Can art be judged from a technical viewpoint?

[Dr Jones]

I think you can judge them separately, technical and artistic.

But does technical tell which movies are factually better?

No, not completely, it could be argued that one is more important, and I myself will say technical is, but both are needed.

Really? Technical? Well for me it's Edward Scissorhands over Avatar any day.

First note I'm a movie major, with focus on lighting and effects, technical issues really stick out for me.
Edward Scissorhands was technically well done and Avatar was well done in the effects department but it's writing had little technical skill to it, I consider art to be the idea and anything used to present that idea would be skill.

Touche about that. But i'll take it further. I'd take Eraserhead over Avatar any day. (and Eraserhead is not a very technically good film).

Didn't mean to come off as touche, and I've never seen Eraserhead.

What do you mean "Didn't mean to come off as touche"?

You said "Touche about that" you accused me of being touche and I was saying I didn't mean come off that way, I was more stating that my opinion may differ from most.

Doesen't touche mean "good point"?

 

[Rochnan]

Do you know how many times students ask that question (or rather; accuse you of grading one painting higher than another -theirs, usually- just because you 'like it more')?
There's another good way of judging fairly objectively, and that is by judging it from it's creator's intention. What did the artist try to achieve? And did he or she achieve it?
Artistic choices play a big role here. Bold new choices are rally hard to make. They're why a painter like Picasso is so very highly praised.

But more on topic, look at what some technical aspects of art (paintings, anyway) are:
- choice in and handling of the paint
- the composition, or rather, what is or is not shown
- does it convey what is intended (which doesn't need to be a realistic depiction at all -sometimes that would be a bad decision)
You can probably think of some paintings where this is done better or worse. That would mean they can be graded.

Also keep in mind that putting in hundreds of hours into getting tiny details into the painting is a bit like sitting on the toilet for hundreds of hours trying to make the most perfectly shaped excrement.
Impressive, sure, but there are better things you could do.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Fun fact: Hamlet won Best Picture in 1949 and that movie had an 18 minute single cut in it. and at least 3 other cuts that were longer than 10 minutes. that's the most impressive movie I've ever seen.

That says nothing, did Hamlet win purely because it had longer scenes than the other?

I haven't seen all the 49 nominations but I don't think so.
The acting was stellar,
The scene setting and art direction were beautiful,

Having long cuts didn't automatically push it over the top. I was amazed that the actors have that kind of stamina. Old Boy is another example there's an epic fight scene that's done in one cut.
If you watch movies with at technical eye (Looking passed what you see on screen) you notice that sort of thing.
Long cuts are more of a testament to either the actor's skill or the director's patience.

Like I said movie quality is based on how well elements mesh. I've seen long cuts that didn't add anything to a movie. they're still impressive.

 

[Dr Jones]

Do you know how many times students ask that question (or rather; accuse you of grading one painting higher than another -theirs, usually- just because you 'like it more')?
There's another good way of judging fairly objectively, and that is by judging it from it's creator's intention. What did the artist try to achieve? And did he or she achieve it?
Artistic choices play a big role here. Bold new choices are rally hard to make. They're why a painter like Picasso is so very highly praised.

But more on topic, look at what some technical aspects of art (paintings, anyway) are:
- choice in and handling of the paint
- the composition, or rather, what is or is not shown
- does it convey what is intended (which doesn't need to be a realistic depiction at all -sometimes that would be a bad decision)
You can probably think of some paintings where this is done better or worse. That would mean they can be graded.

Also keep in mind that putting in hundreds of hours into getting tiny details into the painting is a bit like sitting on the toilet for hundreds of hours trying to make the most perfectly shaped excrement.
Impressive, sure, but there are better things you could do.

Except for shitting a good poop doesen't net you fame nor money (unless you start exhibiting it), and is the intent of the artpiece really accounted for in Technicalities? By Technique i'm talking more about the composition (like you said) the meaning is out of the picture (heh, get it?)

 

[Verlander]

It can, but shouldn't be

 

[Smooth Operator]

Everything can be judged from a technical viewpoint, but the data you collect might just be useless garbage.
So the real question is, be there any point to such an undertaking? With art I can't see it

What do you mean by useless garbage?

Data of no value and/or use, you can analyze let's say a painting in all sorts of scientific ways (colors, color transitions, picture accuracy, saturation, complexity, lightness, sections, borders, ratios, ...)
But what will all that data tell you about the painting ... nothing that will come close to the purpose of conveying the artists emotion that's for sure.

