The Godfather - ugh!

meursault

daviesee wrote:

meursault wrote:

Yeah sure, it's all subjective.

But the tricky thing is quality, we all know what quality is but how do you define it? The Godfather has more quality than Spiderman 3 whether you like either one or not.

Credit to Pirzig for an essay on quality.

"Quality" counts for nowt if you switch off through boredom.

I agree with your examples but I get the feeling that others would disagree.

I would be up for that discussion "Why spiderman 3 has more quality than The Godfather".

afx237vi

meursault wrote:

daviesee wrote:

meursault wrote:

Yeah sure, it's all subjective.

But the tricky thing is quality, we all know what quality is but how do you define it? The Godfather has more quality than Spiderman 3 whether you like either one or not.

Credit to Pirzig for an essay on quality.

"Quality" counts for nowt if you switch off through boredom.

I agree with your examples but I get the feeling that others would disagree.

I would be up for that discussion "Why spiderman 3 has more quality than The Godfather".

But why must there even be a comparison to begin with? Quality is a completely meaningless term when it refers to any artform. You wouldn't dismiss a painting by LS Lowry because his stick figures are a bit primitive. The Scream? I can draw a face better than that!

The Godfather and Spiderman 3 are different things. Their creators set out with completely different objectives, making any type of comparison completely pointless.

meursault

But why must there even be a comparison to begin with?

Because some things have more quality than others.

Quality is a completely meaningless term when it refers to any artform

Is it?

So the following art examples have exactly the same quality?












The Godfather and Spiderman 3 are different things. Their creators set out with completely different objectives, making any type of comparison completely pointless.

No two things in the universe is the same, they all have different quality. Objectives and interpretations do not transcend quality. One of those examples has more quality than the other, and we both know which.

afx237vi

meursault wrote:

Is it?

So the following art examples have exactly the same quality?

No, but that is my point. They have completely different qualities, rendering a comparison redundant. I'm sure you could find a graffiti artist or a brutalist architect who could wax lyrical about why their creations have a particular quality, but it's not going to have any relevance to a conversation about Munch.

heavymental

We're off! I do believe Robert Pirsig discussed at length the metaphysics of Quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I actually thought this thread... viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=12940011 might go this way but it never got going. I gave up on the above book because my brain started to fry a little bit!

meursault

afx237vi wrote:

meursault wrote:

Is it?

So the following art examples have exactly the same quality?

No, but that is my point. They have completely different qualities, rendering a comparison redundant. I'm sure you could find a graffiti artist or a brutalist architect who could wax lyrical about why their creations have a particular quality, but it's not going to have any relevance to a conversation about Munch.

We may be talking at cross purposes here. When I use the term quality I mean it as a whole. Somethings worthiness or value, but not necessarily in monetary terms. It appears to be instinctive to 'see' quality in something, yet we can't describe why. Munch has more quality than my doodlings, yet those examples are not technically that distant from each other.

meursault

Heavymental wrote:

We're off! I do believe Robert Pirsig discussed at length the metaphysics of Quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I actually thought this thread... viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=12940011 might go this way but it never got going. I gave up on the above book because my brain started to fry a little bit!

Yes, it can be a heavy read. I have read it at least three times, as I love it so much.

afx237vi

meursault wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

meursault wrote:

Is it?

So the following art examples have exactly the same quality?

No, but that is my point. They have completely different qualities, rendering a comparison redundant. I'm sure you could find a graffiti artist or a brutalist architect who could wax lyrical about why their creations have a particular quality, but it's not going to have any relevance to a conversation about Munch.

We may be talking at cross purposes here. When I use the term quality I mean it as a whole. Somethings worthiness or value, but not necessarily in monetary terms. It appears to be instinctive to 'see' quality in something, yet we can't describe why. Munch has more quality than my doodlings, yet those examples are not technically that distant from each other.

Too deep for me!

heavymental

meursault wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

We're off! I do believe Robert Pirsig discussed at length the metaphysics of Quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I actually thought this thread... viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=12940011 might go this way but it never got going. I gave up on the above book because my brain started to fry a little bit!

Yes, it can be a heavy read. I have read it at least three times, as I love it so much.

One day I'll give it another go when I have some time to get stuck into it.

4kicks

Heavymental wrote:

Yep, bits where not much happens are often the best bits. As we've already mentioned the Deer Hunter, there's a scene where De Niro sits on the edge of a bed and doesn't do much and it's a brilliant piece of acting.
.

Totally,,,Its that part where he puts his hand over his eye after, I think, removing his beret, incredible, Ive always wondered if Cimino told him to do it or if it was just done by De Niro

4kicks

meursault wrote:

Is that by Oscar Niemeyer?

meursault

4kicks wrote:

meursault wrote:

Is that by Oscar Niemeyer?

It's Moises Saman

http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL535GR6

4kicks

sorry, I meant the architect - cast concrete in curves with vegetation all around it was one of his signatures, from the little I know about architecture.

meursault

4kicks wrote:

sorry, I meant the architect - cast concrete in curves with vegetation all around it was one of his signatures, from the little I know about architecture.

Ah, sorry, can't help you there, no nothing about architecture.

meursault

meursault wrote:

meursault wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. There's a book that Joe Public knows of, but I've not met a single person who watched the film and understood it.

I watched the TV series (1979) about two years ago on BBC4, then read the book. I saw the movie last week. I thought the TV series (7 hours) was great, and delivered the twists and turns really well. It had an astonishing cast. Alec Guiness is the best actor at disappearing into a role, it's impossible to see any trace of Obi Wan Kenobi (from the same period) or the colenel from Bridge on the River Kwai in George Smiley. He is the expert at acting while seeming to do nothing (though Patrick Stewart tries to outdo him in his brief cameo). There is a scene at the end of episode one of TTSS where the mild mannered retired spy takes off his glasses and cleans them. When he puts them back on he is clearly no longer retired and ready for the interogation. Superb.

The movie makes a good effort but simply can't compare in the time available. The book is fantastic btw.

Nice one, will have to try and pick up the box set ty.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tinker-Tailor-Soldier-Spy-Complete/dp/B000092WCG/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1379368582&sr=8-4&keywords=tinker+tailor+soldier+spy

£4.75 how can you go wrong?

Watched episode one last night. Brings back a lot of memories, especially the title sequence with Matryoshka dolls. Pure genius, going to really enjoy watching this again.