different ways in which creative practitioners have exhibited their work in different media/art forms

there are many different ways of exibiting work. whether it's a blockbuster at the cinema or a grafitti tag on a street lamp, it's still a way of exibiting. other ways of exibiting work is through television, radio, film, music, newspapers, posters, billboards and others. there are so many ways to exibit work, and that's what people do. the most used way of exibiting work these days though is through the internet. 20 years ago the only people who could excibit work were the ones who could afford to. now though all you need is creative talent and access to the internet.


it's interesting to think that if the internet was widely available 20 years ago, would things have been different. when quentin tarantino made his first feature film, resouvior dogs, he excibited the film at a film festival and luckily got finance from a friend of his who was a producer. if he had access to youtube and public boradcasting sites similar to youtube, would he have still shown it at the film festival? would it have got made? would people have taken him as seriously? these days, absalutely anybody can put up a video to youtube and show off their work. it takes someone with real creative talent to get noticed though. due to the uprise in people producing work and showing it online, films and music and other means of work has to be of a higher standard before. could you imagine if a video on youtube that my neighbour made was better than martin scorsese's new film?



james cameron has exibited his work in an interesting way. his new film that was recently released called, 'avatar' is a good example. one reason why it;s a good example is because he spent 12 years on the project. he worte the script in 1999, 2 years after titanic, and bwliwved that the technology after wasn't capable of his vision for the movie; so what he did was he put the script away and said that he'd get it out once he thought that the technology was right. shortly after lord the rings two came out, james cameron saw it and saw gollums character. after seeing that he believed the film was ready to be made;so he got it out and began turning into a film. this is one way of exibiting because peoples excitement grew as time went on and people were curious as to what it would be like. it is also the most expensive film ever made, i know a few people who only saw it for that reason. people want to see good quality films and they believe that the more expensive, the better the quality.

due to the delay on avatar as a script, James Cameron waited until the technolgy capable for cinema was ready for his vision. The film avatar was made to be viewed in 3D. This means that the cinema showing the film needs 3D capablities, such as a 3D projection. The IMAX was popular as well. The IMAX has a longer screen and is one of the largest cinema screens in the world. This just reflects on james camerons huge scope. He wanted a big picture, and he made one. This therefore is how james cameron wanted to exhibit his film then. He made it for 3D. The only down side to having to show it in 3D is that the ticket prices are more expensive. why should someone spent more money on a 3D version when they could go see the available 2D version which is the same price as a normal ticket? why did james cameron produce a 3D film when some people would be reluctant to spend more money on it? The reason being is that the film is an experience. James cameron wanted to exhibit an experience, best seen in 3D. The reviews said that the 3D version was better as well. James cameron thought that his film was worth that little bit extra. That's why he chose to exhibit in a 3D cinema which is more expensive. This is one way to exhibit work. through the cinema, but some films made don't even get to be shown at the cinema. They go straight to DVD. does that mean that James camerons film is better simply because it's in the best quality and has a better experience? Does it have a better experience?

A group of people made their own version of 'lord of the rings' and published it online and it got a lot of attention. It was filmed in cambridge which is where I'm from so i heard about it. It got a lot of media coverage. It was on the news and was written about in newspapers. It got so popular it even has it's own fan base. People ask them to make more films in the same style. It sounds great, but does it mean that just because it isn't an original idea, it doesn't compare against Peter Jacksons version of 'lord of the rings'? Peter Jackson got a lot of media coverage as well and won a lot of awards including oscars. This too has it's own fan base and is hugely popular. But does that mean that it's bettee than the fan made video filmed in cambridge. It's a different way of exhibiting work, through the internet. And the fact that it isn't an original idea is interesting as well. It was made as a homage to the Lord of the rings film. Peter jacksons version was at the cinema and then went to DVD, when ever it's on television it's advertised a lot in advance. The film made in cambridge is just online. It never went through the cinema.

Their are many different ways practitioners have exhibited work, but how do you determine which way is best. They all have good and bad points. Avatar is an amazing experience, but it's quite expensive. ticket prices have been over 10 pounds for 3D showings. IMAX is more than that. But this was the way James cameron wanted it to be exhibited. The Lord of the rings filmed in cambridge was a great film, but it was only shown online. The thing about that is although it was only shown online, almost everybody has access to the internet nowadays. It technically has a wider range of audience. Not everyone can afford to go to the cinema. All ways of exhibiting work are appreciated but don't appeal to everyone. But they all hold the same value. They are ways of showing someones work.