The following is some free-form ideas on what ‘art’ means in the context of film appreciation. It developed from various combative discussions regarding, of all things, the value of Iron Man. The hyperbole was coming from all ends and inevitably the ‘A’ word was unleashed and almost immediately took on a plethora of meanings, none of them fixed for the purpose of worthwhile conversation. Although admittedly pejorative, I ended up using convenient labels to distinguish like-minded mentalities from which the varying understandings of ‘art’ dispersed: fanboys, nerds, and snobs. Each approaches a film with differing measurements of value.
A fanboy values loyal representation of source material in their films that appeals to a lowest common denominator – the film need only reproduce it, and the ceiling is set.
A snob has a different ceiling altogether, he/she does not require that a film conform to something (and be self-contained) but that it expand and challenge conventions and challenge him/herself in the process.
A nerd is situated somewhere between the fanboy and the snob, able to articulate in detail his/her interests but which remain too preoccupied with the arcana of the film, and still think of it largely in commodity terms. Such a perspective is not slavishly interested in the accuracy of representation from source material to the screen but is caught up in the superficial significance of the film as a work set within a certain industry framework. The academic could also be thought of as a subset of the nerd, merely exchanging one fetish for signifiers with another.
All of these mentalities come with their own ideas of what is meant by ‘art’, yet they all share a similar notion of it as existing in terms of a sliding scale of value with ‘art’ at the high end. What constitutes this distinction is where differences emerge. Before pleading a case for a definition of ‘art’ according to the snob, I must acknowledge that I am fully aware that there are no universal uses of language, there are merely the habitual uses within certain crowds through which we may observe familiar meanings. What is important is that any definition herein proposed be useful.
In studying aesthetic theory I have noticed a recurring idea where ‘art’ is foremost a very difficult to attain level of excellence. Giorgio Vasari, when articulating what he considered the unparallel greatness of Michelangelo, said he went beyond the bounds of manual skill suggesting there was/is a threshold to valuing something purely on its technical achievements. He used words like ingegno and grazia, but the general idea, and what I think is carried through in an academic reading of ‘art’, is that there is a quality to the “art” work that transcends the sum of its parts in such a way that one cannot point to any ostensive evidence as to why it is so great, it is the experiential event of the patron which alone authenticates this upper echelon of greatness. Hence the very snobby and academic phrase ‘the work has a certain Je ne sais quoi”, meaning the value ceases to be something of a manual nature that can be accounted for. For lack of a better word, we are in the realm of the spiritual (a word which has its own unsavory connotations).
Fanboys and nerds scoff at any notion of some spiritual classification to a work, and may even suggest that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can see why these sorts of conclusions would be drawn, there is a stigma that something which cannot be demonstrably articulated as the reason for a value must be either wishy-washy new age shit, or reduce everything to personal taste in a sort of fatalist inevitability, giving up before anything has been started. Yet we tend to think there is such a thing as mutual love, and whether or not such a thing exists it remains a fixture of our lexicon, and so too, ‘art’. It may be worthwhile to propose an alternate definition; one that accounts for this familiar usage of the word art and for the endless attempts by people to express what makes ‘art’ special.
Rather then focus on the product to say what art is I think a more useful approach is to focus on a kind of inner activity of the art patron when having an art-experience. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but it is not limited to there, or does not need to be. One can set as a threshold for the meaning of ‘art’ or the art-experience as one of momentary destabilization, or spiritual re-evaluation of some aspect of being when posed with the transcendent artwork. There is the implication that “destabilization” leads to something altogether new in the individual’s self-identity, and I don’t think that is quite right. By destabilizing I do not mean necessarily something progressive, that with each experience one negates the past. It is just as likely the destabilization would lead to a reaffirming of one’s previously held convictions. The art-experience is an indicator to the subtle yet significant distinction between living and merely existing; living incites evaluation into one’s identity. Each person measures this experience according to their own self-awareness, and they feel genuinely a part of the work.
The best analogy I can think of to show the distinction I interpret between something like the formulaic nature of Iron Man with something that provokes a destabilization of the individual, is circuits. As I said earlier, repetition lulls one asleep and the continual repetition of formulaic films has a way of disengaging the viewer from the experience and into a passively observing state; this would be like a closed circuit sat before you operating without your input. When repetition and familiarity are removed enough to interject some intrigue on the part of the viewer opportunities for the academic notion of ‘art’ are afforded; this would be like an open circuit with the viewer embedded in the film experience, and coming out of it changed in some palpable way. There is no universal recipe for opening the circuit, each of us cultivates our own aesthetic sensibilities… BUT I believe it is useful to say that some similar destabilization need occur for something to be considered ‘art’.
So to summarize, the snobbish notion of “art” has the following characteristics:
1) a rare level of excellence that transcends the purely technical achievements of a work
2) wholly authenticated by the individual’s reaction, not by any property of the work itself
3) requires a palpable momentary or long-lasting destabilization in the individual’s sense of being that induces a direct communion between him/her and the work.
Hardly complete, that is a barebones definition of what I consider the familiar meaning of art if it is to have any sliding scale significance. One can always lower the bar of what constitutes ‘art’ but in doing so one draws attention away from our personal involvement in artworks, and towards the inert things themselves, closed circuits to be admired from afar, rather than open circuits that we feel directly a part of. I think fanboys generally do not care about this kind of participatory idea of art, they want the self-contained ‘art’ you can put behind glass and admire, what I would call the commodity value of a work.
Post a Comment