Huffing?

Your use of the term is interesting.
You're honestly curious about what the difference is between the statements "If it stirs feelings it is art" and "art stirs feelings"?

I'm curious for straightforward answers to the questions I asked. Why should I have to repeat them? I'll attempt to elaborate a bit and then I'm out for the day.

Per my example, "stirring feelings" doesn't seem so central to what makes something art. A snuff film would make me feel sad. Rather than directly address the example, you implied that being a film and evoking strong emotions wouldn't by itself make it art. Okay; so what's missing? Say it was a really well-shot one, with lots of arty camerawork and a little story woven in. Art then? Does the incorporation of actual crime disqualify something from falling under the umbrella of art? Or the ambition to provoke primarily sexual stimulus? Or both? If so, does this mean art is inextricably bound up with morality in some way? Or just legality? Sorry if it's a disturbing example, but that's why I chose it. It gets at a gray area I have a hard time sorting out. I don't have a position.

You seemed to have a position, per your initial reply, so I'm curious to get more elaboration and see how well it holds up to me.

Backing up to where we actually left off: Since "stirring feelings" and being in a technically "artistic" or "entertainment" medium are obviously not quite enough to = Art, assertions like:

No, the primary function of art is to make you feel.

- and -

There is something very life-affirming in a film that can make you cry with sadness. People love tear-jerkers, probably because feeling sad is still feeling.

-- seem sort of empty and off-target to me. My sister dying would make me feel sad. But it's not something I look forward to as a life-affirming event. Do tear-jerkers serve some sort of emotionally preparatory function for their intended audience? That's an answer I could see potentially headed my way, though I'm curious how you'd elaborate on it, because tear-jerkers don't strike me as being typically bound to realism, and have an "escapist" and sort of masturbatory feel to them as well. Dances With Wolves chokes me up a bit at the end, but does it mean anything, teach me anything about life really, or is it just a way to wallow within the confines of your own emotional spectrum self-consciously, fictively, safely?

X sort of seemed to imply that something that's depressing and deals with depressing issues but is still obviously fictive is just another kind of escapism; or conversely I guess, that it isn't, that the term is a somewhat hollow one that isn't communicating any ideas very accurately, and that most of the things we call "escapist" aren't really at all. What's meant by it, specifically? You didn't reply to him either.

Hope that helps.

K

As far as definitions are concerned small "a" art is contextual articles or artifacts designed to elicit. period.

Their value as art is something else altogether.

You could write a business letter and you are engaged in a literary activity, its merit as one depends on the values assigned to the elements of the definition. Is it good design, what is elicited, what is the context, Et cetera.

Madget, you appear to have me confused with snoid, who is the one who made the statement, "the primary function of art is to make you feel." I simply chimed in on the "why would I want to feel sad?" question you posed and noted, quite factually, that people like sad escapism, too.

This, I think, gets to the heart of my biggest hang-ups about the sorts of stuff that Journalistas are into.

Some types of stories, in my opinion, work better in other media than as comics.

Take Blade of the Immortal, for example. If there isn't an anime series based on it, there should be. The concept of an assassin with a healing factor going around killing crooks in feudal Japan in order to fulfill a vow kicks serious keister. However... the decompressed pacing of the comics make them incredibly frustrating as single issues, and the samurai action is often reduced to blurry speed lines and unclear storytelling. As a cartoon, it would be sort of like Samurai Champloo with more fighting. As manga... it gets boring after a while even if you're reading it in trade paperbacks.

A lot of comics that fall into the broad category of "anything but superheroes" tell genre stories that would be more satisfying to me as prose novels, because a lot more exposition could be used, or as films because some movement would make the action scenes a lot more exciting.

As interesting as Fight For Tomorrow was, just for instance, I would much rather watch a Jet Li movie than read a Vertigo comic about illegal mixed martial arts fights. The art by Denys Cowan and Kent Williams was really cool, but the comics form creates distance and doesn't offer the same visceral thrill as seeing a real Wu Shu expert beating the crap out of thirty guys with a pair of billy clubs.

The whole point of reading it seems to be the novelty of, "Wow. Vertigo never did a kung fu movie-style comic before!" That's fine, but most people would be better off just renting Enter the Dragon.

A film noir comic by Bendis or Frank Miller isn't as satisfying as a film noir film even though all that black on the page creates a distinctive look that has some charms.

I've enjoyed a lot of slice of life-ish indie movies... but that kind of stuff usually bores the crap out of me as comics. Stuff that would work great as a sitcom episode just leaves me wondering, "Did I really just read an entire comic about a young woman saving up money for a couch?"

So, the question is this: Is it really advancing the art form when people are doing half-assed versions of stuff that would be more effective in another medium?"

I think the "But is it art?" question is easier to answer when talking about something that could only work as well as it does in the form of a comic book.

Watchmen, The Adventures of Luther Arkwright and Red Rocket 7 all use conventions that would be familiar to superhero fans to tell stories with a lot more substance than your typical mainstream comic. And they do so using visuals that would only work as comic book art. To me, that's a lot more interesting than "This comic is sort of like the first season of 'The L Word.' But with cartoony black and white artwork."

It seems you're similar to most of the mainstream movie-going audience out there: action comics make better movies.

That's one of the things I like about artists like Ware, you can't duplicate what he does on a screen or another medium and achieve the same effect only "bigger and better." Good point.

Well... Actually, I can't stand most of the movies I've seen that were based on comic books. Ghost World was one of the rare exceptions.

Martial arts stuff just works better for me in animation or live action where I can see the characters moving in something approaching real time instead of having to apply concepts from Understanding Comics to the action sequences.

I really dig Iron Fist for some reason, but seeing him make his fist "like unto a thing of iron" and punch out Sabretooth just doesn't get my juices flowing as much as Jackie Chan's stunts in Mr. Nice Guy.

Luther Arkwright is more my speed. He has action hero traits, but he also has vast mental powers and the ability to manipulate matter to some degree... so he doesn't need to move around as much to save the day. His powers are more suited to how time passes between comic book panels.

Don't a lot of mainstream horror movies end with the identification character getting it in the neck?

Can THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE somehow be both escapist and depressing? How about A NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST (the original, I mean)?

Some ax-blades are sharper than others, though.

And it's not impossible that, as liberating as Kafka himself might be, his influence might have spawned a few frozen places here and there. (See DAVID BORING thread.)

If people want to enjoy a comic about kung fu, what good would renting Enter The Dragon do them?