From daily commuter freebie Metro, Weds March 16 2005:
“The 25-year old London based Canadian investmaent banker was dumped just before New Year’s Day last year and discovered within a couple of weeks that his ex had a new beau. However, instead of moping around resigned to his fate, David offered 1500 pounds to anyone who was willing to seduce his competitor and show his ex what an unfaithful toerag she’d left him for.”
There’s a photo of the guy. He’s grinning at the camera.
This is what a lifetime of Hollywood romantic comedies will do to you. Remember, folks: in a movie, it’s cute. In the real world, it’s creepy.
Once again life is stranger than fiction…
Or perhaps life imitates art, except that you’d be struggling to call “those” kind of romantic comedies art. Still, if tatooing someone on stage is art, then I suppose cheesy romantic comedies is art.
But then I’d be happier labelling them both as something else personally.
Art isn’t a value judgement, and life also imitates lousy art.
What’s art that one thing is art and another thing isn’t art when they belong to the same genre (here read “romantic comedy”)?
What about art isn’t a value judgement. When I say “I like this and I don’t like that” how am I not expressing both valuyes and judgement.
It might not be a value judgement based on anything other than personal preference. But it’s still a value judgement.
Genre doesn’t dictate what art is IMO. Art might be a matter of opinion (though I think there is some basis for agreement here) but I think you’ll find artistic things in a genre that also has things that are not ‘artistic’.
Personally I don’t really think about any movies as art in the strict sense. But that’s just me.
And that’s a a big part of the problem, differing definitions of what art might be.