He's right, you know

>>86893226
shutup bald manlet faggot

the average /tv/ user doesn't even have the attention span to read all the text in that image OP

I took a landscape architecture course, once. It was a very fun elective course where this older gentleman basically just showed pictures of his vacations to national parks and such. The big message he always tried to get out was that nature is not art. That art may imitate nature or be inspired by it, but that nature alone is not art.

Renoir is 100% correct. Don't simply recreate what already exists. Expand upon it and create something more imaginative and fantastic. Film makers today are spoiled and lazy and it shows.

>>86893226
Its true
Artistic re-creations of nature are sterile secondaries of the real.
Man knew this and only did so to practice devotion to the perfection of god himself, we create art now in relation to the natural ideal as it relates to man himself.

All the world, natural and synthetic is only as important as it is in relation to mankind and more importantly what is perceived and felt.
The beautiful is the imagination and perspective of nature, nature cannot itself ever be beautiful, it merely *is* it is man and his infinite appreciation that is beautiful.

>Oh shit im about to die, better declare everything from here on obsolete lmao

Fuck you Hitchcock you fat faggot.

File: Bresson Bond.jpg (536KB, 756x4211px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 756x4211px

He's right, you know

File: 1301149716778.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>86893495
>Hitchcock

>>86893226
that makes no sense
tommy wiseue didn`t perfect his technique and look at the raw shit he produced

>realism is boring
This is just wrong. The problem with art is that there is little reason to continually study a still image for so long. When you have seen everything to see there is no reason not to move on
Contemporary art doesn't make me think, and if you need a description to get anything at all out of the work it is shit

The medium is mostly flawed anyway, words have more worth than images and that will always be the case

>literally 90% of /tv/edditors will think that's Hitchcock
the state of this board

>>86893226
just because the technique is perfected doesn't mean the art has no value. What a nonsensical conclusion he's drawn.

File: file.png (71KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 183x275px

>>86893729
>Falling for the bait

Can someone tell me what he meant by this? I understand it in relation to paintings but how does this apply to movies?

>>86893820
no, because human relationships as depicted in movies are not nature as nature Renoir mentioned is the outer appearance of things

>>86893551
Wow, didn't know the director of Valerian is so old

>>86893226
He's right t.bh
Compare Renoir's kinos with most contemporary french films
There you go

File: 1346173126262.jpg (82KB, 336x419px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 336x419px

He's right, you know

>>86894346
>sociopaths and psychopaths often love animals
hmm