Art vs. Artful

“At issue here is the intentionality of the artist, as opposed to that of the television executive or even commercial filmmaker or video maker: the work is not a product for sale or mass consumption.”  I found this distinction to be fascinating because I have often tried to discern what qualifies something as art.  It seems that Rush believes that if one has the intention of exploiting his work in the hopes of making a profit, then he can not qualify his work as art.  Even more interesting is the separation of the terms “art” and “artful.”  Rush says that a commercial filmmaker can use artful techniques to elevate his work, but because his intention is to make money, he cannot call his film “art.”  This reminded me of an interview that I saw with the Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn, who discussed Michael Bay, one of the most well known commercial filmmakers, and showed that his films have a very specific and extravagant visual language.  He also went on to discuss Christopher Nolan, who I believe exemplifies Rush’s definition of an artist, and how even though his films go on to gross millions of dollars, they are still considered great films.

 The clips that I thought were interesting appear from 34:30-35:30 and 36:00-36:45.