Different actors will bring different approached to the same part. They will take the original source material (a part in a script) and presenting it in a new way. Not all actors play the same part the same way.
"artists" that sample music are doing exactly what actors are doing. They are taking original source material (a part in a song) and presenting it in a new way.
Acting is all about "taking something and creating something new".
Except scripts have a general tone and story they want to convey. They tell the actor what to do. If an actor, say, took a monologue from a script and acted it out completely different from what was originally intended then 100%, I'd call that artistic.
Except scripts have a general tone and story they want to convey. They tell the actor what to do. If an actor, say, took a monologue from a script and acted it out completely different from what was originally intended then 100%, I'd call that artistic.
First off who is "they"?
A script is just words on a page. It requires an actor to make those words come alive, much like a violinist.
100% different, then I would go back to your music sampling...if a drum beat isn't used in 100% a different manner then it isn't artistic.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
A script is just words on a page. It requires an actor to make those words come alive, much like a violinist.
100% different, then I would go back to your music sampling...if a drum beat isn't used in 100% a different manner then it isn't artistic.
"they" refers to scripts or the people who wrote the script. A script still sets out very strict guidelines for an actor to perform within. If it's a sad scene, the actor has to act sad. How sad is subjective based on each actor and I think that's where the skill level comes in.
Agreed. There's nothing creative about using a 4 x 4, kick, snare, kick, snare beat. That's not art. It could be part of something bigger that you could consider art, but as single piece of music it's definitely not creative or artistic.
"they" refers to scripts or the people who wrote the script. A script still sets out very strict guidelines for an actor to perform within. If it's a sad scene, the actor has to act sad. How sad is subjective based on each actor and I think that's where the skill level comes in.
Agreed. There's nothing creative about using a 4 x 4, kick, snare, kick, snare beat. That's not art. It could be part of something bigger that you could consider art, but as single piece of music it's definitely not creative or artistic.
Nope wrong, scripts don't set "strict guidelines for an actor to perform within."
An "artist" that samples music is no different from an actor by your definition.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Except scripts have a general tone and story they want to convey. They tell the actor what to do. If an actor, say, took a monologue from a script and acted it out completely different from what was originally intended then 100%, I'd call that artistic.
The artist is the difference between the good actor and the bad actor.
If someone is jsut sitting there spitting out the lines, sure your point stands. That person's not an artist, they're just reading.
Someone who can pull a character out of words, give them personality and relatability. Someone who can create an entire back story in their mind based on a few lines of text and use it to flush out an interesting enough character that people will pay attention takes art and creativity.
Quality of writing varies just as much as anything else. As does the type of writing. Some writers will give a lot of scene detail and character reactions, some writers leave a lot open to interpretation. Screenplays are not like books, they take many different forms. Some characters don't even get names (even major ones; Ed Norton's character in fight club is referred to as just "Narrator" in the script).
Your logic puzzles me given your preference for EDM music (as UCB alluded too). You have a problem with actors as artists because they didn't create the whole character or the idea of them? But then you refer to directors as artists, who are just taking the writers words and making them into images. What about a musician who takes the words someone else wrote and creates a beautiful piece of music with it? The actors art is becoming someone or something they're not and making other people believe that they are what they are pretending to be. It's a computer animators art to make people believe that the Millennium Falcon exists. It's the directors art to make people believe that this entire world exists.
Filmmaking is probably the single greatest collaboration of various art forms to create another piece of art.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
I could see the argument for actors who truly immerse themselves in the role and create back stories that don't exist but are translated well into their performance as artists but I think these are few and far between and aren't necessary for someone to be considered a serious actor.
Where as people who don't write their own music or create original paintings aren't usually looked on as serious musicians or painters.
I guess it's all subjective.
A director creates though. He has to envision the world that the script takes place in and the create in real life. That's actually outrageously impressive. I would definitely agree that film making is the biggest artistic undertaking out there.
Just an fyi, EDM music =/= sampling. Sure it's a part of it but a very small part. Plenty of EDM music that has zero sampling of other music or beats or loops.
I could see the argument for actors who truly immerse themselves in the role and create back stories that don't exist but are translated well into their performance as artists but I think these are few and far between and aren't necessary for someone to be considered a serious actor.
Where as people who don't write their own music or create original paintings aren't usually looked on as serious musicians or painters.
I guess it's all subjective.
A director creates though. He has to envision the world that the script takes place in and the create in real life. That's actually outrageously impressive. I would definitely agree that film making is the biggest artistic undertaking out there.
Just an fyi, EDM music =/= sampling. Sure it's a part of it but a very small part. Plenty of EDM music that has zero sampling of other music or beats or loops.
Sweet Baby Jesus.....you have no clue.
A director is only as good as his actors.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I could see the argument for actors who truly immerse themselves in the role and create back stories that don't exist but are translated well into their performance as artists but I think these are few and far between and aren't necessary for someone to be considered a serious actor.
Where as people who don't write their own music or create original paintings aren't usually looked on as serious musicians or painters.
I guess it's all subjective.
A director creates though. He has to envision the world that the script takes place in and the create in real life. That's actually outrageously impressive. I would definitely agree that film making is the biggest artistic undertaking out there.
Just an fyi, EDM music =/= sampling. Sure it's a part of it but a very small part. Plenty of EDM music that has zero sampling of other music or beats or loops.
