1) In the article Benjamin mentions "pure" art. He gives an example as to what is not "Pure" art and what is. Even with those two great examples I guess I am a bit confused as to what "pure" art is. Is it only one thing with one definition, or is it to ones opinion?
2)In the words of Séverin-Mars: “What art has been granted a dream more poetical and more real at the same time! Approached in this fashion the film might represent an incomparable means of expression. Only the most high-minded persons, in the most perfect and mysterious moments of their lives, should be allowed to enter its ambience.”
From what I understand from this quote is that film expresses much more than any other art form. This interpretation may be way off, but this is how I am understanding it. If that is in fact what he is trying to say, I'm not too sure I agree. Although with film you can see and hear what is going on and it explains the whole story with amazing scenes, paintings too can tell a story in a less obvious way but is still just as great. As is photography, there are some pictures that make you feel a very strong emotion, and you try to tell yourself the story. Art such as those and plenty of other forms have their stories, but you are able to in a way make it into an add-lib.
No comments:
Post a Comment