Trash Humpers

[encey]

Fair enough! I guess it depends on how much I am actually missing from only watching those trailers.

 

And you have to admit that reading his description of the movie and its 'point' doesn't do much to make it seem like a successful attempt to make art.

 

I was largely going off of that because I thought the questions it raised would be interesting to debate. But I agree that it's stupid to judge the value of art without actually experiencing it. So, premise everything I said with a "Let's just suppose that, as Korine himself says, the film is just a collection of footage of people humping trash and doing other destructive things."

 

 

Plus, I still haven't heard anyone say one reasonable thing about why this movie might be worth watching.

[Macca]

there are more than enough films coming out this year which better tailored to your crappy "tastes", encey and Macca.

ugh christ, Didn't you actually read what I typed??? I'm saying from everything that I've seen and read it doesn't look like it will be good... I will definitely try and see it and see for my own eyes whether it IS shit or not.... I'm not saying its shit folks, I'm just saying judging by all the evidence in plain sight that it doesn't look like anything massively special (and with all those film festival awards, somethings gotta click surely...)

 

I'm very open to Trash Humpers being a good film which I'll only know for sure when I see it.

 

PS: I quite like the ideas and aesthetics in Korine's other films, so yeah I'd be quite happy if it didn't suck

based on what you typed i think you kind of… missed the point.

ooh I think I got you now LOL

[Guest]

[sneaksta303]

Plus, I still haven't heard anyone say one reasonable thing about why this movie might be worth watching.

 

One reason for me. Gummo.

 

It's playing at the Gene Siskel Film Center at 6:15 if you wanna check it out. Sadly I doubt it will come to St. Louis.

[encey]

Also, I'm not sure how you can fail at art... isn't that impossible....

 

 

Actually, even more interesting is p. 296 ff. of this pdf, "The World of a Movie." It argues that a certain 'movie' fails to be one, and explains why.

[mcbpete]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQYSRXT3CiU

I tell you what, even though the film doesn't look that brilliant (certainly looks intriguing though !) it certainly reaffirms my love for all things VHS. I just love that medium, it makes everything look just so nasty and gritty. Of all the CGI special effects and filters in the world, I'm yet to see anything that comes even close to the nuances of VHS degradation.

 

The trailer reminds me of this:

 

[Guest Yegg]

@ Blicero

 

L'art pour l'art is just an exercise in masturbation.

[Guest blicero]

This is different. Duchamp didn't just do this for the sake of flippin a pisser. He is posing a question about art, namely, how are we to understand art in the 'modern' age where the conventions we relied on in the past to make sense of and enter into an aesthetic experience have come into question? He asks this question by questioning those conventions in the extreme. The point, as I understand it, isn't so much to decide whether "Fountain" is or isn't art, but to realize that we used to know how to answer the question 'What is art?', and now we don't, and that this is largely definitive of how art is made in our time.

 

That says a whole lot more than if Duchamp, interviewed, were to say "Huh huh, pissing on stuff is kool, heh m heh."

 

i didn't say that he did it as a prank, and i don't think i agree completely with your response. i thought it was generally believed that one of the main goals of the fountain was for Duchamp to really gutcheck society's accepted definition of art. when they declined to include the piece in the exhibit Duchamp resigned from the board, signalling that this particular board/jury had failed his test.

[soundwave]

this film looks fooking ace

 

after a disappointing and mainstream indie(ish) Mr Lonely this looks like its back to good ole Julien Donkeyboy/Gummo territory

[encey]

This is different. Duchamp didn't just do this for the sake of flippin a pisser. He is posing a question about art, namely, how are we to understand art in the 'modern' age where the conventions we relied on in the past to make sense of and enter into an aesthetic experience have come into question? He asks this question by questioning those conventions in the extreme. The point, as I understand it, isn't so much to decide whether "Fountain" is or isn't art, but to realize that we used to know how to answer the question 'What is art?', and now we don't, and that this is largely definitive of how art is made in our time.

 

That says a whole lot more than if Duchamp, interviewed, were to say "Huh huh, pissing on stuff is kool, heh m heh."

 

i didn't say that he did it as a prank, and i don't think i agree completely with your response. i thought it was generally believed that one of the main goals of the fountain was for Duchamp to really gutcheck society's accepted definition of art. when they declined to include the piece in the exhibit Duchamp resigned from the board, signalling that this particular board/jury had failed his test.