This is the main thing. I think what you're saying that bothers people (well, me at least) is that there's a difference between whether or not you like something, and whether or not it's art. You admit that some actors are artists, but think its few a far between. I think this is a lack of understanding of acting in general. I think you'd be very surprised at the amount of actors who do those things, create back stories for their characters, practice voices for hours on end, languages, accents, etc.. and that it isn't just for lead roles. If an actor does those things, they do them for every role, whether theyre on a big poster or have a bit part in a play.
So are they only an artist if they put in this effort and are "good"? I'm sure there are actors who don't need to do these things but can pull brilliant performances out of their butts. Someone people would think that person is moreso of an artist than any of their counterparts or even call them a genius.
A director doesn't create (unless they also wrote), they imagine and then use their tools to bring what they imagine from a script into reality.
By your definition, the only artists are those who create something completely themselves. Any collaboration under what your saying wouldn't be art, which we both know is bogus. Is led Zeppelin the artist, or is each member an artist? You mentioned the bass, bass, snare, hi-hat, bass as not art. Why not? There's art in subtlety as well.
The point is, I could throw spaghetti sauce on the floor and if it provoked emotion in someone else it's art, plain and simple. Am I an artist for doing that? Some may not think so. But are you an artist if you simply make art, or do you actually have to profit from it? Art is so subjective and can be found in anything. A mechanic can be just as much of an artist as a painter.
An actor is only a tool for a director. A tool that he decides the parameters for. Doesn't matter how good of a performance an actor gives if the director doesn't think he fits the part.
As for your disagreement with my other point. Please tell me all of these celebrated musicians and painters that don't create their own work.
I just googled the "definition of art" and I will admit that I'm wrong in that art doesn't rely on "creating". So I will concede defeat but I will, at least personally, never hold actors up to the same regard as the people who write the stories or create the worlds that they are a part of.
An actor is only a tool for a director. A tool that he decides the parameters for. Doesn't matter how good of a performance an actor gives if the director doesn't think he fits the part.
As for your disagreement with my other point. Please tell me all of these celebrated musicians and painters that don't create their own work.
I just googled the "definition of art" and I will admit that I'm wrong in that art doesn't rely on "creating". So I will concede defeat but I will, at least personally, never hold actors up to the same regard as the people who write the stories or create the worlds that they are a part of.
I don't think you're alone on that at all.
That doesn't mean that the actors aren't artists. The animators, costume designers, etc, are all directors tools and artists as well.
An actor is only a tool for a director. A tool that he decides the parameters for. Doesn't matter how good of a performance an actor gives if the director doesn't think he fits the part.
As for your disagreement with my other point. Please tell me all of these celebrated musicians and painters that don't create their own work.
I just googled the "definition of art" and I will admit that I'm wrong in that art doesn't rely on "creating". So I will concede defeat but I will, at least personally, never hold actors up to the same regard as the people who write the stories or create the worlds that they are a part of.
I don't believe Yo Yo Ma is known for his composition(s).
But he isn't an artist......
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
That couldn't be further from the truth. I know two violinists in the ESO. Fantastic musicians.
I learned guitar last year, and have written an album this year.
I would not call myself the serious musician of the group. No one would.
I think our definition of serious musician is far different. Chances are neither of you would be "celebrated". You, however, as someone who creates original work is more of an artist to me, than those two violinists you know. Now, their musical skill might eclipse your artistry but if you keep making your own original work while they only focus on perfecting the skill required to play other peoples work, you could surpass them quite easily.
Kind of similar to how purely technical guitarists like bumblefoot pick up a lot of slack for their own original work being terrible, while their skill is unmatched.
Mastering an instrument is far different than songwriting. One is also FAAAAR easier to teach than the other. Practice enough and you can learn to play anything. Songwriting on the other hand is quite difficult to teach.
Well, you didn't say artist, you said musician. And I would consider a serious musician to be someone who has dedicated their life to mastering a musical instrument, among other definitions.
I don't actually entirely disagree with you, but I do think that you must not be much of a musician yourself. That's not meant as a slight, it's just that as someone who has played one instrument or another my entire life, I can appreciate that to be able to play at the level that a first violinist plays, for example, requires an immense amount of artistic ability. There's a reason we don't have robots playing in our symphonies.
Well, you didn't say artist, you said musician. And I would consider a serious musician to be someone who has dedicated their life to mastering a musical instrument, among other definitions.
I don't actually entirely disagree with you, but I do think that you must not be much of a musician yourself. That's not meant as a slight, it's just that as someone who has played one instrument or another my entire life, I can appreciate that to be able to play at the level that a first violinist plays, for example, requires an immense amount of artistic ability. There's a reason we don't have robots playing in our symphonies.
I never said there wasn't anything insanely impressive about what people in orchestra's can play. All I'm saying is that if you consider the 1st violin to posses immense artistic ability, then what do you have to say for the artistic mind that created the music that he/she is playing?
There is more to music than the notes and rests. Any truly artistic and talented musician is able to insert their own voice, and their own personality.
This is where I agree with you, though. An artist is not someone that mimics someone else. Even if they are absolutely perfect. For someone to be considered an artist there needs to be something there that undeniably a product of that artists interpretation. Otherwise, again, you could just have a robot play a Slash solo and call that art.
This is why (bringing it back on topic) I think there is art in acting. You can't tell me that I'm not going to see a noticeable difference in a performance put on by Brad Pitt or Ed Norton for the same role with the same director.
