From: "hugh bone" <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Fun and Stupid
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:33:44 -0500


Sarah, et.al.,

"Oh Brother" is fun and stupid, but too long.

It's ironic that art is about communication, a "need" to express,
communicate to others, yet one who has an important aesthetic experience
viewing a painting, a sculpture, a movie, often knows nothing of the artist
who produced it, and may not care.

The identity of the artist who made the "Winged Victory of Samothrace" or
the one who designed the "Pantheon" is not important.

But as a practical matter, students of the arts want to learn about the
great artists, their personalities and techniques.  Others, look foward to
the next production of living artists whose works we appreciate.

The preoccupation with  "suffering" and its relation to a viewer's own life,
can be interesting, but may lead away from art and into religion, psychology
etc. as others have noted.

Hugh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lita Coucher wrote:

> > >What about someone like Spielberg?  He had a normal childhood and a
great
> > >adulthood, and makes stellar films.

Sarah Lockhart wrote:
> Spielberg certainly makes well-crafted films, well-crafted like
> pre-Raphaelite paintings are well-crafted.  Personally and
> intellectually, I find them bland, dishonest and manipulative.  One
> could argue that perhaps because he had such a privileged life, any
> portrayal of suffering he would make would be manipulative and
> dishonest.  That would be a variant of your standard issue auteur theory
> crossed with the Romantic idea of the tortured artist.
>
> Someone recently posted to the list, commenting that why don't we
> consider suffering in the case of a carpenter.  Used to be that an
> artist and a carpenter weren't too different, both were considered
> crafts:  the artist painted pretty pictures of Jesus and the carpenter
> made pretty furniture.
>
>  I think necessary suffering is a
> > >religious idea that has permeated society in other realms, art being
just
> > >one.
>
> Which brings us to the Romantics, art as religion, artist as saint,
> sensitive to his/her nature, to Nature, and so forth, as a nice contrast
> to the "soulless capitalists" who were rising from the medieval muck.
> Suffering being a physical marker of the artist's sensitive soul, of the
> artist's true experience of the world.  Suffering being a sign that one
> is committed to one's art and isn't merely a Sunday painter. Suffering
> also being a sign that the artist wasn't "just a tool of the Man"
> (though the Romantics wouldn't have put it that way).
>
> There are times when learning and truth do come from suffering, but I
> > >hope it does not need to be so.
>
> Then we come to the issue that a lot of art is about suffering.  We get
> into the identity politics of "How can director X make an honest film
> about the experience of minority group Y when director X isn't a part of
> that group or was fortunate enough not to have to endure as much
> suffering as many members of that group?" We go back to evaluating the
> autobiography of the artist for an evaluation of the authenticity, hence
> quality, of the artist's work. We get caught up in the politics of
> keeping it real, where the true artist is the one who has suffered the
> most, but in order to remain authentic and true, the artist has to keep
> making art about that experience.
>
> While suffering and "challenging life experience" does contribute a lot
> to art, I end up asking, "Just because someone has suffered and creates
> art, does it make the work good?"  I hesitate to fall into the trap of,
> "Well, before I decide whether I found this piece worthwhile, I need to
> know its creator's background."  A work that is intended to be seen
> apart from its maker needs to have its own integrity.
>
> > >I love films that shake me up, but I refuse to restrict myself to
enjoying
> > >those that are only sad or traumatic.
>
> I don't think that anyone was suggesting that one should only enjoy sad
> or traumatic films.  It _is_ easier to win a judgment of "important" or
> "great" from "the authorities" if the film's content is sad or
> traumatic. Just look at Lars Von Trier or Spielberg's recent films.
> However, pardon the sarcasm, films like the recent "Romeo, Juliet, and
> the Iceberg" and "Saving Private Crusoe" show that suffering does not a
> great film make.  In fact, their mawkishness makes me appreciate films
> like the current release, "Dude, Where's My Car?" which won't win
> anyone's Best Picture, but at least is honest about being fun and
> stupid.
>
> Sarah Lockhart
>
>
>
>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>




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