So the difference between our views seems to be that you think Duchamp had an idea of what makes something art (or at least, what would make "Fountain" fail to qualify as art), and the jury failed the test of these criteria that he put to them by offering this piece, whereas I think that Duchamp did not have a definite idea of what makes something art and was submitting the piece in order to raise this question for artists and audiences to think about (himself included).

[kaini]

 

brian eno sneakily took a piss in that, you know.

[Macca]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQYSRXT3CiU

I tell you what, even though the film doesn't look that brilliant (certainly looks intriguing though !) it certainly reaffirms my love for all things VHS. I just love that medium, it makes everything look just so nasty and gritty. Of all the CGI special effects and filters in the world, I'm yet to see anything that comes even close to the nuances of VHS degradation.

 

The trailer reminds me of this:

 

I FUCKING LOL'D

[Guest Glass Plate]

Comparing Korine to Duchamp doesn't really work.

[Siegecow]

Who gives a fuck why he made the movie or why he thinks people should give a shit about it. Harmony may not be the most articulate director, but he has a different perspective on filmaking and puts a lot of hard work into his visions which are more often than not, very successful.

hmm from everything I've read and seen this seems... a tad lacking.... filming on now ancient equipment (old VHS Stock), little to NO editing (as stated from his interviews), little to no cohesive narrative (as stated by many people who have seen it, critics alike and himself for stating that it is an "emotion" film. And generally unless there is a hard to do aesthetic - Like in Eraserhead where Lynch took Five Years to make certain props just right or in Tetsuo where Tsukamoto had all the actors do everything painstakingly slowly whilst filming just to speed it all up for effects that would last only a fraction of what it took to film- then it just looks lazy, all Korine did was film on old VHS stock no extra effort needed there then. The lack of specific narrative also means he has no timeline continuity issues to think about either and doesn't need to think about what he is filming as much).

Korine has also stated shooting to be "really really short" as well, again how much "hard work" could have been accomplished there?!?, the cast and crew were small too so it wouldn't have been difficult to organise either...

 

The amount of time it takes to produce a piece of work is mostly irrelevant. Is a Constable painting better than a malevich painting simply because he spent years doing figure studies or whatever? It's easy to say "all hes doing is xyz and anyone can do that" especially when the product isnt technically cutting edge. Look at Tim & Eric everyone thinks their job is so easy and theyre just taking the piss but the show itself is conceptually brilliant and well-executed, and in actuality it is probably near-impossible to replicate their success.

ultimately, i dont give a fuck what equipment they used, how long it took to draw whatever scene, or render some bullshit or comb the world for some stupid prop that gets all 20 seconds of screentime in a 2 hour film. Is the movie sucessful or not and why: bottom line, if you can make a great movie with 2 minutes, a disposable camera and a flashlight, youre a fucking genius, not a slacker.

[Guest blicero]

This is different. Duchamp didn't just do this for the sake of flippin a pisser. He is posing a question about art, namely, how are we to understand art in the 'modern' age where the conventions we relied on in the past to make sense of and enter into an aesthetic experience have come into question? He asks this question by questioning those conventions in the extreme. The point, as I understand it, isn't so much to decide whether "Fountain" is or isn't art, but to realize that we used to know how to answer the question 'What is art?', and now we don't, and that this is largely definitive of how art is made in our time.

 

That says a whole lot more than if Duchamp, interviewed, were to say "Huh huh, pissing on stuff is kool, heh m heh."

 

i didn't say that he did it as a prank, and i don't think i agree completely with your response. i thought it was generally believed that one of the main goals of the fountain was for Duchamp to really gutcheck society's accepted definition of art. when they declined to include the piece in the exhibit Duchamp resigned from the board, signalling that this particular board/jury had failed his test.

So the difference between our views seems to be that you think Duchamp had an idea of what makes something art (or at least, what would make "Fountain" fail to qualify as art), and the jury failed the test of these criteria that he put to them by offering this piece, whereas I think that Duchamp did not have a definite idea of what makes something art and was submitting the piece in order to raise this question for artists and audiences to think about (himself included).

 

i'm saying that his definition of art was "anything"

 

 

Comparing Korine to Duchamp doesn't really work.

 

i'm not really comparing them, i'm only using duchamp as an example of an artist who challenged the concept of "what is art?"

