| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| realmeanmotorscutor |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 14:40:22
Who has seen it and what do you think of it? Personally, I don't go in for nonsense art. Make whatever case you want that the film makes sense, but I'm willing to accept what Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali said about rejecting anything that makes rational sense and I think it's b/s.
I found this quoted on IMDB:
"I wish Bunuel was still alive. He made this film about nothing in particular. The title itself is a nonsense. With my stupid, pseudo- scholar, naive, enthusiast, avant-garde-ish, amateurish way to watch 'Un Chien Andalou' (twice), I thought: 'Yeah, I will make a song about it,' he sings: "un chien andalou"...It sounds too French, so I will sing "un chien andalusia", it sounds good, no?" (Black Francis, translated from a Spanish interview)
 |
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Adnan_le_Terrible |
Posted - 05/23/2004 : 16:12:05
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" can also be a pun, actually (though I doubt it was Magritte's intention, it's not his style). "Pipe" also means "blowjob" in French.
Magritte is my favorite painter. Seeing a couple of his paintings at the Guggenheim of Venice with some friends, when I was 18, really changed my perception of world.
I keep feeling like people are just looking at screens and web sites all the time, but do they ever do anything? Or go out and say anything to anyone? I'm not so sure anymore. |
| ivandivel |
Posted - 05/23/2004 : 15:15:59
"never trust the author" - we were told a long time regarding interpretation of art (litterature, it applies to everything).
Who said the movie was without meaning? Dali certainly invested a lot of meaning in it, though heavily inspired by his thoughts about his own unconcsiousness. |
| realmeanmotorscutor |
Posted - 05/23/2004 : 12:00:17
interesting points apl. I do tend to believe frank is bsing when he says his songs have no meaning but even if he isn't, the music has some meaning and feeling. anyway, point taken . . . but I still think it's crap ;)
|
| apl4eris |
Posted - 05/23/2004 : 11:48:20
Frank Black has told people that songs of his are meaningless. Does that make you ignore them or consider them worthless? I still find meaning in them, whether he is serious or not -the point is that the menaing of anything is never the same for anyone. If an artist musician whatever has expectations of their audience seeing only what they see, it will lead to dissapointment and is pretty much contradictory to what they are doing. It's an open-ended conversation, the audience brings the meaning, or doesn't. Bunel was making that point - if he says there is meaning in what he did, it's screwing up the whole point. Him saying that he wished he had destroyed it is the same argument that Duchamp made with his signed urinal or drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa and putting "L. H. O. O. Q." at the bottom. In French, it is a pun, the letters phonetically say "She has a hot ass".
If the only tool you have is an elbow macaroni,
all your problems look like Schroedinger's cat. |
| realmeanmotorscutor |
Posted - 05/23/2004 : 11:24:08
Thanks for the comments apl. I hate to keep coming back with the same arguments but I guess Bunuel laughed at everyone who gave this film any thought at all; that's pretty shitty. Maybe he just wanted to see if he could make something without meaning for fun, but in that case he shouldn't have exposed it to the public.
Apparently he also wished he could have destroyed the film by the end of his life. Perhaps he realized how shmucky it was to create something like Un Chien. Who knows really, but if an artist tells me it's futile to give his work any thought . . well, I'm willing to accept that and forget him.
|
| Jason |
Posted - 05/22/2004 : 16:38:54
quote:
Originally posted by Skatealex1
Anyone how to get this movie?
The Truth Is Out There
Take a college film history/world cinema course. It's a common film that comes up there. That's probably where most people see it for the first time.
Adding to the discussion on the movie, you're not gonna pop some corn and settle in for a fun viewing of Un Chien Andalou. I think it was made for you to look at with kind of an "art student" eye. I like the movie I s'pose, but I don't have anything more in-depth to say about it then that (I'm not an art student). |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 05/22/2004 : 16:35:38
Next time, apologise in advance more. 
 "Everywhere I go I want to travel by X-Wing" |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 05/22/2004 : 16:00:20
Interesting topic! Sorry in advance for the long-winded reply, but I love this stuff. 
I quite like it (the film). But then, I like things that some like to categorize as "outside" the realm of "conventional". I enjoy both categories. There are worthwhile (or noteworthy ;)) and not-so worthwhile elements wherever you look. Why should something that doesn't speak to you as worthwhile at the outset be met with irritation or bitterness? That film and the "movement" it came out of, is about a lot of things, and then again, maybe nothing, which might be the artist's point - there could be many levels of intended dialogue. Depending on your initial perspective, it can be very enjoyable and informative, or inspire aggravation or resentment, or no response at all, or anything in between. The song "Debaser" seems to talk about this. Is it just a movie about slicing eyeballs and debasing the art and the viewer? Is it only nonsense and random images? Can humans truly be random? Is it just a cigar? Do our dreams mean anything, to us or to anyone else? Does the painting of a pipe represent a pipe? Art can be an invitation to a game, as equals, to try to examine the strange logic loops we create.
Duchamp was one of the more accessible dadaist artists, and he still managed to inspire outright animosity in many of the "accepted" art elite -the people that wanted art to be a commodity, delineated by standards of recognizeable desired attributes, had a shit-fit. Who wanted to buy a men's urinal with an artist's signature on it? Art is not only about beauty or monetary worth - it's an attempt to create a public dialogue about the way we see our world and relate to each other. How do we create our realities? Plenty of people jump in and make shit that apes appearances where others were once being sincere (if only sincerely playful), but that shouldn't take away from things that have worth. Some artists are not so much concerned with eliciting an immediate connection - there is an argument in good art -some make it easily with beauty, some have more difficult points to illustrate. Some of the intended dialogues are based on principles of Zen (i.e., blank canvases, Mark Rothko, Duchamp's playfulness, things that initially make you angry because they create confusion). Something in the art or the artist's body of work will contain clues that are recognizeable -something that speaks to your sensibilities, and there is an "ah so!" moment. Like Frank Black's music. How does he make cliches seem worthwhile? Maybe there is an assumption that an artist's responsibility is to create works of accepted beauty, and anything ouitside that is an affront -an insult to the viewer? Why should this be the only relationship available to us (as artist/philosopher and audience/philosopher)? It seems a cop-out response, maybe, but worth is where you find it.
