CompuServe Messages

Ana, PMJI again, and apologies to those who wish to see this thread of discussion end, but one of your statements surprised me into responding. > If you really can call special effects art, ok then. In my opinion, Terminator II effects > can't be called art. They ARE PERFECT, amazing, awesome, i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e, I > agree! Special effects are wonderfull and a needed element in some movies and ads, but > an special effect will not make a movie an art piece > The human talent and work involved in the creation of special effects are awesome, > impressive, and they all are great artist…however, I think that in special effects works > has an inherent cold and technologic part. That happens also with 3d work As person of such deep understanding, appreciation, and education in art, how you can relegate special effects into non-art is beyond my comprehension. You must be keenly aware that being created for functional, practical purposes, does not deny a work it's artistic content or stature. Even further, I would venture you'd agree that most of what the world judges to be art was created practical uses. So what's your beef with special effects? Is it intrinsically less "artistic" or "colder" then buildings created for shelter or worship, furniture created for storage or sitting, oily canvases or stone replicas to let the people know what their kings or gods look like? Maybe art has to be practical and old? Also, there are films which are considered works of art solely on their special effects – "Metropolis" and "Bladerunner". Neither are revered for their story, acting, nor cinema verite. And if they were being made today, I'm sure they'd be crammed with computer generated effects. PS – think about the great artists of the past – how many of them would have dove into computer animation as Bach would have into synthesizers? It's an interesting, and illuminating, thought game.