I'm having an argument w a friend. So, to those who are underlying fans of the Avenger films (or not), is it art, or is it a spectacle?

I'm a fan on them. I think arguing that the Avengers films (or the MCU in general) are simply style with no substance would be ignoring a lot of the far more complex plot devices at play throughout the majority of the instalments.

For example, the relationship between Pepper Potts and Tony Stark born in the first Iron Man film. It's far from superficial. Pepper isn't window dressing, she's not a bond girl and she's not just there for the ride. She is a sensitive, intelligent woman, the beating heart of the film's most important plot device and I would bet on a whim that she has more screen time than the film's villain. Besides, it's not really a film of how Tony Stark became Iron Man (though that's important), it's more of a story of how Tony Stark the womaniser becomes Tony Stark the man and it's through his romantic, platonic relationship with Pepper Potts that we witness that transition.

Black Panther, equally, is thematically deep. Wakanda is seen by the rest of the world as a third-world state in poverty. The moral dilemma of whether to share their technology, their wealth of resources, with the rest of the world to try and do "good" is an ever-present question throughout. Hardly the kind of plot device at work in an action flick, a spectacle absent of substance, intended only to thrill the common denominator.

Just going to throw out that the English dialect is complicated as fukk in terms of defining & having a bearing on particular words as a good amount below is going to be inter-subjective, but that being said, not here to be the devil's advocate against any MCU's films because as much as I support the Studio, the genre is sole centered around spectacle and the introduction of any said power; whereas, there's no real depth to any given film. Not an inherently bad feature because they do have the edge over other studio companies for their jarring effects but when you use the same formula in ea. arc, yes, because it exists, and works, but it begins to loses it's impression. MCU revolve around character development, reminiscence, and spectacle.

Again, this isn't a "Marvel is second-rate" or anything remotely similar, but rather it's not a practical form of art. But does come down to how you would define art, but let's keep it to the said spectrum.

Maybe I'm referencing more towards the Avenger films in whole disregarding their separate screenings because it's fair to say they each have their own unique way of adding more than an anticipated fight scene, but when it comes to say the first Avengers, Civil / Infinity War with no premise other than dramatic public display of conflict. That's their thrill, and that's what the audience is normally looking for when they come to midnight theaters, but it's hard to relate it to other films that don't fit on the particular spectrum in those terms.

You can argue it both ways. It's entertainment in the way that it's a big blockbuster movie, but every movie is an art with it's own personality thats further extended by the connections they have due to being in a shared universe. Nobody is wrong to call it one or the other, but denying that it';s either of them is just incorrect.

Well, they aren't art films by definition of course. Even so, the identification of an art film doesn't necessarily mean that every film outside that sub-genre is absent of the characteristics used to define art. By that definition we say it has merit, particularly if we're prone to critical thinking. If it has emotional depth and it inspires a feeling in me then it's a piece of art. This is why non-artists look at some pieces and say "I could have done that", but it's only because they don't understand some of those art movements and what inspired those pieces. Consequently, they are doomed to fail when their soul examines them and looks for something that's supposed to trigger an emotional response. You might hate the dot on the canvas a little less if you understood why it was a dot on the canvas. Likewise, if you're into Spring Breakers, you might not like Age of Ultron. Because what one experience gives you is absent from the next experience. One is far more abstract and subtle in what it is communicating to its audience and the other is not.

The Civil War was a public display of conflict yes, it was spectacle yes, but if you had watched the previous films in the MCU you would have built something of a personal relationship with some of these characters. Suddenly the fight has raised stakes, these are characters you admire and they are fighting over the issue of the Sokovia Accords. Maybe you even picked your side, maybe you had to watch two heroes you revered try to inflict pain on one another to prove they were right, to prove that their path was the most righteous and the most virtuous. The moment when they clash is spectacle but it's not absent of substance. It's not style for style's sake, it's the moment when the saucepan has boiled over, when the tension has reached tipping point and the only path left to take is the one that leads to violence. In that moment, I felt like I was witnessing a piece of art unfold.

Like Sugoni, I agree that it's tough to make an argument either way. A spectrum cannot have art on one side and spectacle on the other, because spectacle can be art. Likewise, substance can be stylish. You have to find two pieces of defining criteria that cancel each other out but I believe it impossible to make such a discussion of films as black and white as that.

yes

Let me rephrase, so, can mainstream films, like The Avengers, be considered an art? Would say yes, of course, like the very well-known blockbuster tent-pole, Steven Spielberg’s Jaws has a killer view with a subtle, creative observation of the human psyche. But when you collectively bring together a ton of motion pictures with no actual premise other than what catches the eye of an audience, whether it be for distribution or marketing, it becomes a less form of art with less substance, integrity, and/or creativity, and becomes an aspect of marketing in spectacle and escapism. The polarity of the two don't stand near each other.

Mainstream film media's major desire is the need for raw talent, and action, intended for a mass audience and when the gags and/or action fillers incredibly outweigh the premise of the film it becomes a sole spectacle mask. The term is thrown around like a marker of cinematic depth. Whereas films with no commercial impulse for the making & directing of a film or those with an auteur director are the ones I'd considered to be a form *key word* of visual art; adheres to no narrative ruling to where it's narrative comprehension becomes more fluid and less solid by appeal to evaluative criteria. There's an intuitive distinction between films that clearly qualify as art (e.g. Forrest Gump) and those that don’t (e.g Avengers: Infinity War).

Art status seems to depend on there being something about the work that elicits an aesthetic response on the viewer that being it's intrinsic features; such as color, shape, motion, and/or rhythm. To say that something is anything doesn't simply mean it allows that something to be that; it has to also, in some sense, be given. Additionally, it's possible that any film could be viewed from an aesthetic stance, but only some invite that stance. May be focusing on individual merits, but as I said earlier, inter-subjective, just wanna say that. My personal preference, but don't confuse personal taste, with objective worth.

But, good way of wording / phrasing it. Like the side of it.


Film have genres, and they have forms, not all are considered works of art. Could say against art / non art boundary, or that all film is art, and other films have a higher and/or lower levels of art than another, but then it becomes too restrictive because then you can't put maybe an artistic masterwork into any category of art, and at that point you now have to consider other domains; novels, music, so on. Basically ea. film has and is created with an artistic performance, but on it's own rights, is no form of art. It's under debate. According to your standpoint, there is no principled way of differing Avengers: Infinity War & Annihilation, that's counting an airplane safety film or infomercials as art.

Art is so inclusive, just by saying that it becomes inconclusive.

Just a bit from a book in-class I'm currently reading but here are three theories that define what qualifies as art;

> Dickie’s Institutional Theory says that a work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to the public of art. Mainstream films, or holywood blockbusters, aren't made to be publicized as art so, on the face of it, they do not seem to qualify as art.
>> Second theory, Levinson’s Historical Theory, which is said that for anything to be considered a work of art it has to be intended to be regarded in ways in which objects the of "requirements" of art. Here again, most films don't hit that sense of direction. Did the creators of Lethal Weapon intend their film to be regarded in ways that characterize the ways of art based on other artworks and/or films regarded as so? Presumably not. Not only is there no explicit intention to be making something that falls in the same class as recognize artworks, there is also a sense in which the manner of regard sought is radically different.
>>> And thirdly, Carroll’s own Narrative Theory that ea. film must have a narrative yet considers all film to be art as well, but can't forget silent films, basically categorizes a huge slot of film out. And because these theories are independently motivated, this seems like a reasonable way to settle a debate.