Well, fair enough I suppose. I still feel that if people are able to learn just what constitutes a 'good' film then maybe, just maybe, more good films will be made. If the way to introduce them to a 'good' film is a final scene, taken out of context, then so be it!

In reply to this comment by budzos:
I see your point, but I still don't think the finale is a good way to introduce someone to this film.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
In my opinion, you're missing the point and, no offense, are being a bit elitist. Agreed- this film and other masterpieces of cinema should be seen on the silver screen, but like a lot of great art in an era of the mass consumption of populist media, it helps to have a gentle introduction by others who know better. Not everyone can attend film school, just like not everyone can afford to travel to Paris to visit the Louvre and see the Mona Lisa in person. I've been introduced to more than a few great and sometimes obscure films this way.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
I downvoted because this is a cinematic masterpiece and should never be presented as a Youtube clip. It offends me as a true lover of film. It's like looking at the Mona Lisa through a keyhole. I downvoted the last time someone else submitted it as well. I hadn't noticed your downvote, but thanks for caring so much.

I see your point, but I still don't think the finale is a good way to introduce someone to this film.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
In my opinion, you're missing the point and, no offense, are being a bit elitist. Agreed- this film and other masterpieces of cinema should be seen on the silver screen, but like a lot of great art in an era of the mass consumption of populist media, it helps to have a gentle introduction by others who know better. Not everyone can attend film school, just like not everyone can afford to travel to Paris to visit the Louvre and see the Mona Lisa in person. I've been introduced to more than a few great and sometimes obscure films this way.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
I downvoted because this is a cinematic masterpiece and should never be presented as a Youtube clip. It offends me as a true lover of film. It's like looking at the Mona Lisa through a keyhole. I downvoted the last time someone else submitted it as well. I hadn't noticed your downvote, but thanks for caring so much.

As for budzos' comment about downvoting this as you should only see it on the Silver Screen. In my opinion, you're missing the point and, no offense, are being a bit elitist. Agreed- this film and other masterpieces of cinema should be seen on the silver screen, but like a lot of great art in an era of the mass consumption of populist media, it helps to have a gentle introduction by others who know better. Not everyone can attend film school, just like not everyone can afford to travel to Paris to visit the Louvre and see the Mona Lisa in person. I've been introduced to more than a few great and sometimes obscure films this way.

In my opinion, you're missing the point and, no offense, are being a bit elitist. Agreed- this film and other masterpieces of cinema should be seen on the silver screen, but like a lot of great art in an era of the mass consumption of populist media, it helps to have a gentle introduction by others who know better. Not everyone can attend film school, just like not everyone can afford to travel to Paris to visit the Louvre and see the Mona Lisa in person. I've been introduced to more than a few great and sometimes obscure films this way.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
I downvoted because this is a cinematic masterpiece and should never be presented as a Youtube clip. It offends me as a true lover of film. It's like looking at the Mona Lisa through a keyhole. I downvoted the last time someone else submitted it as well. I hadn't noticed your downvote, but thanks for caring so much.

I downvoted because this is a cinematic masterpiece and should never be presented as a Youtube clip. It offends me as a true lover of film. It's like looking at the Mona Lisa through a keyhole. I downvoted the last time someone else submitted it as well. I hadn't noticed your downvote, but thanks for caring so much.

i know it's off-topic but...

anyone else notice that issykitty's new avatar pic has that mona-lisas-eyes-following-me vibe?

change it back. you're creepin' me out.

Alright, some sceptical model, I'm totally legit. Look here's my portfolio: you'll notice that mona lisa was also done by me.. in this picture of a comic I drew.

Now please take you clothes off, and I'll get my vagicam.... what..?

Discard??? Joe, did DaVinci discard the Mona Lisa???

hi-five, dystopian, for actually interesting me enough to look up the dictionary definition of the word "art"

art1
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

so by this definition, the video of the crying brittany spears guy is not "art" and neither is this video. no upvote for you.

but then, to play devils advocate, the definition itself is very vague, based on the differences of human beings themselves. what is art? is art simply someone doing something they love to the best of their ability? if picasso was having a shitty day and made an equally shitty painting, is it still art? if i paint a POS better than anything i've ever done before, is it as much a piece of art as the mona lisa?

i think artwork is too abstract to even have a definition. but hey, this is the inter-butts, im sure theres someone out there who can (and will) correct me.

(and i also giggled a little at the video. there i said it.)

Erm, it contradicts itself straight away.

First it says that the pose was relaxed and revolutionary for its time as most were profiles, and shows a collection of contemporary upper body, profile portraits, and then almost straight after it says that the close cropped nature was also revolutionary as most portraits were full length, even though all the ones they just showed were MORE cropped than the Mona Lisa

By that logic, Goatse is a supreme work of art.

Are you insinuating the contrary? Its the Mona lisa of our time, clearly.

"Mona Lisa's pose... was revolutionary"

By that logic, Goatse is a supreme work of art.

There are many subjective theories of why it's so famous -- because of the mysterious smile, because of mathematical perfection of the ratios of lengths in the painting, and so on

Personally I like the theory that the main reason Mona Lisa's fame is because Leonardo was especially fond of it, and promoted it heavily, taking it to many exhibitions during his time

"Hey Mona Lisa... you half-smiling at me?
let's see you half-smile with my balls in your mouth"
*jumps the painting*

Lance Armstrong, super-president of France.

Yay, let's dilute art with advertising! Great idea!

The Mona Lisa would look great with a pair of "LensCrafter"TM glasses! Michelangelo's David would be much less offensive with an "UnderArmor"TM jockstrap! Rosebud would glide faster with "Super Galaxo MegaSpeed"TM wax! Lawrence of Arabia only drinks from "UltraAqua Rain"TM canteens, and Michael Corleone endorses "Smith & Wesson"TM, brought to you by "Big Boom Super-Cool Awesome Ammo!"R!

Pay me, or I'll ruin your art....

No thanks, I'd rather pay the artist directly for their work than let advertisers into the loop.

I've too often experienced those 3D, full-motion, 20-second NASCAR "bugs" on top of my Shakespeare, David Lean, Mozart, Antonioni, and Jean-Pierre Jeunet experiences...it's always jarring, and never pleasant.

The presenter answers questions from the audience very poorly as well, saying that people will put up with obnoxious ads only to a point, but has no suggestions as to how to contradict this inherent flaw.

'Let's put ads in, see what peoples' thresholds are, and standardize around that.'

'The intrusive bug / advertisement is implanted deep within your consciousness, which is exactly where the advertiser wants it! Yes!' (he actually exalts in this)

Digital distribution of art is a great thing. Subsidizing it through advertising, and thus adulterating it, is not.