z14n0

Industry & Art

Recommended Posts

Ph3L1z14n0

Recently i've been seeing and thinking a lot about both music and films, just a brief time ago i started separating independent films from studio films, independent musicians from record company bands, and of course the massified opinion on both Art & Industry, i think it's pretty obvious that there is influence that helps to make you think this way, but i really wondered about that precisely, about today's relation between Art & Industry.

 

We can see it everywhere and in every form of entertainment, movies, music, books and even videogames can be separated between the terms of "indie" and "mainstream".

 

Some people believe that industry is cancer, if not, ask Jim Jarmusch, independent director, who to this day has never done and says that will never do a movie under a studio's watch.

 

Some people don't really make the distinction, think of Steven Spielberg, studio director, has directed and produced a lot of films that have resonated for many years and to this day through pop culture.

 

But where is the true question? the true question i think it lies on the effect that industry has on art, and backwards, in music for example, great bands like No Doubt changed their style and tried to find ways to make more profit, other bands like Iron Maiden, have always been tied to a record company and their infamous manager Rod Smallwood.

 

What are your opinions on this? do you believe that industry destroys art? do you believe it does not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

To sum up my opinion without boring you all - the money ultimately dictates what is created. Investors don't care if it's a good movie - if they did, they'd be critics or filmmakers themselves. They want a return for their dollar above everything else. When you're in Stephen Spielberg's position, you are the money, and can afford to take control creatively (whether he has actually capitalized on this is entirely up for debate) and make the movie you, ultimately, want. A great example of the is Mel Gibson's Apocolypto. The guy went bat sh*t insane and made an action film in a dead language, because he could.

 

Then again, you can just be three shades of f*cking insane like Terry Gilliam and make the films you want to through sheer tenacity.

 

I guess a point I'd like to make, however, is that what we all call indie film today is simply a smaller scale studio production. So while they borrow the 'street cred' of the independent scene, they're only different from bigger studio films in the fact that they don't pay anyone near as well to make it. Take Juno for instance. People call Juno "indie" but fail to mention the 6.5 million dollar budget. Yes, compared to Transformers, that'd pay for, what, Optimus Prime's left piston? However, an indie film - at least in my opinion - is one that you can pay for with a small bank loan, or, for instance, selling your comic book collection to shoot a 30,000 dollar flick like Clerks. You know, financed independently? Not via Lionsgate or Miramax?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D Jones

As you speak for the movie buisness Otter, I must at least chime in on the music part.

 

I believe for the music buisness the seperation from mainstream and independent is the sound of music and weather people want to hear it or not. I mean, for instance, I rapper like Immortal Technique has so many political views in his raps it is crazy. Record Labels don't want that sh*t as it would probably attract negative attention and have people all over his ass for his statements (cough kanye west?). And again, the sound of music is changing constantly, and people like more of a sound than the other. Also, I don't think money is a big deal, I mean thousands are pretty damn good (IMO) but I guess compared to millions it is different. But money doesn't mean anything, MF DOOM > 50 Cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.

Does industry destroy art? Good question.

 

I think it's a neutral answer. You have music from the 60's/70's/80's and movies from the same period, all made by record companies/movie studios, and a lot of them were really, really good. By good, I mean that the quality of music/movie was fantastic, and breathtaking to watch. Then again, there are a lot of mainstream movies today which are horrible, and a lot of popular music which sucks.

 

I don't think it's industry destroying art, it's people's tastes, especially those of the current young generation. Just look at the teenagers of the 60's. They were obsessed with The Beatles. Had they listened to 50 Cent in 1963, he would have been chucked out straight away. Yet, teenagers now might (sadly) chuck out some Beatles CD, because it doesn't accomodate to their needs.

 

Yet, in about 30 years time, things will change again. Industry, especially those of art, change dramatically and very quickly. That's why I say, in 30 years time, there will be a new style of music which is vastly popular.

 

So, does industry destroy art? No. Tastes destroy industry, which in turn could destroy art. That doesn't mean that art is dead, and it never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
Tastes destroy industry, which in turn could destroy art. That doesn't mean that art is dead, and it never will be.

Remember that people's tastes come from what they are offered too, in the 60's people were offered the beatles and The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.

 

In 2008 we are offered My Chemical Romance and 10000 BC.

 

I had never thought about it like Otter said, yet i always found it very strange how in the beggining of Crash, which i loved, appeared "Warner Independent" or some crap like that, it always sounded weird to me, guess i know why now bored.gif !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I think you guys forget that for all the great sh*t that you can look back at, they had just as much crap as well. This notion that a teenager from the 60's had better taste in music is bullsh*t of epic proportions. Remember The Monkees? Or the Dixie Cups? Crap has a way of losing credibility over the years and drifting into obscurity, often leading to the illusion that 'things were better back then'. No, no they definitely were not.

 

As for bad films of the 60s that still made a lot of money, how about Valley Of The Dolls, Cleopatra, or The Bible: In the Beginning, to name a few? Not to mention the beginning of blacksploitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
I think you guys forget that for all the great sh*t that you can look back at, they had just as much crap as well. This notion that a teenager from the 60's had better taste in music is bullsh*t of epic proportions. Remember The Monkees? Or the Dixie Cups? Crap has a way of losing credibility over the years and drifting into obscurity, often leading to the illusion that 'things were better back then'. No, no they definitely were not.

