Was he right ?

youtu.be/LKCrOLcDbjE

No, only a complete braindead moron would believe he is.

He also talked about how everyone expected talking movies now, rather than silent movies, and that he had no choice in the matter. Art is a compromise between your vision and economical viability so it's understandable that he eventually adopted color. Especially as there's plenty of things you can do with color to create fantastical effects. That hardly disqualifies his statement

>citation needed
Fuck you're insufferable. You do know people can have original thoughts and opinions? Doesn't mean he's right. But God damn i would hate having an argument with you.
"Muh state your sources!"

>citation needed for basic observation and common sense
I found that song you made a while back, here's a link: youtu.be/zyhUHJKfR5Y?t=156

He doesn’t need to state his sources given he is an authority on film

Yeah. There's a reason painters got weird after photography was commonplace

You are the dumbest and biggest faggot to ever exist

No, he wasn't. He's just another pretentious french hack.

>Was he right ?
No, he really isn't right. I respect Renoir and love his work, but he isn't right: he is unfortunately still trapped in a 19th century naive enlightenism, even if he thinks he is criticizing.
He isn't right because there is no such thing as perfect realism. Realism in fiction - whenever it is visual or otherwise, is an oxymoron. Even the most hyper-realistic depiction is STILL a massive abstraction, a symbol of the real thing, never the real thing. Even the greatest hyper-realism is interpreted and result of interpretation. And as such, it cannot be ever a "death of art". People deluded into thinking realism IS ACHIEVABLE - yeah. They are usually doomed to fail, and their work usually sucks. So his position is understandable - from the paradigm he was accustomed to he was not wrong. But when it comes to theory of art itself - it's a silly line of thinking, especially today. Although one still unfortunately still pretty common.

Realization that "realism" is just a one specific (and limited, if at times useful) types of symbolism is what we really need. People need to re-learn semiotics, because somehow, we still haven't gotten over the mistakes of enlightenism, and we still desperately struggle with them, even though postmodernism has been superficially all about re-embracing semiotics. In reality it just destroyed them more.
And I think the popular sentiments are kinda mirroring the fact that semiotics have been massively neglected. The popularity of fantastic fiction, the re-emergence of Japanophilia etc... all seem to hint that people DO want to learn more about symbolic mindsets.

It's basically the notion of "soul" but eloquently expressed.

Tone down the autism, dude's having a conversation, not writing a thesis.

Death of the author. Meaning and intention are both worthless. Only what someone takes from something has value. He's right.

Lmao ever player squad or post scriptum? He was spot on and didn't even know it

The reason ps4 walking simulators constantly win awards is because perfectly simulating the transsexual dick cutting process is perfectly amazing. Fuck I love walking in a realistic road. I wish there was a way to experience roads or woods in real life

>arrival of perfect realism coincided with perfect decadence
literally backwards renaissance was one of the best times for art, contrary to now with modern art garbage
>when technique is primitive, everything is beautiful
again, this is backwards, have you ever seen any medieval art that doesn't have depth, proportion or any realism in it? it looks like shit, same with most of the avant-garde trash that started the modern art trend wich brought the current decadence of todays art
>technical perfection can only create boredom
what art that is realist tries to be technically perfect? speaking out of his ass
>because it only reproduces nature
>imitating nature can only lead to death of art form
the most beautiful and engaging things to see and admire come from nature, his whole speech seems out of his ass with a biased look on art based on "art is a form of protest, society bad, must put an urinal on display, soo deep"

Attached: 1588801636877.png (757x632, 349.19K)

>Death of the author. Meaning and intention are both worthless.
I'm not sure what is worse: you peddling this insanely cheap highschool tier nihilism for edgy kids, or the fact that you somehow manage to still get it wrong...

I'm a Determinist, not a Nihilist. I believe there is an ultimate form of everything, whereas Nihilists believe there is nothing but to continue to live anyway. You are a piss ant compared to me. Just no value at all.

You are a 50IQ retard who couldn't pass a high school philosophy exam. Or English for that matter, "piss ant".

>renaissance
>realism

>determinism and nihilism aren't correlated
What a brainlet nigger

Correlation doesn't mean the same, you fucking retard. There is an ultimate end. Everything is not nothing.
I'm literally correct. Stay mad.

I wanna clap links cheeks. He's the optimal twink.

>I'm a Determinist, not a Nihilist.
You literally don't know what either of those words mean. How old are you?

My god, you people are so fucking stupid.

Define "form" and "end" in terms that demonstrate you have any philosophical knowledge whatsoever.

I bet you think Baroque is realism too ya fucking faggot

Philosophy is for pseudointellectual. Literally just measure everything, you retard.

I don't agree with Renoir at all, but you are a worthless, fuckbrained plebian.

I don't think he meant perfect as in "without flaw", but rather "as close as possible to the desired end". His example of a hyper-realistic forest still has the audience sitting in cinema chairs passively observing the forest, even if it is with all their senses. That's not perfect, but it is probably the closes you can get within the scope of a cinema. Movie in VR are cinema, but the viewing experience wouldn't be in *a* cinema - it would probably be at home

As such I think you can reasonably extrapolate that he was talking more about the pursuit and dedication to realism than the actual achievement of realism. What kills art isn't improving your technique to better capture reality, but when the meaning behind your work is lost in that pursuit. Art should speak to its observers about something more than just what it literally represents. So kind of what you touched upon

he hit the nail square center in the fucking head from a mile away
old movies made up for their lack of CGI with animatronics, miniatures, practical FX, scenery, camera angles
old games made up for their lack of graphics and memory with their art style and environmental story telling
even when it comes to art he is right, i like Boris Vallejo, impeccable technique, but he would be boring as fuck if he didn't paint fantasy, on the other hand Simon Bisley can make even the most mundane shit fun to watch with his art style

Video games aren't art.

Yes.
Primitive = SOUL
Realism = SOULLESS

Attached: 1583508919217.jpg (349x364, 15.67K)

Measures by themselves can't tell you how to live your life correctly, how to organize a society, or even how to read the measures themselves you fucking brainlet STEMfaggot

>My god, you people are so fucking stupid.
Says the person who thinks determinism and nihilism are somehow contradictory - and not, you know, completely different outlooks related to completely different domains? Or that thinks the death of author means that "meaning is worthless", rather than "meaning is actually the only concept of value", which is what it really states?
Really? That is what you are going to go with? You are literally failing that shitty high-school tier philosophy course for edgy teens. You are failing at being a failure, somehow. That is... remarkable. But you should probably not insult others from that position.

>citation needed
>peer reviewed
Why does every sophomore in community college think that just constantly saying this about everything makes them sound smarter? Do you have peer reviewed sources for every opinion you have?

Just because something is commercialized and monetized doesn't negate the fact that is IS art, not even Adorno goes that far