Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
Who is trashier than a career criminal involved in organized crime?
Do You Consider Dallas To Be Art?
- Thread starter Kenny Coyote
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
Who is trashier than a career criminal involved in organized crime?
James from London
International Treasure
Well, of course, Tony Soprano was more than that, which was sort of the starting point for the series.
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
I didn't see a whole lot of The Sopranos. When I stopped watching, he was still a mafioso. Did he ever get out of that life and become a good, productive man?
James from London
International Treasure
Well, he was always productive.
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
What has that got to do with popularity, let alone art?
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
It's a response to your statement: it's so much more fun to talk about trash.
Again, Fileman used the word "trash" to describe something with a widespread appeal, but I know not everyone here is using that meaning for "trash." For those using "trash" in its more conventional meaning of garbage, scum or crap, I can't think of a more unflattering, disrespectful, and inaccurate way to describe Dallas.
Is there any of you who can honestly say you would have had the audacity to have walked up to Larry Hagman or Barbara Bel Geddes in the early 80s and said something along the lines of: "I love your work in Dallas; it's such trash!" or even "I've seen you in Dallas. That show is trash!"
Last edited:
James from London
International Treasure
I once complimented Larry Hagman on his disabled toilet story. That's about it really.
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
Tony Soprano, as I remember him, was anything but that. He was a man opposed to productive work, he was a thug who, with his other mafiosos, stole and extorted the fruits of the labor of men who actually did do productive work so that they themselves could live a luxurious lifestyle without having to do productive work. They were parasites who lived off of the productive work of other men. If one wants trash, The Sopranos is the story of the scummiest, most depraved sort of men.
James from London
International Treasure
They're very funny though.
Taylor Bennett Jr.
Telly Talk Winner
a career criminal involved in organized crime whose ‘legit job’ was in waste management?
Last edited:
Jimmy Todd
Telly Talk Mega Star
@Toni made an excellent point about the observer's relationship to art. I believe there are standards to what constitutes true "art," but I don't know exactly what they are, lol. There's too much subjectivity. For example, James Joyce is considered one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, but Virginia Woolf was very dismissive of his work. Was Ms. Woolf right? Was there jealousy? Could there be a degree of bias against an Irish writer? Is it some combination of all of these?
There's also the "snob" factor when it comes to art. There are some who will never consider anything on television art, or if it falls under the category "soap opera." Critics in the 80s became so critical of prime time soaps to the point where, imho, they weren't really being objective.
I love the Seinfeld episode where Elaine's boss, and everyone else, is trying to convince her how great the movie The English Patient is, which she has seen and didn't like He drags her to a showing and she finally stands up in the theater and rants about how overrated the movie is. My point is that sometimes we are hit over the head with how "brilliant" or "trashy" something is that we can fall into a kind of "groupthink" and lose objectivity.
There's also the "snob" factor when it comes to art. There are some who will never consider anything on television art, or if it falls under the category "soap opera." Critics in the 80s became so critical of prime time soaps to the point where, imho, they weren't really being objective.
I love the Seinfeld episode where Elaine's boss, and everyone else, is trying to convince her how great the movie The English Patient is, which she has seen and didn't like He drags her to a showing and she finally stands up in the theater and rants about how overrated the movie is. My point is that sometimes we are hit over the head with how "brilliant" or "trashy" something is that we can fall into a kind of "groupthink" and lose objectivity.
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
The quality of a story is defined by the integrity of its characters? Then DALLAS is in big trouble.
Barbara Fan
Admin
I dont consider Dallas to be Art, I consider it a soap opera
The Art in Dallas was Art Hindle who played Jeff Farraday
The Art in Dallas was Art Hindle who played Jeff Farraday
Lastkidpicked
Telly Talk Dream Maker
This is a very interesting thread. All of you make some good points and it is fun to read what you are saying.
I'd like you to look at Oxford's definition of art:
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
In that definition, I would say that Dallas qualifies. And here is an example of what I appreciate about the art of Dallas:
Look at how much thought went into setting up this scene. Notice that even if you know nothing about the scene, you can tell that Jock is the man in charge of this conversation.