 

 

Alright, the Dixie Cups were bad, but what's wrong with the monkeys? I thought they were pretty good. icon14.gif

 

And, I guess your right, yet my point is that the crap music of today is crapper than the crap music of the 60's. Although they had just as much crap music, there was more good music aswell. And the proportion of good music sales to bad music sales has changed a lot since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trows
there was more good music aswell.

You're just a slave to the music industry of today.

 

If you actually took the time to look, you would find alot of incredible music out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I don't know about that, either. Maybe some research is in order, I guess? tounge.gif The hard part, however, is that the whole argument is entirely subjective. True artists are always under-appreciated in their time. You'll find out who the musical geniuses of today are, ten years from now. Nawmean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
I don't know about that, either. Maybe some research is in order, I guess? tounge.gif The hard part, however, is that the whole argument is entirely subjective. True artists are always under-appreciated in their time. You'll find out who the musical geniuses of today are, ten years from now. Nawmean?

Ah, yes. I see your point. I also now realised that I mucked up my words; I meant that in the 60's, there was a lot more good music in the mainstream than now. I understand that there is still music out there, today, which is still genuinely good. Yet a lot of the mainstream stuff is just, quite frankly, crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge

It's very easy to dislike mainstream art of any kind because there's always the lingering feeling that the amount of money that's been pumped into it has tainted it somehow. There's always the impression that the ability of your average artist in any field to maintain his original principles in inversely proportional to the amount of money he makes from it; in other words a punk band, artist or filmmaker produces somehow more honest and true work when he's not being paid any money, whereas the same band, artist or director is seen to have sold out or lost touch with their roots when someone offers to pay them a lot of money for their art.

 

Examples of this are prevalent in today's world, and it's particularly common in modern rock music. To specify even further, it's usually bands connected with their local punk scene that have accusations of selling out levelled at them, such as Green Day and Blink 182. Personally I don't really like either band, but if someone offers them more cash for doing what they do, why wouldn't they take it? It's not like they have other jobs to pay the rent with.

 

Essentially, I think that it's increasingly difficult to separate art from the industry that profits from it.

Gone are the days when art was art for art's sake; it's difficult to think of an artistic venture with no commercial value attached to it. Moreover, it's increasingly more likely that any such commercial value will have been factored into the production of said venture, thereby rendering it an exercise in pure capitalism, which in today's world will beat aesthetics every time.

 

/rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark-2007

I think industry kills creativity by building up hype and expectations on bands and films. A band can only come up with so many ideas in the deadline set by the industry for the release of their next album, if they can't meet this they'll begin writing filler songs instead of well-thought out ones.

 

The Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Strokes and The Arctic Monkeys have all suffered from producing below par songs on their last albums. All three of them are amongst my favourite bands but creativity runs dry after a while.

 

It's a lot harder to work under a deadline than it is having your own freedom to write music when you feel like it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
It's very easy to dislike mainstream art of any kind because there's always the lingering feeling that the amount of money that's been pumped into it has tainted it somehow. There's always the impression that the ability of your average artist in any field to maintain his original principles in inversely proportional to the amount of money he makes from it; in other words a punk band, artist or filmmaker produces somehow more honest and true work when he's not being paid any money, whereas the same band, artist or director is seen to have sold out or lost touch with their roots when someone offers to pay them a lot of money for their art.

 

Examples of this are prevalent in today's world, and it's particularly common in modern rock music. To specify even further, it's usually bands connected with their local punk scene that have accusations of selling out levelled at them, such as Green Day and Blink 182. Personally I don't really like either band, but if someone offers them more cash for doing what they do, why wouldn't they take it? It's not like they have other jobs to pay the rent with.

 

Essentially, I think that it's increasingly difficult to separate art from the industry that profits from it.

Gone are the days when art was art for art's sake; it's difficult to think of an artistic venture with no commercial value attached to it. Moreover, it's increasingly more likely that any such commercial value will have been factored into the production of said venture, thereby rendering it an exercise in pure capitalism, which in today's world will beat aesthetics every time.

Well said, and well put. I agree with most of that, yet I don't completely understand what you're trying to say when you talk about 'capitalism beating aesthetics all the time'. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge
Well said, and well put. I agree with most of that, yet I don't completely understand what you're trying to say when you talk about 'capitalism beating aesthetics all the time'. confused.gif

I mean that if there's money involved, it often has a detrimental effect on the art being produced. Given the choice between holding out to produce the best work possible, and rushing a product to completion in order to fulfill deadlines and thus satisfy financial constraints, the money will often win out over the art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.

I see what you mean. You're trying to say that the consumer now wants music driven by money, rather than music driven by art. Makes sense, thanks. icon14.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0
Well said, and well put. I agree with most of that, yet I don't completely understand what you're trying to say when you talk about 'capitalism beating aesthetics all the time'.  confused.gif

I mean that if there's money involved, it often has a detrimental effect on the art being produced. Given the choice between holding out to produce the best work possible, and rushing a product to completion in order to fulfill deadlines and thus satisfy financial constraints, the money will often win out over the art.

Sometimes this also happens when a musician wants to make his music "fit" for an audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.