With regards to the whole, "it's art if one or two people work on it, but not a large team" idea, let's remember that much of Medieval and Renaissance paintings and sculpture were actually created by whole teams of people, with the attributed artist merely being the lead of the operation, with many craftsmen working underneath him with direction.

It's just that the lead artist was the only one that signed their name.

Agreed with Mike on all points.

Is Blackhawk Down not art because of Full Metal Jacket and From Here to Eternity?

You wouldn't be the first person to come along and parody my parody, son.

But you might just be the craziest! Someone get this man a wise cracking dog!

For me, I find it helps clarify the topic by separating art out into distinct categories. And these are the definitions and distinctions I've laid out for myself, though far from any degree of certainty about the subject:

Narrative art and experimental art. Fundamentally, the whole point of artistic endeavors and creative expression is to further our understanding of who we are and the nature of the universe and how those pieces fit together. Art that tries to do that, I consider "narrative art," or art that has a point it's trying to convey through some kind of story. And yes, story can exist in mediums other than books, film, and stage.

Then there is experimental art, by which I don't necessarily mean the crazy crap in a modern art museum. Those things are that, but the term is broader than just them. Experimental art I define as any creative expression where the artist is testing a new tool or technique to see what the results will be. Ultimately, the point of experimental art is not to arrive at some insight about the human condition (though it might also do so), it is to provide a lesson in new ways of arriving at those insights on future projects.

"Art" is probably the single most problematically defined word in human language, second perhaps only to "God." I don't want to create too narrow of a definition that excludes art forms unduly, but at the same time, once a definition becomes broad enough and inclusive enough, it becomes meaningless.

So unless we can derive a definition with enough specificity that lays out clear lines of what is included and what is excluded and why, then the discussion strikes me as rather meaningless.

Forget it, Mayew.

Oh, Trey, you're such a bright fella. But there's just so much wrong with your post.

Snark aside, I think we simply have a different idea of what storytelling/filmmaking/art/whatever is supposed to be. For me, it's something that, in it's best moments, communicates some idea, some truth or essence of truth, about the human experience, our place in the universe, etc. etc.

For you, it's just something fun to pass the time. Okay. Different philosophies. In its absolute best moments, it's both.

Now, obviously I'm not privy to the conversations you've had with your friends, but what I've always read about the TNG writer's room was that it was Roddenberry's insistence on no interpersonal conflict between characters that was so tremendously stifling. And I totally get that. I'm a believer in utopia precisely because of Star Trek and even I think that's pretty out there.

But forcing your writers to concern themselves with incorporating some kind of (oh no!) point to the work, is not a bad thing. Can it be done badly? Yes. But the idea itself is not bad. In fact, I would say it's essential to good drama.

And I'm aware that it's possible to be a fan of Star Trek and not give a shit. Once upon a time I wholeheartedly gave a shit. Then came the early seasons of DS9. Then Voyager. And Nemesis. And Enterprise. I've done my time with lousy Trek.

And my claim wasn't about persecution. My claim was about my opinions on the story being dismissed out of hand because of a presumption that anything that came out of my mouth was going to be a nerdy nitpick. My claim was also about the cumulative effect of a dozen people making good natured jokes adding up to something tiresome. And as I stated on TFN, being mocked on a board like this for being a nerd is merely absurd, not impossible.

And AGAIN, I object to this idea that I'm somehow claiming to know better than anybody else what Star Trek IS or SHOULD BE. I don't think I've said that, and if I've implied it, I've disavowed it. Really, again, snark aside, stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not making any kind of claim that "my Star Trek" is purer than "your Star Trek." You're stuck on fighting this turf war that hasn't been fought since the 90s. It's as timely and useful to argue about which would win in a fight - the Enterprise or a Star Destroyer.

Anyway, Trek has been a lot of things in its long history, and quite often has been profoundly stupid. My point is, it COULD be better. It COULD be smarter while being just as fun. It COULD be ABOUT something and still blow some stuff up. It could contain an actual idea somewhere in it and still be just as full of the flashies you so righteously defend.

Something else that bothered me, Mayhew, though there is a tiny amount of precedent for it in the original series. What I have the greatest issue with is the fact that Uhura comes and bitches at Spock for not getting the assignment she wanted and he caves and reassigns her almost immediately. Neither of his actions in that situation - assigning her a post solely to avoid the appearance of favoritism nor caving feebly when confronted with it - are at all consistent with Spock's character.

And I think everybody has that about something.

Some people feel that way about sports teams for god's sake. A sentiment which I will, to my dying day, never understand.

Thank you, guys.

Rest assured, when I launch my own utopian interstellar Federation, you guys can be the ambassadors to the pleasure planet.

I understand your point of view just fine, Trey. I just disagree with it. Last time I checked, reasonable people could do that.

Of course, you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you had ever really bothered to listen to any of the shows the old lady listened to. Or actually watched her drive more than once for part of her commute all those years.

Dorkman, I do find this double standard amusing, if frustrating. I think it's because the Star Trek nerd is such an old and cherished cliche in our society, that it somehow gives license to people who are otherwise immense nerds themselves some kind of moral superiority that they can dispense like they're the varsity quarterback in an after school special.

Oh thank god. Activity in a topic other than the Star Trek thread.

*reads title*

Shit.