Comments on: Theory: Objectively Breaking Down Reference

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:19:20 +0000

wow. Did you even read the article? He wasn’t talking about personal taste, he was talking about technical skill. Although, I suppose you could argue that professional specs have changed over the years as styles have come and gone in demand (just look at some of the older Silver Age artists at Marvel who were fired during the 90s for being “too old fashioned.”)

So yeah, you have to change with the times, but you can take a look at someone like Grim Natwick’s career. He was a damn fine artist who was able to switch up his style and change with the times because he was a good artist – because he held a mastery over his abilities.

There are principles that GOOD artists still abide by: Composition, color theory, perspective, and construction. So, yes, you can OBJECTIVELY judge art, just as you would OBJECTIVELY judge a dog at a dog show.

Once the criteria is set, and the bar is placed, you can use that as your guide to say whether someone is good with COLOR or good at drawing IN PERSPECTIVE, or if someone is really bad at Composition. Yes, CRITERIA itself may be subjective and subject to personal taste, but within the criteria all things may become objective.

By: shakil

shakil — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:01:14 +0000

You are foolish. Art/entertainment is subjective not objective. to beleive it could possibly be objective is stupid.

By: Mckay Boxberger

Mckay Boxberger — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 02:08:58 +0000

This is a lot to take in, but man is that gospel truth!

By: Stephen Worth

Stephen Worth — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:03:03 +0000

David and Peter

Thank you very much for your comments. I really appreciate knowing that you follow the archive blog so closely and think about the treasures that it’s my honor to post here. You really raised my spirits.

Steve

By: Peter Bangs

Peter Bangs — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:39:09 +0000

Another superb article Stephen. I’m just reading Bambi Vs Godzilla by the estimabel Mr Mamet which makes siilar points. Your dissection of this dance sequence is spot on. Even at 7 years old Temple was a consumate craftsman and love her or loathe her much can be learnt from watching her.

This too struck an enormous chord “One of the sacrifices one makes when one chooses a career as an artist is to lose the ability to passively “experience” art. Once your mindset shifts to the analytical way a filmmaker thinks about his medium, you can never go back to the innocence of just sitting in the dark and “experiencing” a film the way ordinary people do.” You can’t go home again and be just a viewer, even the worst films, especially the worst films, have you studying adn dismantling them as you watch. Pity more the wife, husband or partner of artists. They end up with long explanations of why a film they enjoyed was actually hackneyed rubbish far to often.

By: David Nethery

David Nethery — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 02:19:47 +0000

Excellent analysis of this sequence . So much can be learned by careful study of (but not slavishly copying by rotoscoping or “mo-cap”) live-action film of skilled performers.

And you really put your finger on what has always made me feel a little queasy about most of the Temple feature films . I can admire the craft and skill of Shirley Temple (and the always strong supporting cast like Buddy Ebsen , or Edward Everett Horton, Bill Robinson, etc.) , but the movies definitely aren’t my cup of tea. By any standard Temple was a phenomenal performer (especially at that young age) , so I don’t hold the formulaic stories against her , but I’d rather watch those movies in small snippets like the “At the Codfish Ball” sequence you analyzed.

Shirley Temple is now 82 years old.