marco85

"He believes, like me, that technique is a tool in itself and that it should only allow the artist to express themselves in the way they want... that it should enable the artist to have control over what they do... but technique should never, ever be confused with art." Technique is NOT an end in itself; it is at the service of the director's inspiration. You deny it and then reiterate it in the same post. It seems to me that you don't have very clear ideas...

"Excuse me, you said that Kubrick made virtuous films and yet no one criticized him for this. Didn't you draw any comparisons? Are you making fun of me? You generalized the discussion by talking about art in general, which I think is wrong. You still bring up Bowie’s opinions (which I have read), to what end? Did I perhaps invoke his opinions? I tell you again that talking about technique in art in general means everything and nothing, especially if one starts from a judgment on an electric guitarist like Vai. Then if you insist that I comment on Bowie’s statements, I will say that he is right about the matter of technique for its own sake, but generally speaking, Steve Vai does not fall into this category." squalo you didn’t understand a thing. But who sought you out? Who called you into question? I was talking about art in general with Bowie and you inserted yourself by inventing comparisons that I did not make (please rewrite them here because I can’t find them). boh.

"and I have a friend who is an experimental director... costumes, screenplays are not virtuosity... and neither is technique..." so, shall we start with the nonsense? shall we start with the director friends (who naturally do not exist but are evoked to support their empty theses)? your friend (who doesn't exist) is clearly either a failed director or someone who doesn’t even know what they’re doing... because IT'S OBVIOUS that a strong technical background is necessary to create films of that visual depth (and not only that). tell him to come here and argue his theses. otherwise, don’t even bother looking for him.

Don't complain if you are accused of superficiality... for someone who writes "you get excited about technical values... I care about musical values," it's even a euphemism...

"Don't tell me that Kubrick was a virtuoso... Kubrick made films with very little action and dialogue... Does 2001 seem virtuoso to you? No, it seems deep, meaningful, and incredibly well made... but I don’t notice any virtuosities..." 2001 is one of his technically most challenging films. You see? But what does it mean that if there is little action and dialogue it's not technical?! Have you ever heard of screenwriting? Editing? Special effects? Costumes? Come on! The fact that it is ALSO a deep film is another matter and doesn't imply a lack of technical depth!

on the other hand, I didn't make any comparison with Kubrick.

uff...shark, you're not explaining anything to me...with Bowie we were talking about art IN GENERAL...so, since you obviously don't want to see what dear old white duke wrote... "as far as I'm concerned, technique is what moves furthest away from the concept of art" so...with Bowie we were talking about art in general...OK? I'm not comparing Kubrick's technique to Vai's technique. OK?

shark, we are talking about art...and then Bowie was saying something completely different

Anyway, Titanic won 13 Oscars, just to emphasize the miserable actual value those statuettes have.

"I don't expect you to enjoy someone who plays the same note for half an hour (that's depth); this is then the culmination..."