Look even at the choices the actors made for this shot. Jim Davis is already tall, and he adds to this his cowboy hat, drawing your eye up towards the sky and making him appear larger than life.
David Wayne goes the opposite direction. Bundled up, hunched over slightly. Notice Digger's hands as well. He isn't holding a drink, and his arms are tight against his body as if not drinking is making him physically uncomfortable.
Also, look at the trees in the background. They are only dormant, but they look dead. And notice the clothes they are wearing-- drab colors. This is interesting considering that they are together for a happy occasion-- Pam is on the nest!
The beauty of this artwork is how it makes you feel-- you can almost feel that sense of foreboding, and of course we now know there is a reason for it.
I'd like you to look at Oxford's definition of art:
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
In that definition, I would say that Dallas qualifies. And here is an example of what I appreciate about the art of Dallas:
Look at how much thought went into setting up this scene. Notice that even if you know nothing about the scene, you can tell that Jock is the man in charge of this conversation.
Look even at the choices the actors made for this shot. Jim Davis is already tall, and he adds to this his cowboy hat, drawing your eye up towards the sky and making him appear larger than life.
David Wayne goes the opposite direction. Bundled up, hunched over slightly. Notice Digger's hands as well. He isn't holding a drink, and his arms are tight against his body as if not drinking is making him physically uncomfortable.
Also, look at the trees in the background. They are only dormant, but they look dead. And notice the clothes they are wearing-- drab colors. This is interesting considering that they are together for a happy occasion-- Pam is on the nest!
The beauty of this artwork is how it makes you feel-- you can almost feel that sense of foreboding, and of course we now know there is a reason for it.
Kenny Coyote
Telly Talk Star
Why do you consider them mutually exclusive?
Dallas has acting: A performing art
Dallas has music: A performing art
Dallas has cinematography: A visual art
Dallas has creative writing in the form of scripts: A written art
This is a very interesting thread. All of you make some good points and it is fun to read what you are saying.
I'd like you to look at Oxford's definition of art:
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
In that definition, I would say that Dallas qualifies. And here is an example of what I appreciate about the art of Dallas:
Look at how much thought went into setting up this scene. Notice that even if you know nothing about the scene, you can tell that Jock is the man in charge of this conversation.
Look even at the choices the actors made for this shot. Jim Davis is already tall, and he adds to this his cowboy hat, drawing your eye up towards the sky and making him appear larger than life.
David Wayne goes the opposite direction. Bundled up, hunched over slightly. Notice Digger's hands as well. He isn't holding a drink, and his arms are tight against his body as if not drinking is making him physically uncomfortable.
Also, look at the trees in the background. They are only dormant, but they look dead. And notice the clothes they are wearing-- drab colors. This is interesting considering that they are together for a happy occasion-- Pam is on the nest!
The beauty of this artwork is how it makes you feel-- you can almost feel that sense of foreboding, and of course we now know there is a reason for it.
Excellent post, Lastkidpicked!
Everything you're referring to is either in the acting: A performing art, or in some aspect of the visual arts such as cinematography.
I appreciate your thoroughness in consulting the Oxford dictionary for the definition of art. After all, it's kind of tough to say whether Dallas is or is not art without clearly defining art, isn't it?
If your read more closely, you'll notice I didn't say that. What I said was in response to a poster's statement: "It's so much more fun to talk about trash." In fact, that quote is from you. I responded to that quote of yours by asking: "Who is trashier than a career criminal involved in organized crime?"
Let me ask you a question: Since you describe Dallas and soap opera in general as "trash", and one would think that's because you consider "trash" the best description of Dallas and not because it's a flattering way to describe a show you like very much, then, that being said:
If you had met Barbara Bel Geddes or Larry Hagman while they were still alive, and you felt like complimenting Dallas, would you have said anything along the lines of: "I love Dallas. It's such good trash! I especially appreciate the specific trash you contribute to the overall trash which is Dallas" or, would you have maybe chosen not to describe either Dallas, or their specific acting scenes as "trash"?
Toni
Maximum Member
This is a very interesting thread. All of you make some good points and it is fun to read what you are saying.
