Jean Renoir predicted the decline of modern movies (and art in general)

Jean Renoir predicted the decline of modern movies (and art in general)

Attached: 1583678868450.jpg (936x1436, 331K)

How are horrible, ugly CGI blobs imitating nature?

I’m sorry kiddo did you think this thread was about your children’s comic book flicks?

Modern cinema's biggest blight is exactly that, condescending one.

with jews around, everything will always inevitably be on the decline

Um sweetheart this thread isn’t about your little dress up doll flicks okay?

>talking about the decline of modern movies
>the reason modern movies are shit is because they're full of CGI and try to get on by with spectacle instead of good writing
You'll never fix what's wrong with movies if you don't accept the problems they have.

I don't think he's quite correct. I think films (and possibly narrative fiction in all forms) are going the way of paintings. Prior to the advent of photography, paintings were a combination of aesthetic beauty and skill, but also documentation. A skilled artist captured or represented real-life images and applied expressiveness to it via his own personal visual style to it, the painting had two forms of value. Photography negated the need for a skilled artist to capture real-life images, it put the ability to capture "the real thing" in the hands of the average person. All that was left for the artist was aesthetic beauty, expressiveness and technique for their own sake, and its cultural relevance shrank to a considerably smaller niche.

I think the Internet is to fiction as photography was to painting. Fiction used to provide a window into another person's life and mind, a vehicle to understand and empathize with persons on a very different walk of life from the audience. Writers were praised and valued for skillfully creating fictional characters that accurately, believably approximated real people. Actors were praised for accurately mimicking real human emotion and behavior. This is no longer necessary. We all have a window into other peoples' thoughts and lives at all times. If you want to know what life is like for a different place or a different class, if you want to know how they feel or what they think, you can find their lives and thoughts and feelings documented online. All that is left for writers and filmmakers is the pleasure of the craft for its own sake, and the continuuation of the industry as a money-making venture for its own sake, and its relevance will shrink over time

Ok sweetie *giggle* run along now, Bobby from down the street wants to play superheroes with you

I don't quite understand your motives here.

you have this radical technology that can produce cinema that was unthinkable decades ago and instead of exploring its capabilities and allow it to develop a unique vision it's used for glorified matte painting

isn't that exactly what he's saying?

He's saying an art-form dies when it attempts to imitate reality. I'm saying it thrives when there's an actual need for the art form to imitate reality, and its relevance diminishes when that need is replaced by a more accurate and accessible means of documenting reality

While the art form is thriving there's room for all forms of creative expression that don't necessarily mimic reality, but there's a large public audience for that medium because it serves a practical purpose as well as aesthetic

The only motive was to make you SEETHE you are objectively correct in your prior statement

Plato said something along those lines long before this, basically saying art is an imitation for life, so why settle for an imitation.

Wait I thought Yas Forums was screaming about art not being photorealistic nature photos anymore?

how is an A minor chord on a piano an imitiation of life

SHUT UP SHUT UP I AM A PHILOSOPHER ONLY MY IDLE PURSUITS ARE WORTHY EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD HAVE A REAL JOB SO I DON'T HAVE TO

Music is a pretty unique medium, it'll change but I doubt it'll ever die or become irrelevant

what does that have to do with anything

Renoir specifically rejects the idea that movies should be simulations. Realism in painting died precisely because it was functionally a precursor to photography. Movies as simulations are facing extinction today for the same reason. What you're missing is that media like painting and film are more than what your limited view allows you to see, and that's because in both media a flawed approach became mainstream and defined how we think of them and their potential. You have to learn to value film and develop literacy.

/tvpol/ constantly screams about "hehe le modern art is shit because its le toilet" and not some photorealistic romantic era nature painting.

Plato's take was proven as flawed as soon as life began imitating art.

This is why porn can't be real sex.

And they are right to do so.

The truth is art dies when it gets everpresent, more accessible, and then replaced.
>Photography killed painting
>Film killed photography and ballet
>Audio recording killed classical music
>Sound film killed operas/musicals/theatre
>Cassettes and CDs killed music
>TV and video killed film
>Internet killed Tv and video and CDs
>Everything above is now accessible but dead
In 30 years I won't be surprised if the concept of art is something alien to humanity

>In 30 years I won't be surprised if the concept of art is something alien to humanity
Thank you, capitalism.

They're really not. If conservatives ruled the artworld, all you would have are boring as shit nature paintings. Right wing people are anti-art in general.

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not rejecting the value of non-representative art at all, I'm just saying its audience is a considerably smaller niche. When an artistic medium serves a dual purpose of both representation and aesthetic expression/innovation, the demand for it is high, which pumps lifeblood into the medium and encourages all forms of innovation and expression alongside the "simulation" aspect. When the need for representation is gone, over time it will just become a much smaller field with a smaller audience

I don't really consider this a bad thing from a creative aspect, but I think it's the reason movies feel less "important" on a broad cultural scale than they did up through the 90s/early 00s. And it will result in decreased funding, which is worth noting since cinema is such an expensive medium

>Cassettes and CDs killed music
Music is still around though?

But really think about it. What do zoomers consider art? Basically "something that mimics a trend". They were raised on music that consists of just 4 repeating chords and mumbling. They were raised on the monthly Disney movie and the daily gaming stream and YouTube drama. To them, art won't be about human expression or vision of superceding glory, it will be about wafting through history's backlog to fill a dopamine response

are you retarded?