If the only tool you have is an elbow macaroni,
all your problems look like Schroedinger's cat. |
| TarTar |
Posted - 05/22/2004 : 15:05:40
Eh, if I like it, I like it. If I don't like it, I don't like it, but let those who do like it enjoy their liking of it. Whatever, ya know?
"You gotta watch the mota, Thurston. Yr fuckin memory just goes out the window." |
| realmeanmotorscutor |
Posted - 05/22/2004 : 09:03:55
That does seem to be true VoVat but it seems that so many people are doing the same "nothing." Nothing is nothing no matter how varied the splashes of nothing are. I also hate the theory that "something is art if it elicits a response, even if that response is 'that's not art.'" What a crock.
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 05/22/2004 : 08:51:30
The general rule seems to be that something is only creative and/or interesting the FIRST time it's done. So one guy can hang a blank canvas in a museum and call it art, but the second guy who tries it isn't going to be very popular.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| realmeanmotorscutor |
Posted - 05/22/2004 : 06:39:38
Oh, I don't really know who exactly; I don't bother to learn their names. But there's an abundance of strange art out there. There's this contemporary art museum right down the street from my college in the Berkshires called Mass MoCA and it's packed with junk. I can sometimes accept that I don't understand a work but when the artist comes right out and says that the purpose of his or her artwork was to have no meaning, well . . . I just can't accept that. Anyone can make NO meaning. "No intent, no form, no meaning" was along the lines of what one guy said about a splashy painting.
|
| ObfuscateByWill |
Posted - 05/22/2004 : 02:17:44
quote:
Originally posted by realmeanmotorscutor
yeah, my copy had that but I didn't watch it. How can you all be so impressed with random images? Sure, weirdness is sometimes cool but what about artists nowadays who are weird for the sake of beinf weird and make a living off of it? Creativity is dying, yet everyone thinks it is blossoming with this avant garde crap.
I'm out of the loop. (Can't really remember watching anything since LOTR III)
Who is being weird for the sake of being weird?
*Shka-pow! |
| ObfuscateByWill |
Posted - 05/22/2004 : 02:15:34
quote:
Originally posted by broken part
I want imagery and nothing more.
Turn on the Visualizations in your Media Player.
*Shka-pow! |
| realmeanmotorscutor |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 19:58:48
yeah, my copy had that but I didn't watch it. How can you all be so impressed with random images? Sure, weirdness is sometimes cool but what about artists nowadays who are weird for the sake of beinf weird and make a living off of it? Creativity is dying, yet everyone thinks it is blossoming with this avant garde crap.
|
| TarTar |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 19:25:07
I mean, shit, they even got a shot from where the goat had fallen, looking down on it falling, and there clearly wasn't anyone standing near the goat when it fell.
"You gotta watch the mota, Thurston. Yr fuckin memory just goes out the window." |
| TarTar |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 19:24:04
Oh, and I want to point out that I am convinced that after the crew who worked on that documentary got the first shot of the goat falling, they picked up it's corpse, brought it to the top of the cliff, and dropped it again. How else did they get so many different angles?
"You gotta watch the mota, Thurston. Yr fuckin memory just goes out the window." |
| TarTar |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 19:22:48
There was a time when I wasn't too keen on intentional weirdness, but nowadays I can appreciate it, as long as it's fresh in some way. Un Chien Andalou is enjoyable. I don't even try to make sense of works like that, or get anything from them. The most entertaining thing for me is to watch it and then get online and read others interpretations of it, ya know, see the film through people who have hope in abstractions.
Did your copy of Un Chien have the documentary afterwards, ya know, the one where the goat falls off the cliff. I liked that more than Un Chien. I think it was a Bunuel directed documentary.
"You gotta watch the mota, Thurston. Yr fuckin memory just goes out the window." |
| mun chien andalusia |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 18:56:25
Try smoking something other than tobacco while watching it. Or drink a couple or more beers(depends on your alcohol resistance). It worked for me. Made me laugh. I must add that i hate the so called cinema geniouses. Most "milestone" films are crap. This is a nice little psychedelic\abstract\nonsense film. That's all. Take it as it is.
 join the cult of errol\and you can have a beer\without having to quit smoking
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 16:31:58
Try going on Kazaa Alex, thats how I got a hold of it.
I quite liked it actually, I think its good fun. It means completely nothing, which actually makes a nice change from the highbrow conceptual art which dominates now.
(c)Brian Sewell
"Everywhere I go I want to travel by X-Wing" |
| Skatealex1 |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 15:58:21
Anyone how to get this movie?
The Truth Is Out There |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 15:56:28
quite cool. not something i'd bother watching again. |
| broken part |
Posted - 05/21/2004 : 15:53:04
I wish there would be some more filmmakers like Bunuel. I am completely sick and tired of films with plots. Fuck conventionalism. I want a movie about absolutely nothing. All these wannabes thinkin "I'm gonna make this movie with a plot is soooo clever is gonna impress everyone". No one wants to challange that, everyone wants to fit in the mould. For me even Lynch is too conventional, he should throw away any threads of rationality and go deep down into surrealism. He's good enough to do that. If I want to think I read a book. Compared to books films have bullshit power to develop a story. When I see a film I want imagery and nothing more. |
|
|