But it'll tell you alot about the technicalities of the painting, won't it?

So you will just be doing one sentence questions then...

Alright then let's do an experiment:
- picture A(average color dark red, 1453 sharp lines, 2498 blurred lines, 42 objects, average saturation 154)
- picture B(average color light green, 67 sharp lines, 120 blurred lines, 5 objects, average saturation 207)
- picture B(average color blue, 832 sharp lines, 502 blurred lines, 81 objects, average saturation 98)

Which one is better?

 

[Heart of Darkness]

You misunderstood my examples. The two scenes are the same. But would you prefer one long shot or several cuts from different angles? The angles show more enviroment, but the long shot may make you appreciate the actors more.

You need to be clearer about that up front.

Anyway. Part of me wants to say that "it depends what's going on in the scene," but then I wouldn't be arguing from a technical viewpoint. If dialogue is going on in the scene, then focusing on the actors is the better technique, as only a small part of communication is words and inflection alone; not filming the actor's body language is going to make you lose a lot of the meanings behind the words. If it's shot in one take, though, or if the camera is more or less stationary, it's still bad technique (see the theater comment in my previous post).

But doesen't it make it more impressive? The actors have to do the extra work for that one long scene.

No, it makes it theater. If I wanted to watch a play, I would go watch a play, not watch a film that wants to be a play.

Well my friend, isn't that an opinion of yours? Isn't that why at many points technical merit cannot be judged?

Sorry, no, but you're leading me down this rabbit hole, and I'm not following you to Wonderland. When you're ready to actually debate me instead of presenting me with false dichotomies and forcing me to pick, let me know.

 

[Dr Jones]

Fun fact: Hamlet won Best Picture in 1949 and that movie had an 18 minute single cut in it. and at least 3 other cuts that were longer than 10 minutes. that's the most impressive movie I've ever seen.

That says nothing, did Hamlet win purely because it had longer scenes than the other?

I haven't seen all the 49 nominations but I don't think so.
The acting was stellar,
The scene setting and art direction were beautiful,

Having long cuts didn't automatically push it over the top. I was amazed that the actors have that kind of stamina. Old Boy is another example there's an epic fight scene that's done in one cut.
If you watch movies with at technical eye (Looking passed what you see on screen) you notice that sort of thing.
Long cuts are more of a testament to either the actor's skill or the director's patience.

Like I said movie quality is based on how well elements mesh. I've seen long cuts that didn't add anything to a movie. they're still impressive.

I agree somewhat, not always are long cuts good, especially in one long static shot. But for example whenever Tarantino does a long cut it's awesome. Like in Kill Bill 1 where she enters the dressing room, does something (cant remember) leaves and proceedes. Doesen't sound thrilling but when you noticed that it was one shot, it's kinda cool.

 

[mikev7.0]

In my opinion no. Art is not objective. Unless you consider Mathematics an art as well as a Science but in my opinion that degrades it. I guess the closest other thing that we have to objective art would be Architechture but even that can be gold in the eyes of one beholder and a bit krap in the eyes of another. (See: The Fountainhead.)

 

[Dr Jones]

You misunderstood my examples. The two scenes are the same. But would you prefer one long shot or several cuts from different angles? The angles show more enviroment, but the long shot may make you appreciate the actors more.

You need to be clearer about that up front.

Anyway. Part of me wants to say that "it depends what's going on in the scene," but then I wouldn't be arguing from a technical viewpoint. If dialogue is going on in the scene, then focusing on the actors is the better technique, as only a small part of communication is words and inflection alone; not filming the actor's body language is going to make you lose a lot of the meanings behind the words. If it's shot in one take, though, or if the camera is more or less stationary, it's still bad technique (see the theater comment in my previous post).

But doesen't it make it more impressive? The actors have to do the extra work for that one long scene.

No, it makes it theater. If I wanted to watch a play, I would go watch a play, not watch a film that wants to be a play.

Well my friend, isn't that an opinion of yours? Isn't that why at many points technical merit cannot be judged?

Sorry, no, but you're leading me down this rabbit hole, and I'm not following you to Wonderland. When you're ready to actually debate me instead of presenting me with false dichotomies and forcing me to pick, let me know.

Well i think you should jump down the rabbit hole, and listen to my point. By "Technically" i mean that one is clearly superior than the other, opinion is out of the picture, and one is better than the other, no matter how you look at it.

