[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a few things

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Don Smith 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?

Possibly.  That, or it's a rhetorical short-cut.  People like me may fill
our sentences with qualifiers like "in my opinion", "it seems to me",
etc., but I don't think *all* statements have to be so precisely vague.

> 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.

That is a seriously sexy sentence, Don.  Or maybe I should just say that
it turned me on.  ;)  Objective statement, subjective statement ...

Actually, I think I definitely prefer the objective statement there.  I
would much rather draw attention to the sentence than to myself.  ;)

> Is it nitpicking to examine the conditions under which that step can be
> made and the limitations of the process?

In some contexts, yes.  I think so.  (Objective, subjective ... )  ;)

> 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.

Well, even if *they* don't know they're stating a subjective opinion, *we*
would still know it.  I, of course, would probe further, and would ask
*why* the film sucked.  If they can't give an answer, then they're
obviously just being subjective.

> > 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.

Agreed.  All live-action films are documentaries, of sorts, and they will
inevitably capture things that were not intended on the set, but are
intentionally included in the finished films, just as documentarians
choose to include some things and not others in *their* films.

> 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.

Right, like theatresports.

> 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.

Right.  And I think the flubbed line in _Kane_ also greatly assists that
scene dramatically, too.  It's the break-up scene, basically, between Kane
and Leland, and when Leland accidentally says "crimitism" and then says "I
*am* drunk", Kane smiles, and it's as though this is the last gasp of
vulnerability between the two men, the last gasp of genuine friendship --
and then Leland demands to know how soon he can go, and Kane gets stern
again.  In real life, the actor flubbed his line and his co-star/director
couldn't help smiling, but in the film, these two men have let their guard
down around each other for the last time, and it's rather poignant.

... Uh, I've made this argument here before, haven't I?

> 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.

I would agree with that.

> Besides which, number three is totally subjective.

Oh yes.  But the point there, I think, is that it comes at the end of the
list, and not at the beginning of the list.

> 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?

Yup.

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
References: