Originally Posted by Racinreaver
Also, is anyone actually saying that Avatar is a pinnacle of film as art?
|
A lot of people are actually saying this. I will compensate for your ignorance of popular discourse by assuming that everyone you know is a scientist.
|
There is somewhat more to art than merely visuals. There are also the matters of meaning and social relevance. On these levels, Avatar is rather unremarkable. In terms of art, Avatar is a painting of a bowl of fruit. It's a very
well painted bowl of fruit, but ultimately, there's nothing deeper to it. In terms you'll likely better understand, it's the difference between Stevie Wonder and T-Pain; both are technically singers but only one is a true musician.
Films as art resonate with more force and pathos than Avatar does. Honestly, aside from breakthroughs in CGI filmmaking, the word "art" doesn't even belong in a conversation about Avatar. All the non-visual elements are pretty ordinary, from the plot to the dialogue to the soundtrack. It's a fun movie but it has absolutely no impact. Compare this to far greater films such as Citizen Kane, Dr. Strangelove, Shawshank Redemption or Schindler's List.
Those are works of art because they evoke something real. Avatar cannot accomplish this, and is barely "art" as far as the legitimate meaning goes.
Jam it back in, in the dark.