Art as Film

It's incredible how frustrated this reading made me. It not only seems that the thought process portrayed in educating me to the ideals of these skeptics is mundane and repetitious because there really is no true supporting idea in the matter; but also, these individuals are simply trying too hard to try and make a point that film is not art.

Art is, and watch out because this is a really simple answer, something brought purposely into existence for the purpose of evoking thought and/or emotion. Even the worst work of art causes one to think "I don't like this. I hate this. This sucks." It evokes thought, maybe not very deep, but there nonetheless. There are many forms of art that just are, and must be respected as such. Such is the way with most absurd plays. The piece may not have a story to tell, or really any form of purpose; however, it exists, and you can do with it what you will. Ignore it (which is a choice one must think to make) or delve into it and try and find meaning.

Films are so carefully crafted by such a large group of people it astounds me that anyone can say that the end result is not a piece of art. How many ideals came together to create this one vision? The camera (as a machine) is the tool used to capture this work and show it to an audience in order to evoke thought and/or emotion. The dramatic occurrence happening before the lens does not cause any one to ponder it's meaning because the only individuals aware of its existence are the ones that helped create it. It is not until the scene is put to film and show to those who had not be a part of its creation that it means anything, and in that moment it becomes art.

Art is created purposefully, and everything that occurs before the lens is mended with time and care so that when the camera is to record it takes in what it was meant to take in. Mistakes are bound to occur, but art is not perfect. There is no such thing as "perfect" art, not simply because that's extremely subjective, but because in no way is art ever defined with that word in mind. "Art is a perfect..." never comes to mind. Art is always described by what it represents, is supposed to mean, etc.

Does a copy of the work that still represents and causes thought or emotion lose its value as a work of art? Taking paintings and making copies for the rest of the world to have doesn't change the idea of the work, though it is no longer the original work. But is art defined by the value of the work or what it evokes?

This is my argument, and it's fairly weak by any standards. But as an actor I'm so emotionally connected to the idea of art and what it is as a performer.