From: "hugh bone" <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: suffering sufferer suffers
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:43:37 -0500


Has anyone seen the Pollock movie?

Hugh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> CNN is currently running a poll on "Which artist's story will make the
most
> compelling movie?"
>
> The choices (and their current ratings) are:
>
> Jackson Pollock (umbilical strangulation at birth/alcoholism) 18%
> Georgia O'Keefe (claustrophobia?) 25%
> Frida Kahlo (polio/bus accident/amputation/miscarriage/substance abuse)
50%
> Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (broken legs/deformity/alcoholism) 0%
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Michael
>
> on 1/4/01 7:55 AM, kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca at
> kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:41:00 -0700 gary patrick norris <ngary2-AT-qwest.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 3a. Furthermore, since most confuse "the beautiful" with "the good,"
then
> > folks think that suffering is good.  And since we live in a moral
society, no
> > matter what the cynics think, some consider suffering necessary, moral
and
> > just.
> >
> > "No pain, no autonomous art, eh?"
> >
> >> 4. So, it makes sense to some that artists must suffer.  Even when the
> > suffering happens to be an excuse for living the life of an artist. You
know,
> > a
> > mask.
> >
> > I think a notion of scenic understanding is worth exploring here, like
the
> > ever-present cinema cliche, you know the one, a sober conversation, a
paternal
> > figure getting up and walking away, the pause, <insert
name-of-the-father>
> > "X, thanks for that" - the humble but knowing nod, final turn, and off
the
> > set.
> >
> > The suffering artist is a bit like the cliche, a stereotype, a
regressive
> > image
> > - paleosymbolic perhaps, certainly prediscursive. In general, this
imagistic
> > understanding is read backward: from the effect back to the cause. The
more
> > salient point being, to look at this effect as to what it causes. Take
Woody
> > Allen as an example. It isn't that his films are autobiographic, rather,
Allen
> > puts them together and then buys into his own script. He becomes what he
> > writes
> > about. Talk about "special" effects. The stereotype of the suffering
artist
> > *creates* suffering artists... not unlike the designated pathology of
the last
> > year "road rage" - once it has a name, everyone steps up to the
namesake.
> >
> >> Maybe we should start by asking:  is it suffering if you chose to
suffer?
> >
> > Is a rose by another name still a rose?
> >
> > How many trees have to fall in a forest for it to cease being a forest?
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > ken
> >
> >
> >
> >    --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---