No.9117
One of my favorite movies as far as visual spectacle goes is Lars Von Trier's Europa/Zentropa. I listened to a commentary track with the director and the producer, I think, and it was interesting listening to handheld cam, post-Dogme 95 Von Trier make fun of how trivial the ambitious effects and consummate execution of earlier Von Trier films are, because someone could easily replicate Europa's stylish spectacle with simple computer effects, but I think they stand up. Like, I understand how Lars dislikes the film from a writing perspective, because I can agree the themes probably aren't as powerful outside of the context of his own body of work, but the effects, imo, will always be interpreted for its time. I don't really believe there's such thing as a piece of art "before its time", because, if it such a work were released in the time that's it's of, it would probably be interpreted as mediocre because it would be on-par with the themes and cultural values of its contemporaries, but without the technical polish that comes from an artist or studio that can watch what everyone else is doing.
In America, even the dumb Jesus freaks hold Classical and Renaissance art in high-esteem. It's super ironic because basically all old masterworks have dicks and tiddies hanging out in all of them, but those same vapid jerks get super up-in-arms when a contemporary artist tries to do something with dicks and tiddies–even when they're trying to do something more akin to neoclassicism, not that modernist stuff. America has a history of prohibiting art and punishing artists and museum curators for obscenity, even though their stuff is technically the same. The same in sentiment, the same in effect. Time has a way of putting art in amber, making it feel conservative, safer, even if it technically isn't.