So your opinion on long shots can get the hell outta here, and tell me, what purely factual is better technically? If all art can be judged that way.

 

[Dr Jones]

Everything can be judged from a technical viewpoint, but the data you collect might just be useless garbage.
So the real question is, be there any point to such an undertaking? With art I can't see it

What do you mean by useless garbage?

Data of no value and/or use, you can analyze let's say a painting in all sorts of scientific ways (colors, color transitions, picture accuracy, saturation, complexity, lightness, sections, borders, ratios, ...)
But what will all that data tell you about the painting ... nothing that will come close to the purpose of conveying the artists emotion that's for sure.

But it'll tell you alot about the technicalities of the painting, won't it?

So you will just be doing one sentence questions then...

Alright then let's do an experiment:
- picture A(average color dark red, 1453 sharp lines, 2498 blurred lines, 42 objects, average saturation 154)
- picture B(average color light green, 67 sharp lines, 120 blurred lines, 5 objects, average saturation 207)
- picture B(average color blue, 832 sharp lines, 502 blurred lines, 81 objects, average saturation 98)

Which one is better?

I'm arguing against the technicality here, i agree with you, none of them are better than the other purely factually, it's based on what the individual think of the picture.

 

[lord.jeff]

I think you can judge them separately, technical and artistic.

But does technical tell which movies are factually better?

No, not completely, it could be argued that one is more important, and I myself will say technical is, but both are needed.

Really? Technical? Well for me it's Edward Scissorhands over Avatar any day.

First note I'm a movie major, with focus on lighting and effects, technical issues really stick out for me.
Edward Scissorhands was technically well done and Avatar was well done in the effects department but it's writing had little technical skill to it, I consider art to be the idea and anything used to present that idea would be skill.

Touche about that. But i'll take it further. I'd take Eraserhead over Avatar any day. (and Eraserhead is not a very technically good film).

Didn't mean to come off as touche, and I've never seen Eraserhead.

What do you mean "Didn't mean to come off as touche"?

You said "Touche about that" you accused me of being touche and I was saying I didn't mean come off that way, I was more stating that my opinion may differ from most.

Doesen't touche mean "good point"?

Sorry it does, I'm more familiar with it being used as a term for being overly defensive.

 

[Dr Jones]

I'd say yes and no. Technically you can say which paintings are better, however you can't gauge the emotional impact a drawing could have on a person.

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wz2bAByWyI

Well then it'd just be a yes. I only asked for the technicality thing.
(although i do agree with the no)

 

[Dr Jones]

I think you can judge them separately, technical and artistic.

But does technical tell which movies are factually better?

No, not completely, it could be argued that one is more important, and I myself will say technical is, but both are needed.

Really? Technical? Well for me it's Edward Scissorhands over Avatar any day.

First note I'm a movie major, with focus on lighting and effects, technical issues really stick out for me.
Edward Scissorhands was technically well done and Avatar was well done in the effects department but it's writing had little technical skill to it, I consider art to be the idea and anything used to present that idea would be skill.

Touche about that. But i'll take it further. I'd take Eraserhead over Avatar any day. (and Eraserhead is not a very technically good film).

Didn't mean to come off as touche, and I've never seen Eraserhead.

What do you mean "Didn't mean to come off as touche"?

You said "Touche about that" you accused me of being touche and I was saying I didn't mean come off that way, I was more stating that my opinion may differ from most.

Doesen't touche mean "good point"?

Sorry it does, I'm more familiar with it being used as a term for being overly defensive.

When has it ever been that?

 

[Rochnan]

Except for shitting a good poop doesen't net you fame nor money (unless you start exhibiting it), and is the intent of the artpiece really accounted for in Technicalities? By Technique i'm talking more about the composition (like you said) the meaning is out of the picture (heh, get it?)

Haha, yes, if only good poop would make you money... but you get the point do you? Spending more time on something does not mean you have more technical ability.
The intent itself is not a technical thing, it's an artistic thing. But being able to convey it is. A very simple example: you want to draw an apple. It ends up looking like a pear. That's not good, and somewhere your technical abilities have failed you.

 

[Dr Jones]

Except for shitting a good poop doesen't net you fame nor money (unless you start exhibiting it), and is the intent of the artpiece really accounted for in Technicalities? By Technique i'm talking more about the composition (like you said) the meaning is out of the picture (heh, get it?)