I'd like you to look at Oxford's definition of art:
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
In that definition, I would say that Dallas qualifies. And here is an example of what I appreciate about the art of Dallas:
Look at how much thought went into setting up this scene. Notice that even if you know nothing about the scene, you can tell that Jock is the man in charge of this conversation.
Look even at the choices the actors made for this shot. Jim Davis is already tall, and he adds to this his cowboy hat, drawing your eye up towards the sky and making him appear larger than life.
David Wayne goes the opposite direction. Bundled up, hunched over slightly. Notice Digger's hands as well. He isn't holding a drink, and his arms are tight against his body as if not drinking is making him physically uncomfortable.
Also, look at the trees in the background. They are only dormant, but they look dead. And notice the clothes they are wearing-- drab colors. This is interesting considering that they are together for a happy occasion-- Pam is on the nest!
The beauty of this artwork is how it makes you feel-- you can almost feel that sense of foreboding, and of course we now know there is a reason for it.
A great post in a very interesting thread indeed. I also took notice of little things every time I re-watch the show, or even when I just search on new clips to make my clips. For one of them ("Tour-de-force performances") I chose the scene with Dusty visiting Sue Ellen at the sanitarium from the Dream Season. Why? Because someone who was used to spend 2 hours at makeup and hair, obviously HAD TO act differently when she was not wearing it.
I'm not talking about those scenes with the bums that have come across as shock value through the years. I'm talking about a scene where Linda is wearing a robe in bed and minimal makeup, and the camera is very close to her and Jared Martin. Well, what amazed me was how Linda was using her hands in that scene, which I'd never noticed. She embraces him, and then keeps him very close to her, almost in a creepy, desperate way (you can the scene below).
The scene is not too long, but Linda keeps holding her arms around him tightly, until she lets him go and exquisitely (almost in a Joan-Van-Ark way) displays a lot of emotions within a couple of minutes. That´s an example of what "Dallas" could do best, talk about emotions, and they did this in its eight (ninth upon Warner) year. Of course, I used this scene as a proof of Linda's best work on the show, but it's subjective, of course. Here is the scene if you wanna re-watch it (I hope I didn't go too much off-topic):
Last edited:
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
That comment was very tongue in cheek, and only meant to emphasize why people are still talking about Dallas (well, this forum anyway) and not about the Sopranos (although I've never bothered to find a Sopranos fan website).
TV shows like The Sopranos and Mad Men don't really guide the viewer from point A to B. The viewer doesn't watch it as being the "jury", moral conflicts are usually not presented in a good vs bad design - basically, the viewer is left to his own devices.
That also makes it rather difficult to discuss, I think.
I know we don't always like the exact same things, but generally speaking we know why we all like & dislike DALLAS (or any of the other soaps) and that's why it's much easier to make a connection with other fans.
The fascination for soap opera is that it's often so good when it really shouldn't be, because these ongoing tv sagas weren't created for the purpose of being exceptional or to make a statement or to create an awareness. It's created to continue, and hopefully the viewers continue with it. But you won't be able to string the viewers along for such a long time if you offer them nothing but garbage.
As for being the most popular -> that's why it has to be the best -> that's why it's art. Well, you may have noticed (or not) that the Knots forum is rather quite compared to the Dallas forum.
That's not because there aren't any Knots fans here, or because it wasn't interesting, it's because there isn't much to complain about. We can almost totally accept it the way it is, like you would accept....well, art?
The clashing ingredients are more apparent on Dallas and Dynasty, and that's why we can't stop talking about it. Trying to understand how it could be so good, or trying to justify why we watched this trash-with-class in the first place. It's a bit like dancing, and you're not sure who's leading who.
Alexis
Telly Talk Superhero
Is art a good or almost perfect version of something. Or a version of something that challenges the norm? A painting, a sculpture, a book, a poem, a song? A play? A soap opera? Was Dallas, at it's peak innovative, creative and exciting? Probably. Then it's art. There's a whole creative process involved there. I think it's art, it stands there for all time now. To be viewed and appreciated and valued or depreciated or criticized. It's art in the medium of soap opera.
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
I like that idea. But was Dallas the only one?
And is it possible to be art in the medium of other genres? Sci-fiction, western, reality TV?
Last edited: