Full disclosure: I am exhausted. It is late Sunday night, yet here I am typing away. Why? Because if I want this blog to work, if I want it to blossom, and maybe turn into something more in the future, I need to get used to typing away late on Sunday night! Regardless, this is my first real foray into blogging. With my introductory post out of the way, yet well received (thanks everyone!), I can now talk about what I want. And if you're still with me...
The first subject I want to broach is art. No matter the media, whether it is television, film, or music, it is still art.
Art is not objective. There is no measurement, no exact number to determine which piece of art is better than the other. You cannot say that Picasso is better than Michelangelo. You can only say that you have an opinion of one's artwork over the other because of your preferences or how it makes you feel or what it makes you think. The same is for music, where one artist is no better than another. You may not like Miley Cyrus or her music, but that is based on a personal level of beliefs. She is an artist with talent, however her form of art is one that you may not favor in comparison to your favorite artist.
Art is not objective. There is no measurement, no exact number to determine which piece of art is better than the other. You cannot say that Picasso is better than Michelangelo. You can only say that you have an opinion of one's artwork over the other because of your preferences or how it makes you feel or what it makes you think. The same is for music, where one artist is no better than another. You may not like Miley Cyrus or her music, but that is based on a personal level of beliefs. She is an artist with talent, however her form of art is one that you may not favor in comparison to your favorite artist.
Art is subjective. Quantifiable only in that you can measure in numbers how many tickets are sold, or albums/singles are bought, or how many television sets are tuned into a show (I guess nowadays it would be cable boxes, not television sets). To give an award to one individual, show, or movie over another based on sales or ratings does not determine who the better artist is, only which is most popular.
I can get behind awards shows. A friend of mine, who used to be an RA in my building in college, Go Bearcats!) works on them in Hollywood! (You can follow her here!) With The Oscars, a movie is a singular performance, whether by an individual actor, a director, or any of the hundreds of people behind the scenes. You can judge (once again, based on opinion) who does the best job in an individual category. And there are new movies every year, a fresh crop of content to peruse and find greatness in. The same goes for The Emmys: an individuals performance on a particular show can be great. You can debate who was a better villain, Vincent D'Onorfio as Wilson Fisk on Daredevil or Matt Nable as Ra's Al Ghul on Arrow (easily D'Onorfio), or who is a better dramatic actor, James Spader as Red Reddington on Blacklist or Kevin Spacey as Francis Underwood on House of Cards (umm...rain check on that decision?). Directing on a television show is a little bit harder to judge, because each individual director must work within the predetermined rules and guidelines of the show made by the shows' creator(s). But if said individual director is able to direct a singular episode in a way that is more captivating than others, than yes, we can judge them accordingly.
My point is, these decisions on awards are still based on opinion. Mass opinion does not turn into fact, it simply is an opinion of the masses. Thus awarding Jon Hamm with the award of "Outstanding Actor in a Drama" does not make him the quantifiable singular best dramatic actor, only that the masses opinionized him as the best (did I just make up a word?! Nope, on Wiktionary...anyways Jon Hamm did in fact win that award tonight for Mad Men, a great show that has concluded. Maybe he'll join TWD as Negan?! Here's to hoping! But I digress...) The winners at the Emmy's tonight were great on their respective shows, but so were the losers. And so are dozens, if not hundreds, of other actors who did not even get any recognition tonight. Are their performances any less than those who won? The answer: no!
Awards shows makes art something it is not. Art is not a contest. Art is a talent, a hobby, a passion. Art is something that made the ancient Greeks so revered, and that keeps us talking about Shakespeare until this day. Art is what drives architects and landscapers. Art is a device for young kids to learn, or for the elderly to feel young again. Whether it is a great book, a thrilling movie, a beautiful song, or this painting (titled Rabbit in a Snowstorm), you can simply get lost in art.
I can get behind awards shows. A friend of mine, who used to be an RA in my building in college, Go Bearcats!) works on them in Hollywood! (You can follow her here!) With The Oscars, a movie is a singular performance, whether by an individual actor, a director, or any of the hundreds of people behind the scenes. You can judge (once again, based on opinion) who does the best job in an individual category. And there are new movies every year, a fresh crop of content to peruse and find greatness in. The same goes for The Emmys: an individuals performance on a particular show can be great. You can debate who was a better villain, Vincent D'Onorfio as Wilson Fisk on Daredevil or Matt Nable as Ra's Al Ghul on Arrow (easily D'Onorfio), or who is a better dramatic actor, James Spader as Red Reddington on Blacklist or Kevin Spacey as Francis Underwood on House of Cards (umm...rain check on that decision?). Directing on a television show is a little bit harder to judge, because each individual director must work within the predetermined rules and guidelines of the show made by the shows' creator(s). But if said individual director is able to direct a singular episode in a way that is more captivating than others, than yes, we can judge them accordingly.
My point is, these decisions on awards are still based on opinion. Mass opinion does not turn into fact, it simply is an opinion of the masses. Thus awarding Jon Hamm with the award of "Outstanding Actor in a Drama" does not make him the quantifiable singular best dramatic actor, only that the masses opinionized him as the best (
Awards shows makes art something it is not. Art is not a contest. Art is a talent, a hobby, a passion. Art is something that made the ancient Greeks so revered, and that keeps us talking about Shakespeare until this day. Art is what drives architects and landscapers. Art is a device for young kids to learn, or for the elderly to feel young again. Whether it is a great book, a thrilling movie, a beautiful song, or this painting (titled Rabbit in a Snowstorm), you can simply get lost in art.
Stay tuned!
My recommendations:
- Doctor Who is back! (hence the GIF theme tonight)
- Fear the Walking Dead (I'm excited for my season review)
- Fall season is starting!
No comments:
Post a Comment