|
Hmm, that's an interesting argument you've got percolating there. It's valid food for thought. Although I didn't remark as such, I swear I sort of felt you were going to the film thing eventually with your thinking.
Cinema may go back to the shadow play, but getting real, film, like comic books, is also an art form with a literal narrative that relies more heavily on craft and subject than fine art which deals with the indefinable, yet defines an age.
Film is interesting in that it has a potential to influence the masses, involves more senses, and is, in that respect, far more phantasmagorical than fine art. But at the end of the day, like comic books, film just isn't fine art. Good film, like good comic books, has elements of fine art aesthetics that shape the result. Film is more readily dissected than fine art, but yet the immediate emotional impact has the potential to be and usually is far greater than viewing a painting or sculpture. And good cinema is, like modern art, influenced heavily by process. Cinematic undertakings also, like architecture, (and moreso than graphic novels (storyboards, in the case of film)) involve huge hierarchical teams of people working towards a result.
But excuse me, these are all mental notes to an argument I can't seem to put into words all that well.
|