Sitting in my magazine writing course tasked with scribing a post for my blog, I find myself at a loss. The posts that I have filled this fine manifesto with are the result of real experiences, not simply examining something on the art section of The New York Times website, which I am doing right now.

Working at the student newspaper I have witnessed many young aspiring writers eager to start a career in writing and reporting, but they quickly groan in agony when they are instructed to leave the confines of the office and face society head on. In my mind, this is what makes the job great. You’re always meeting someone new, you’re always learning something new, and as long as you strive for creativity you’re always experiencing something new. Attending the First Fridays this year has been killer, engaging my thought in ways I never imagined possible. The artists I have spoken with are all professionals in their own right.

The works and galleries I have described do not stray far from what I initially set out to do: focus on sketchers, painters and sculptures.

Thus, when I am told to sit in front of a computer and post a blog with nothing to really ponder over except Internet articles, I find it frustratingly difficult. I like to do research; don’t get me wrong, but the assignment loses its shine when the NYT art section features movies I would never consider art. Movies do rely heavily on artists for character and costume design and set pieces. For example, it takes a certain high level of detail to create a realistic looking crowd of zombies—an oxymoron considering no one has ever seen a real zombie. I doubt George Ramero was aiming to create an artistic masterpiece when he started the filming for “Dawn of the Dead.” Some movies do aspire to be credited as art, such as… Japanese animation films or Tim Burton films. Tim Burton does draw his own sketches. Additional directors control every aspect of their films. Dramas can have tense dialogue and compelling characters while epic films can create an immense scope that would have been impossible in the early days of cinema. It is hard, however, to make the argument that the majority of modern films apply the same level of imagination and creative skill that painters or illustrators do. A lot of movies are released only to be forgotten within two months or less, and they should be. I refuse to spend upwards of $10 to waste two hours of my life. I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.

The third headline on today’s NYT art webpage said, “Eye-popping for art’s sake: An advocate for 3-D films.” James Cameron is either pushing for these next-gen films because he truly believes they are a dominant art form, or simply because he is feeding American consumption and lining his pockets in the process.  You may have heard someone assert, “’Titanic’ was a masterpiece and an ever-lasting achievement for the film industry.” Well, those people can look forward to a reissue of the 1997 blockbuster in 2012. Let’s hear it for art’s sake. Hurray… “We’re going to bring it out in 3-D as a theatrical rerelease on the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic in 2012,” Cameron said. People will definitely witness art oozing from the screen as they watch the film’s enhanced recreation of the terrible tragedy; bodies flailing wildly toward their watery graves. Can someone please sink this ship? I hate those 3-D glasses. They give me a headache.

Jackass 3-D was released this previous Friday. What a piece of art that was. High society will surely praise its nauseating, shit-infused skits and its slow motion dick shots as the pinnacle of cinematic achievement.

As my heart sinks while I read all the newest on the “art scene,” I find solace in the individuals I have meant over the past two months. Rather than experiencing a mediated form of reality by reading about or watching films, these artists’ opening ceremonies foster social engagement. This is something I can support to the greatest of my ability. But all of the hyped-up 3-D movie releases can go to hell.

What do you consider art? Movies? Books? Paintings?

Is the art section of “The New York Times” website impressive?

Are 3-D films eye-popping for art’s sake?

How much are you willing to pay for a terrible movie?