[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: a few things
Peter wrote:
> Don may be nitpicking when he observes that the statement is phrased
> objectively, since we all know the person in question is stating a subjective
> opinion,
Maybe, but isn't the step from subjective observation to objective property one
of the most profound philosophical steps we can make? Inherent therein is the
wonderful and staggering claim that through a series of inherently subjective
steps (sensory input, processing of that sensory input, ordering of the
resulting electro-chemical impulses, construction of a network of meaning in
which to place those impulses, modification of a model of the world) we can
come up with an objectively true claim. Is it nitpicking to examine the
conditions under which that step can be made and the limitations of the
process? In short, do we really all know the person is stating a subjective
opinion? I've met people who seem to have no problem saying "that film
sucked", for seemingly no further reason that *they* didn't like it. To me,
that's a completely different situation from someone who says "that film
sucked", and then can go on to say "the script was clumsy, the dialogue wooden,
there were plot holes all over the place, there was no sense of grandeur, etc."
(I'm thinking of the X-Files series finale in particular. ;-)) How and to
what degree it's different is the question that's intriguing me.
> In my 'intro to film' class, many years ago, we were taught that there are
> three questions the art critic must ask: (1) what is the artist's intention,
> (2) how well has the artist achieved his or her intention, and (3) was the
> artist's intention worth intending or achieving in the first place.
Hmmm... I agree that's a good start, but it doesn't feel sufficient. Not
because of happy accidents like Cotton's flubbed line in Citizen Kane, though;
since a film is constructed in the editing room, the decision to include that
take becomes an active choice on the part of the editor/director, and thus a
part of the intentionality of the art. A flubbed line on stage would be
different; although the actors might be able to improvise around it, it
wouldn't be part of an artist's intention. Although collaborative performance
art (almost) always leaves room for improvisation, which in turn can be
intentional: the director/actors may have intended for a certain moment to play
differently every time, especially if it's the sort of thing that requires
audience participation.
But we were talking about film. A flub like the Kane line or the actors'
laughing in Suspects (which I think also *greatly* assists the scene
dramatically as well as in terms of character, since it shows the criminals
treating the lineup like a joke, which in turn cuts counter to the expectation
of long cliched traditions about police lineups. but I digress...) becomes part
of the raw material that the filmmaker uses to shape into the final product, or
art. Their inclusion is part of the intentionality. But what about "happy
accidents"? Is it possible for a director to create great art without knowing
what they are doing? I'm not sure. At some level, creativity always comes
without conscious awareness: as we've said in this thread before, if you just
follow a list of rules, the work will most likely be pedestrian; an exercise in
form. However, it is also true that the more an artist knows about the medium,
the more they can avoid traps and extend beyond the rules. Isn't there an
extra-biblical line attributed to Jesus relating to people working on the
Sabbath that goes something like "if you know what you're doing, you're
blessed, but if you don't, you're in big trouble"? I.e., if you've come to the
understanding that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,
you've reached a higher level of understanding, but if you're just being
sloppy, selfish, or rebellious, you're going to irk god. Is art the same way?
Do you need to know the rules well enough so that you can break them in the
"right" ways, or can someone create something brilliant without knowing what
they're doing? I think I tend toward the former, especially in such an
elaborate and collaborative medium as film. Maybe an abstract painter could
create something brilliant by accident, but with film, there are so many
technical hurdles that have to be overcome, I should think it would be hard to
get them *all* right by chance.
Besides which, number three is totally subjective. By what criteria do we
evaluate if an intent is worth achieving? Take the Blair Witch Project
(please! ;-)): the amatuerish camera work was intentional, and I think we can
agree it achieved the intended effect, which was to look like some kids were
just carting the camera around with them. Some people thought this was
brilliant, others got motion sickness and threw up in the theaters. Those
groups of people would probably have different answers to that third question.
:-) So number three doesn't really help us in trying to determine if the film
itself is good or bad.
Maybe one can evaluate objectively whether individual aspects of the film are
good or bad (cinematography, lighting, acting, script, direction, etc.), but to
say whether the gestalt entity of "the film" is good or bad must always be a
subjective act, because the way in which the pieces come together is of
necessity a subjective construction in the mind of the viewer. Does that make
sense?
See ya,
--
Don Smith Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
donaldas at umich_edu http://xte.mit.edu/~dasmith/
"Life is ... moments flabbergasted to be in each others' presence."
- "Speed" Levitch in _Waking Life_
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: