"The viewer of commercial entertainment
cinema does not want to work; he wants to be an object, to be acted
upon, to be manipulated. "
This is a rather narrow perception of the viewer. Sure many people are satisfied with passive watching but aren't the films and other artwork that truly resonate with us the ones that have a little work involved? Elements of ambiguity have long been used even in commercial films to challenge the audience.
"Art explains; entertainment exploits."
Of course we know that art can exploit, and exploit to great effect. And we can have entertainment that explains. Great science fiction films can do that. They can act more on our own speculative fears for the future and subtle human psychology than any recent visual artwork I have seen.
"The notion of experimental art, therefore, is meaningless. All art is
experimental or it isn't art. Art is research, whereas entertainment is
a game or conflict."
My perception of this section is that it places Art on a kind of pedestal. This idea of "Art" with a capital A is always problematic to me. Art is seem as totally separated from commercial ventures. Art is pure. Commerce is dirty. When exactly has that ever happened? Even the most avant-garde art is created within a commercial system. Nothing is made in a vaccum. The Great Masters had patrons. Damien Hirst had Charles Saatchi. Even the art I create is subsidized by the University of Florida. True, UF is a research institution but we are aware on how the university must create money to survive.
1 comment:
Great Points Francesca. I am noticing a common thread through the classes responses to these readings, myself included, at taking issue with many of the arguments he makes about art and cinema. Is it that we have advanced that much as a generation compared to this "passanger of spaceship earth"? or is it just another issue of semantics.
Post a Comment