Haha, yes, if only good poop would make you money... but you get the point do you? Spending more time on something does not mean you have more technical ability.
The intent itself is not a technical thing, it's an artistic thing. But being able to convey it is. A very simple example: you want to draw an apple. It ends up looking like a pear. That's not good, and somewhere your technical abilities have failed you.

That depends on your definition of apple, and can a pear really be judged on a technical level? Or even on a subjective level? Is a pear actually an apple? Or is an apple a pear?

All this on tonight's episode of Cops.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

You misunderstood my examples. The two scenes are the same. But would you prefer one long shot or several cuts from different angles? The angles show more enviroment, but the long shot may make you appreciate the actors more.

You need to be clearer about that up front.

Anyway. Part of me wants to say that "it depends what's going on in the scene," but then I wouldn't be arguing from a technical viewpoint. If dialogue is going on in the scene, then focusing on the actors is the better technique, as only a small part of communication is words and inflection alone; not filming the actor's body language is going to make you lose a lot of the meanings behind the words. If it's shot in one take, though, or if the camera is more or less stationary, it's still bad technique (see the theater comment in my previous post).

But doesen't it make it more impressive? The actors have to do the extra work for that one long scene.

No, it makes it theater. If I wanted to watch a play, I would go watch a play, not watch a film that wants to be a play.

Well my friend, isn't that an opinion of yours? Isn't that why at many points technical merit cannot be judged?

Sorry, no, but you're leading me down this rabbit hole, and I'm not following you to Wonderland. When you're ready to actually debate me instead of presenting me with false dichotomies and forcing me to pick, let me know.

Well i think you should jump down the rabbit hole, and listen to my point. By "Technically" i mean that one is clearly superior than the other, opinion is out of the picture, and one is better than the other, no matter how you look at it.

So your opinion on long shots can get the hell outta here, and tell me, what purely factual is better technically? If all art can be judged that way.

Technique can't say if one piece of art is better than another piece of art. An artistic piece with better technique only has better technique, and technique between artists can be compared. Technique has nothing to do with which piece is "objectively better." Go back to my example where I actually compared to pieces of art together. I gave my reasons as to why one had better technique than the other, but I didn't use that measurement to say which was the objectively better piece of art. For all I know, someone might be holding that MS Paint sketch up and proclaiming it to be the pinnacle of 21st century art, but it doesn't change the fact that it has a worse technique than the dragon sketch.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Fun fact: Hamlet won Best Picture in 1949 and that movie had an 18 minute single cut in it. and at least 3 other cuts that were longer than 10 minutes. that's the most impressive movie I've ever seen.

That says nothing, did Hamlet win purely because it had longer scenes than the other?

I haven't seen all the 49 nominations but I don't think so.
The acting was stellar,
The scene setting and art direction were beautiful,

Having long cuts didn't automatically push it over the top. I was amazed that the actors have that kind of stamina. Old Boy is another example there's an epic fight scene that's done in one cut.
If you watch movies with at technical eye (Looking passed what you see on screen) you notice that sort of thing.
Long cuts are more of a testament to either the actor's skill or the director's patience.

Like I said movie quality is based on how well elements mesh. I've seen long cuts that didn't add anything to a movie. they're still impressive.

I agree somewhat, not always are long cuts good, especially in one long static shot. But for example whenever Tarantino does a long cut it's awesome. Like in Kill Bill 1 where she enters the dressing room, does something (cant remember) leaves and proceedes. Doesen't sound thrilling but when you noticed that it was one shot, it's kinda cool.

Sort of like the scene from The West Wing where they're walking down the hallway and talking.
It wouldn't have the same effect if it was multiple cuts.

So cuts are just an artistic choice like music or lighting they can be one well or poorly.

 

[Rochnan]

Except for shitting a good poop doesen't net you fame nor money (unless you start exhibiting it), and is the intent of the artpiece really accounted for in Technicalities? By Technique i'm talking more about the composition (like you said) the meaning is out of the picture (heh, get it?)

Haha, yes, if only good poop would make you money... but you get the point do you? Spending more time on something does not mean you have more technical ability.
The intent itself is not a technical thing, it's an artistic thing. But being able to convey it is. A very simple example: you want to draw an apple. It ends up looking like a pear. That's not good, and somewhere your technical abilities have failed you.

That depends on your definition of apple, and can a pear really be judged on a technical level? Or even on a subjective level? Is a pear actually an apple? Or is an apple a pear?

All this on tonight's episode of Cops.

As we talk, the pear is judging us in silence...

Are you finding some answers and arguments you like in this thread?