There is so much wrong in this thread

From artists explaining the movements wrong, to the tired you just didn't get it, and the insulting if you knew more you'd like it. This is exactly why art house fare gets a bad rap. Please stop doing this. The art isn't pretentious with it's head up it's @$$, but many of it's fans are pseudo intellectuals that half understand something and pat themselves on the back for knowing just a bit more than the other guy. The appeal of this type of art sadly has come to being in the know.

On the other side, many of the complaints about modern and surreal art being bandied about should actually be directed at post modern art. Modern art is the deconstruction of the principles of classical art, there are very conscious decisions being made and the artists have to know the rules to break them. It is also done with a very specific point in mind which I will get to. Post modern art is the paintings with feces and the stacked plastic bags.

Classical art relies on order, harmony, balance, and completeness or whole-ness to represent beauty. The statue of David and the Mona Lisa fall into this category and they represent reality which leads people to talk about the subjects instead of the medium. When talking about David or Mona Lisa, viewers might talk about the man and the woman, but rarely the marble or the paint. Surrealists wanted only their art, the medium to talk about. For instance, Picaso, painted in the abstract bc all you could talk about was the paint and the strokes.

Surrealist film makers caught onto this bc they understood film was only an illusion, it did not represent anything real. So they broke from continuity editing and logical narrative. Instead of playing in order, harmony and whole-ness they are playing in chaos, contrast and destruction.

http://vimeo.com/25653921 this film was posted in another thread but explained wrong. The film maker isn't being weird to be weird, or purposely trying not to make any points. They are playing with color, saturation, editing, frame rate to make the viewer aware of the medium and force them to talk about the technique instead of the story. It was enjoyable in it's brevity but would be a chore at a feature length.

That film is made for other film makers and enthusiasts, they are going to get the most enjoyment out of it. The problem is when this niche thing is touted as better and superior. It's just different and some people's cup of tea. These artists and film makers aren't smarter than classical painters or Hollywood film makers. The goal of some is beauty while the goal of others is destruction they should only be judged on their ability to achieve the goal. Too many modern art pieces are celebrated just bc they attempted the goal instead of achieving it.

This is too much for me to get into since my senior thesis was on this, but I do agree with the posters that point out lauded films today by uncelebrated film makers like FGF, Hostel and Michael Bay are very close to surrealist and modern artists. It's just the perception of the "in" crowd that affects the reception. There is the good faith that Bunuel knows the rules he is breaking, while Bay is being absurd and illogical without realizing.

Lastly yes post modern is garbage. I have failed every student who has tried to get that crap by me. Creation should take work, effort, and evidence of man hours, whether it's beauty or destruction something has to be created. Post modern is half @$$ed putting this and that together. Most of their time is spent on coming up with the excuse to explain it, or as they say the "research".