Only a very small, highly talented group ever produced his quality works like the luminists and the Hudson school did.

>Music is still around
No it isn't.

It is, just not on the radio.

The internet has simply made us all sit around a cyber campfire and talk like we once did in the cave.

back to pol, idiot

Yeah, they say the same thing about painting

This, honestly. Our shitposts are the stories we share on the campfire. We dream the same dreams of getting pussy and make crude or occasionally good cave paintings on our electronic cave walls.

are the black an white screenshots supposed to make it into a good point?

pixar.jpg

All hes doing is offering a bland, basic critique of Bazin's concept of total cinema. OP completely missed the point by suggesting it's an accurate description of today's movies, because the last thing you could say about today's movies is that they're attempting to recreate reality with technical perfection.

I don't know how anyone can write this post when literally every single one of these things is literally, demonstrably false

no, the good point is supposed to make it a good point

The only flaw being that we aren't satisfying the verbal and visual components of seeing other people so we're basically just communicating with a blank screen like some kind of insane person.

why would anyone watch a michael bay move or a drama movie when they can have the real thing?

The veil anonymity makes our discussions free of the social stigma that would otherwise censor the fireside discussions. Thus our experience is more genuine.

It will only become more immersive, more interactive. Some form of "The Matrix" will be a reality within our lifetime, we're all spending large chunks of our waking hours in the low-resolution version already

I don't have access to transforming robots myself.

would be true if the powers that be didn't work overtime on censoring the net after they lost in 2016

In a proper tribal situation with people who think like you aren't required to be anonymous.

How can I eat my tendies and be in VR at the same time?

not really

You will "eat" virtual tendies, the taste-receptors in your brain will be electroshocked with simulated tendie-flavor, while the tube down your throat feeds you a steady drip of onions, bug-protein and multivitamin

>A discussion about film criticism? Let's find a way to make it about Trump.
And you fags like literal robots say "rent free" whenever someone mentions his name in an actual political discussion lmao. Truly a deranged cult.

Why are movies so fucking long nowadays, went back to my backlog of 2019 movies and almost all of them are over 2 hours

>onions
Fuck I always forget, I'm not on Yas Forums much these days

he said it was a third remove from reality.

>...We have seen three sorts of bed. The first exists in nature, and we would say, I suppose, that it was made by god. No one else could have made it, could they?

>I think not.

>The second is made by a carpenter

>Yes.

>And the third by a painter?

>Granted.

[...]

>God then, created only one real bed-in-itself in nature, either because he wanted to or because some necessity prevented him from making more than one; at any rate he didn't produce more than one, and more than one could not possibly be produced.

>Why?

>Because, suppose he created two only, another would emerge whose form the other two shared, and it, not the other two, would be the real bed-in-itself.

>That's true.

>And suppose that god knew it, and as he wanted to be a real creator of a bed, and not just a carpenter making a particular bed, produced in nature a single bed-in-itself.

>I suppose so.

>Then do you think we might call him author of its nature or some such name?

>We could do so with justice; for it and all other things in nature are creation.


>And what about the carpenter? Doesn't he manufacture a bed?

>Yes

>And what about the painter? Does he make or manufacture?

>No.

>Then what does he do?

>I think that we may fairly claim that he represents what the other two make.

>Good [...] Then you say that the artist's representation, is by nature at third remove from reality?

>I do.

In a proper tribal situation you act, think and say what is socially acceptable or you are ostracized and driven out.

Videogames are the greatest artform on the planet, the fact that they make boomers seethe and rage is because they don't want to have to admit they're too stupid to understand it.

But Bazin agrees with him in principle, no? Bazin's whole conceit was that realism was a shackle dragging down visual art, and the invention of photography/film finally freed painting from this shackle.

Because the main lifespan of a film now is in home-viewing rather than theaters, it's not all that necessary to design a film to be watched all in one sitting

>non-representative art
It's not a binary choice between simulation and total abstraction.You even get it right in the next sentence
>an artistic medium serves a dual purpose of both representation and aesthetic expression/innovation
Film still provides this in a manner that other media cannot fully replicate without actually becoming film. Anyway, you write:
>movies feel less "important" on a broad cultural scale
So what? There are more painters today than there were in the 16th century, yet you argue that painting is "dead". You have a strange way of measuring the vitality of an artform. There's also more money in the global economy today than in the 1990s, yet film faces budget cuts? Hell, just in the US market film revenue today is double that of the 1990s. Everything you write is nonsense! The problems cannot be what you state them to be, because none of it matches what's actually happening. What is really happening?

Why are old directors a bunch of immensely soft fat men with pursed lips and bald heads

Bazin believed that the utmost virtue of filmmaking was the attempt to best recreate reality faithfully, didnt he? He despised montage, for instance, because it was too radical a break from our visual and auditory reality. Renoir on the other hand is suggesting that the robotic imitation of reality through art is boring.

Jesus. I never used the word "dead," unless you're confusing someone else's posts with mine. I said the audience shrank. I think the source of the misunderstanding here is that you're speaking in terms of what should be, I'm speaking in terms of what is.

No, they just couldn't afford color film when this conversation was recorded.