[Yifnvmzp]

Which artists did you have to pleasure of working alongside? Do tell.

I was sketched by Lucian Freud during the course of an entire afternoon.

TBH, I really dont remember. This was back in the mid-nineties. Im sure most of them were "small-time," artists struggling etc. Hence why I said most would never even see it. Allot of this art was probably shown in the local galleries in or around Dallas/Austin Tx and was either bought or taken home to artists homes. I was about 10 years old the first time I remember going to a gallery showing, I remember the art, but not the faces of those that I met. Im sure If I asked my mom about those days she could tell me about the people behind the memories.

Just as I thought. You really have no idea what art is, fundamentally.

You should read a book, or twenty.

If you want to be a semantical prick, then yes- Art is the universe, Art is everything, Art could be anything imagined or not imagined. So yes, a stupid mindless American Pie movie is, technically, Art. But most intelligent people dont look at it as such, its just a form of non-invested entertainment and wouldnt be judged against other, more invested peices of art such as a Sculpture, Painting etc. However, there are movies which I would judge as such.

Not sure what the book comment was for? Seemed like an immature/adolescent outlash. One day you will form different ways of commnication with other people, its all part of the growing process. Another sign of adolescence is the Absolutist attitude, the attitude that things MUST be a certain way. Its just a way for a young mind to make sense of the universe, but as you get older you will see that things are many different things to many different people with many different thoughts and opinions.

[Azzi_Kahlila]

If you want to be a semantical prick, then yes- Art is the universe, Art is everything, Art could be anything imagined or not imagined. So yes, a stupid mindless American Pie movie is, technically, Art. But most intelligent people dont look at it as such, its just a form of non-invested entertainment and wouldnt be judged against other, more invested peices of art such as a Sculpture, Painting etc. However, there are movies which I would judge as such.

Not sure what the book comment was for? Seemed like an immature/adolescent outlash. One day you will form different ways of commnication with other people, its all part of the growing process. Another sign of adolescence is the Absolutist attitude, the attitude that things MUST be a certain way. Its just a way for a young mind to make sense of the universe, but as you get older you will see that things are many different things to many different people with many different thoughts and opinions.

I'll answer you properly later for both posts.

Didn't have time for a proper answer before, my apologies.

[betraaaus]

Weta digital http://www.wetafx.co.nz/ Probably the worlds leading VFX studio (with ILM) are based in NZ and constantly pour out outstanding vfx for films.....

So that was a silly comment wasn't it.

No, he is still right. CG has been the bane of movies lately.

[chuviskkk]

Every single film has CG.... so your saying every film is crap?

Edit: Actually the more i think about it the more your wrong... its not the CG that is making films bad its the plot / actors / directing.... transformers 3 is a clear example of this. The CG was stunning... the film was god damn awful. If CG is used to enhance a film and not make the film then your on for a winner most of the time. Which is why the Avengers will appeal to some and not all.

As i said in a previous post... you probably couldnt point out to me in HUGO what was CG and what wasn't...which means the job was done properly. Enhancing the great directing from scorsese.

[Barbshowers]

Every single film has CG.... so your saying every film is crap?

Edit: Actually the more i think about it the more your wrong... its not the CG that is making films bad its the plot / actors / directing.... transformers 3 is a clear example of this. The CG was stunning... the film was god damn awful. If CG is used to enhance a film and not make the film then your on for a winner most of the time. Which is why the Avengers will appeal to some and not all.

As i said in a previous post... you probably couldnt point out to me in HUGO what was CG and what wasn't...which means the job was done properly. Enhancing the great directing from scorsese.

What he means is not that CG is bad but that this throwing CG at everything is though.

[asypecresty]

No, he is still right. CG has been the bane of movies lately.

I'd say bad CG is the bane of movies. If it's done correctly you'll never know it's there. I doubt there are more than a handful of films made that don't have some CG elements in.

[Cajlwdvx]

I'd say bad CG is the bane of movies. If it's done correctly you'll never know it's there. I doubt there are more than a handful of films made that don't have some CG elements in.

Yeah if it is used the right way. Majority of cases though, it is way overblown and sometimes inserted when practical effects would look miles better.

[enrisaabsotte]

Yeah if it is used the right way. Majority of cases though, it is way overblown and sometimes inserted when practical effects would look miles better.

I saw a fairly high budget blockbuster the other month (can't remember which one) and the explosion looked like it had been drawn in by hand.

[doolarsva]

Yes, the connection between a sitter and his painter is intensely personal. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Especially when you are having your dong intricately painted by another man in great detail.