Learning Art

 Anonymous  06/01/17(Thu)21:19:47 No.9584703▶>>9584722 >>9584807 >>9584866
File: ee55083bce503e411b78b8cea(...).jpg (50 KB, 547x550)
50 KB
>>9583386
Ok the reason i ask is because some people that do art don't seem particularly 'artistic' - Stanley Kubrick for example (peers/friends said he was quite matter of fact and to the point, rational). Still he created beautiful pictures/films. And he appears to have taught himself to do it

So i'm just curious whether there is a difference between aesthetics (which is open to logical thought/ inquiry) and capital a art? Could a robot learn to make to make art, even?

 Anonymous  06/01/17(Thu)22:04:09 No.9584807▶>>9585979
File: IMG_0411.jpg (557 KB, 1195x1210)
557 KB
>>9584703
I believe you would do well to study the mathematical backbone of oldschool art; either through the notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci or 'Boethian Number Theory' by Michael Masi.

It seems like your perception is colored by the debris of Romanticism, a cultural movement which bears the hallmark of having elevated and emphasized the importance of our imagination.

The principles of art can be taught, but how well you absorb and implement these in practice is dependent on a plethora of factors. It more or less boils down to your personal constitution - which you can change, to a certain extent.

The answer is somewhat ambigious: art can be taught, but it depends to whom.


 Anonymous  06/01/17(Thu)22:26:12 No.9584866▶>>9584894 >>9585112 >>9585979
File: Eyes Wide Shut.jpg (421 KB, 1140x380)
421 KB
>>9584703
People are giving you flak man but I completely understand your question, and it's funny you use Kubrick as an example because he's my favorite director and I've literally had the exact same train of thought regarding him before. How could someone so rational and straightforward simultaneously be so artistically brilliant? Not that these are mutually exclusive, it's just that, how is it that someone like Kubrick, who didn't attend any sort of art school, who wasn't even particularly artistic outside of his photography pursuits, went on to become one of the great cinematic storytellers of all time, while simultaneously serving as the producer while so many others, who When you look at and listen to Kubrick, you'd be convinced he belongs in academia or some STEM field, but you couldn't for the life of you imagine him as a Fine Arts student or a student of some other "artsy" field, yet his works contain more artistic brilliance than most of the very people who went down that path, like filmmakers who also happened to be artistically gifted (James Cameron, Ridley Scott being two examples of very talented illustrators, the latter of whom attended an art college, both of whom usually create much of the storyboards and concept art for their own films) but can't even hold a candle to Kubrick artistically when all is said and done and their final products are being compared. He didn't even grow up making films unlike so many of his peer filmmakers or many contemporary filmmakers today, he only first got the inclination to pursue film making at the age of 20. By the age of just 27 or 28, he had made solid films like Paths of Glory and The Killing, and he began working on 2001 at the young age of 36, releasing it at the age of 40. Which is incredibly impressive, considering that 2001 is universally hailed as one of the best films of all time, yet he was still fairly young and inexperienced (only like 4 or 5 other films under his belt) at the time of making it.

What is it about him that allows him to be so much better than people like them? Truthfully, I have no clue. I think he was a literal genius, and that in the same way that genius in other fields can't be rationally explained, such as the brilliance behind Einstein, Picasso, The Beatles and so on, Kubrick's genius can't be either.

So to answer your overall question OP, I have no clue. I think it can possibly be learnt, but I certainly don't think it can be taught.

>>9690178 (OP)
Andrei Tarkovsky is good.

On Film-Making by Mackendrick is essential.
Film Directing Shot By Shot by Steven D. Katz is useful.
Robert McKee's Story and Dialogue will offer a crash course on screenwriting.
Holman's Sound for Film and Television will offer a guide to sound recording, sound design and the pieces of equipment you will need for good sound recording.
Hitchcock/Truffaut will offer insight into differing methods of directing, screenwriting and also personal insight into both filmmakers themselves.

Honourable mentions: Save The Cat by Blake Snyder, Syd Field's Screenplay and The Screenwriter's Problem Solver, John Yorke's Into The Woods, Weston's Directing Actors, John Truby's Anatomy of Story, DeKoven's Changing Direction, Vogler's The Writer's Journey.

Joseph Campbell's book The Hero With a Thousand Faces is often recommended and it's highly useful but it isn't directly to do with filmmaking but more to do with ancient mythology and their structure's relevance in storytelling in more recent years. It inspires many screenwriters and directors in structuring their own scripts and films. Without it, George Lucas wouldn't have made Star Wars.

For the more theoretical:
Kracauer's From Caligari to Hitler if you're interested in German expressionist cinema.

Donald Richie's The Films of Akira Kurosawa if you want an authoritative text on his films, the methods, intentions and processes behind those films. Also see Kurosawa's Something like an Autobiography where he details his early professional career, his childhood, his friendships, sorrows and some useful advice for new filmmakers.

A New History in Japanese Cinema by Isolde Standish. Also Japanese Cinema: Texts and Contexts; The Warrior's Camera (another book on Kurosawa) and The Atomic Bomb in Japanese Cinema offer fascinating insight into the previous century's historical influences on Japanese cinema and the importance of Japanese cinema overall.

Hope these provide some interest, OP.

t. filmmaking fag.