1) Art movies include a lot of independent outfits who have a passion for the medium and craft.
2) Art movies cost a Rhode Island fraction of budgeted Hollywood films. This fact enables number one.
This is a market like any other, and if enough people are willing to see Larry the Cable Guy crap his pants in high definition, then by God, give the people what they want.
Except there
is a market for high quality movies (there is also a market for low-quality movies). Not "art" movies, mind you; separating art from popular is a false dichotomy. Indeed, it would be possible to combine the market for popular movies and art movies. The only thing that separates a good art movie from becoming a popular movie is proper distribution (and name recognition, but not by viewers). The largest advantage of large studios is that they have the funding to advertise to distribution sites (aka, theaters); advertising to the general population is a secondary concern. Small, indie films do not have that first advantage; but what they do have is the power of word of mouth. Rather potent, really; Firefly and Serenity had the marketing power of major studios but "failed." Along comes ol' word of mouth and the fans were able to drum up enough support to get a big damn movie made, word of mouth made Serenity DVD sales rather impressive (impressive enough to help makeup for the failed theatrical promotions).
Indie outfits certainly have a passion for the medium and the craft, but it isn’t like Michael Bay, Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, or Hayao Miyazaki are less passionate for the medium and craft just because they work for large studios.
What would certainly help movies that are both artistic and entertaining is recognition. There are two markets in play in the movie industry, both are for profit; there are the "popcorn" movies that are meant to bring in money from the average individual, then there are the "prestige" movies that are meant to bring in honor and acclaim from "critics." Good movies -- movies that are both artistic and popular -- need both to thrive. The public market is quite willing to support such movies, but the critic market… not so much.
As to the false dichotomy, allow me to state that
Fart is Art. Larry the Cable Guy crapping his pants may well be closer to Athena's domain than some of the stuff you'd find at an indie movie fest (not saying that it actually is, however).
Seriously, Thought? Bruce Almighty & 50 First Dates? Lame comedic date movies w/interesting gimmicks, I'll admit...but aside from that I don't see anything special about them...
Bruce Almighty is a date movie? Odd, considering how little the leading lady actually factors into the story. Rather, I'd say it is a movie about a man's relationship with the divine (not many movies get to list "God" as one of the rolls). It would seem that if Faust can be art, Bruce Almighty at least had/has a chance. Certainly, it starts with an outlandish concept (man becomes omnipotent but not omniscient) but treats it rather seriously. We get some jokes out of the deal (GF gets a divine implants, dog uses the toilet, etc), these serve a direct purpose of breaking up the overall seriousness (disarming the audience to increase effectiveness) but at the end of the day it isn't God's powers that make everything right, it is Bruce actively working to make himself a better person. The movie presents the “real” chance that Bruce and Grace might not end up together; it is through his actions as a mere mortal that earns him the chance to be with her when the credits roll. There are deep themes there, the difference between the self-centered and the other-centered life. Curiously, Bruce Almighty is also used by a lot of churches to spark community discussion about God and man's relationship with the divine.
Sure, it lacks some artistic qualities (I don’t think it is all that impressive in terms of lighting considerations, or the cinematography, or the
imaginarium), but the art is in the compelling telling of human stories, not the window-dressing.
And I think we keep making these comments tiny as it is almost a different discussion. Metal is easier to render, true enough. But I thought the award was supposed to go towards the best effect, not the most difficult. Animating a bear? Meh, Narnia did as good of a job; Golden Compass didn't tread new territory, it rehashed tried and true methods. Transformers had the much more difficult task of making the fundamentally unreal not only appear real and plausible, but appear as if it fits in perfectly with the rest of the world. Transformers could be said to have cross the Uncanny ValleyArthouse is not a style of film created to make money. Unlike big Hollywood films which are made to pull in a profit, art films are usually an expression of the directors feelings and thoughts. Why do you think so many musicians are pro-file sharing? In the end, most artists make art so people enjoy it, not so they get a profit out of it.
So many musicians are pro-file sharing because the music industry is like a cancer, draining the life-giving nutrients out of the system. Most musicians see a relatively small portion of the proceeds from their work; a large portion of the money has to go to large music labels to cover the costs of poor business practices (such as developing potential "brands" that never get released). If we were to apply evolution to the music industry, I believe we'd find music corporations to be suppressing natural selection.
File-sharing is the power of word of mouth; it allows the talents to rise with ease. Why is file-sharing so popular among musicians? Because it allows "art" to become "popular." It helps breakdown the artificial barrier between the two concepts.
That is exactly the point; art is meant to be enjoyed. It is quite possible for art and popular to go together. But there is a concept floating around somewhere (and it seems to be manifesting itself in the Academy Awards) that lack of public enjoyment is almost a validation of art (and in turn, popularity denotes lack of artistic value). Art and Popularity aren't mutually inclusive, certainly, but neither are they mutually exclusive; returning to the original question, why should various industries (the movie industry in particular) make such a dichotomy?
