What are some maximalist films

minimalist but the opposite

This (but Post-Ironically)

Maximalist is a faulty notion, not really useful or apt as a descriptor. It's just kind of implied or presumed to be the opposite of minimalism (rarely used knowledgeably itself), but which might be mistaken as having import since an inspiring sophisticate learns the word minimalism and of its supposed relevance, and then maybe starts to build a binary from this involving minimalism vs maximalism. But really it's just minimalism vs a complexity that's already the normal state of things... it's just normal. If 'maximalism' is ever apt as a descriptor it would only apply to some rare extreme that would usually be unnecessary and overkill. It's just that one who's always looking for minimalism will then think that everything that isn't minimalism looks like maximalism.

It's very much like people learning about 'modernism' and then presuming the next or other thing is 'postmodernism' which becomes just a catch-all for anything and a buzzword for someone not actually informed or inspired.

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance

In other words it's a lazy catch all that just throws a multiverse of totally different things into the same box... aka ignorant / lazy / lame thinking.

It's like saying that anything that isn't Donald Judd, whether Rauschenberg or Picasso or Hockney, is maximalism... that anything that doesn't boil things down to a featureless, basic platonic form or single gesture... is maximalism, but rather, it's just that minimalism is the extreme and everything else then gets retroactively defined as some excess.

says you

Let the Corpses Tan

Attached: corpses tan.gif (480x206, 1.08M)

Well, I would know. I'm pretty damned specialized in this sort of thing (literally majored in these areas in a top art school), and people who actually know and are involved in art don't really use the word because they actually know what they'd dealing with so don't reach for catch-all hack-words. Same reason nobody I know in the art scene ever talks about 'postmodernism' or describes any work as postmodern categorically.

And it's not that some outsider is going to tell them what they're doing because I assure you artists are insanely more knowledgeable and articulate in these kinds of things... the necessary education they have to have and the game they're playing requires it.

kewlz

I mean artists aren't musicians. Musicians are just cool prettyboys who pick up on one given style and practice it enough to be satisfactory. There's no requirement to shape and conceptualize your own completely distinct practice. Whereas artists have to absorb the entirety of art history, past and present. And they always have had to, it's not new. So they don't just mumble ignorantly about this stuff the way musicians do.

Under the skin

DEAD LEAVES

AVENGERS ENDGAME

not sure about cultural significance in film as a term, but as a descriptor i think it still works. I've always thought of movies that have an overwhelming quality, usually aesthetically.

Attached: redline.gif (400x224, 2.7M)

fucking thank you

ITS DISCORDANT

DONT USE LABELS, ITS LAZY AND IMPLIES A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
BUT GO TO TOP ART SCHOOLS TO EDUCATE YOURSELF ON ALL THE LABELS

THIS IS WHY OUTSIDER ART IS VALUED, NO PRECONCEPTIONS OR ACADEMIC CATCH 22S

Based on the amount of people crying about headaches after seeing the films I would say transformers

Well, it's just a lazy term.

Like maximalism is just something big in scale, like Lawrence of Arabia? ...so just an Epic?

Or maybe, is it something with a lot of stuff packed into it? I mean sure, there can conversely be stories that try to be simple and no-budget / no-frills, and perhaps have only one character in a stark environment or empty room.... but just because someone might do that doesn't mean that anything that's not like that is 'maximalist'. I mean, life / the world has a lot of stuff in it. That's just the normal state of things. Is Tarkvosky maximalist because of the rich detail and all the strange objects in his shots? Or is, I dunno, E.T. maximalist because the family lives in a realistically cluttered house?

Or I suppose there's also maybe the possible notion of a supposed maximalism meaning a lot of different styles packed within the same movie or art work. But generally this is rarely done to be *about* that being maximalist. Dada had all kinds of dissonant sources juxtaposed. Surrealism evoked slipstreams of dreamy, far-flung encounters and convergences. But you wouldn't call them maximalist. In the case of a collage or juxtaposition or cramming of different styles, firstly, they usually come to synthesize into a new thing, and there are too many different hybrid forms to reduce them all to each other. But to just be about a 'maximalist' glut it would have to be isolating that. There are only a brief handful of paintings in the late 80s and 90s doing this and then the point was kind of made... David Salle in the OP pick being one example. It's a really generic take on 'postmodern juxtaposition'!! without there being any other dimension to it. Whereas I wouldn't reduce Rauschenberg to simply that. There's a lot more going on with Rauschenberg, or with Daniel Spoerri or whoever. Or as I said, Surrealism doesn't just get reduced to 'maximalism' or whatever.

I'm saying that the internet is full of know-nothings that think because they have watched one or two Bergman films or took a basic art history class in college ("I know who the SITUATIONISTS are! I know who ROTHKO is!!") or that they're music nerds that this means they can just throw around non-art buzzwords and think it can cut it. I'm not arguing for catch-all labels but there is certainly a LOT of knowledge in any discipline, that takes a good decade to scratch the surface, and so it's more nuanced.

It's like I'm not just going to go and start throwing around wild claims about hip-hop because I learned that there was GANGSTER rap, so other things I'm hearing must be ANTI-GANGSTER or POST-GANGSTER. It's fucking hackish.

post tunes /lbg/
youtube.com/watch?v=85zwU12nvL4

I mean it really just comes down to that if something isn't your fucking specialty and discipline and you haven't put a good 15 years in intensive work and study into it then if you try to think you can just bluff and act like you know anything you'll come across as a pathetic tryhard fool to me. You'd be throwing a lot of buzzwords around emptily and saying every other thing just totally wrong and clearly not having any insight or experience to back it up. That's just how it is when people have actually put in the time. You don't go to a fucking physicist and presume you can just 'fake it' and discuss the subject on his level? It's like people smoke a blunt and look at the pretty colors of a painting and think it all must be frivolous and easy and you can just say whatever. And someone doing that at best sounds like a guy saying he's a huge music fan and then name-dropping Nirvana and Elvis, and saying they're great metal acts.

Post epic