 

BTW, just because something is art does not give it any value or make it "good". There is shitty art, and there is good art. what makes good art is an entirely different convoluted conversation, that probably does not have a right answer.

[Macca]

Who gives a fuck why he made the movie or why he thinks people should give a shit about it. Harmony may not be the most articulate director, but he has a different perspective on filmaking and puts a lot of hard work into his visions which are more often than not, very successful.

hmm from everything I've read and seen this seems... a tad lacking.... filming on now ancient equipment (old VHS Stock), little to NO editing (as stated from his interviews), little to no cohesive narrative (as stated by many people who have seen it, critics alike and himself for stating that it is an "emotion" film. And generally unless there is a hard to do aesthetic - Like in Eraserhead where Lynch took Five Years to make certain props just right or in Tetsuo where Tsukamoto had all the actors do everything painstakingly slowly whilst filming just to speed it all up for effects that would last only a fraction of what it took to film- then it just looks lazy, all Korine did was film on old VHS stock no extra effort needed there then. The lack of specific narrative also means he has no timeline continuity issues to think about either and doesn't need to think about what he is filming as much).

Korine has also stated shooting to be "really really short" as well, again how much "hard work" could have been accomplished there?!?, the cast and crew were small too so it wouldn't have been difficult to organise either...

 

The amount of time it takes to produce a piece of work is mostly irrelevant. Is a Constable painting better than a malevich painting simply because he spent years doing figure studies or whatever? It's easy to say "all hes doing is xyz and anyone can do that" especially when the product isnt technically cutting edge. Look at Tim & Eric everyone thinks their job is so easy and theyre just taking the piss but the show itself is conceptually brilliant and well-executed, and in actuality it is probably near-impossible to replicate their success.

ultimately, i dont give a fuck what equipment they used, how long it took to draw whatever scene, or render some bullshit or comb the world for some stupid prop that gets all 20 seconds of screentime in a 2 hour film. Is the movie sucessful or not and why: bottom line, if you can make a great movie with 2 minutes, a disposable camera and a flashlight, youre a fucking genius, not a slacker.

You have a fair point, and I am still holding out to actually see the film before I say its a pile of shit anyway (if it is, if its great I'll be posting in here stating such)... its just everything that I've read and such ain't exactly giving me positive signals for it...

[encey]

i'm saying that his definition of art was "anything"

That wouldn't be a helpful definition. Then, the computer I'm typing on would be art. My current thought of a seven-penised rhinoceros would be art. Your grandmother's maiden name would be art. For a definition to do any work, it needs to distinguish between things that do and don't fall under it; otherwise, the term is as useless as 'thing.'

[tipper]

It looks like this would be amazing to watch high.

[Daxx]

this is quite possible the most desturbing thing i've seen in my whole life.

 

 

 

I'm guessing you havn't seen Salo:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6yojt_120-days-of-sodom-trailer-salo-120_shortfilms

 

Which is, interesting.

 

Or even Mum & Dad, which to be honest is a terribly bad film, I just wander why such a film is even made as Mum & Dad is far from anything vaguely artistic.

 

[Guest]

art is what you can sell as art.

so, anything can be art as long as there's an offer and a buyer.

 

let's top the embarrassment level of the "can video games be art?" thread.

[Caretstik]

I've no idea if Trash Humpers is art, shit or what, but the trailers certainly make it look shit to me.

[dr lopez]

pumpers better than humpers.

[Guest blicero]

i'm saying that his definition of art was "anything"

That wouldn't be a helpful definition. Then, the computer I'm typing on would be art. My current thought of a seven-penised rhinoceros would be art. Your grandmother's maiden name would be art. For a definition to do any work, it needs to distinguish between things that do and don't fall under it; otherwise, the term is as useless as 'thing.'

 

ok, you're right, let me revise my statement. i think duchamp's definition was that anything can be art, if someone does something to it to make it something new, or make people see it in a different way (i.e. a urinal can be art if you flip it 45° and call it "fountain")

[Redruth]

Of all the CGI special effects and filters in the world, I'm yet to see anything that comes even close to the nuances of VHS degradation.

[Redruth]

this is quite possible the most desturbing thing i've seen in my whole life.

 

 

I'm guessing you havn't seen Salo:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6yojt_120-days-of-sodom-trailer-salo-120_shortfilms

 

lol