RE: ART vs. DRAMA

["Nelson Zagalo" <ntz@ca.ua.pt>]

<It all hinges on this rather arbitrary distinction of yours about
'decoration' >

I must agree with the "decoration" term.

I see decoration as the opposite of art in terms of the effectiveness of
the cognitive and emotional change. How can we measure it?

In my view through the use of time as measurer, in order to see the
lasting and so the effectiveness of the people changing. We can easily
see that art painting techniques from XIX century are being used today
in a so formulaic way that people only feel changed at the first time
they are in contact with the object, or we can say for a real short
period of time. Art is not supposed to be Fashion phased, it's supposed
to last. If not for the emotional change at least for the cognitive
change, albeit being impossible to do this type of separation. 

Some of the most famous Hitchcock films don't have the emotional effects
today they had in the 50's. Mostly because they can't compete with
everything that has been invented since then and also have pushed his
concepts of suspense and thriller forward. However they still produce a
lot of cognitive effects on people, which brings new emotional levels to
the enjoyment of the artworks.

It's easy to classify Rocky as an artistic film on the contrary of Rocky
V. Not because of being a commercial exploitation, but only because
there was nothing in the film really able to transform people. Artists
behind Rocky V were merely decorating and not creating any art.

nelson