[I will revisist my views on aesthetics in the near future but I wanted to make available an accumulative post of my views on the subject with an emphasis on film aesthetics. Think of this as my mission statement with regards to my process of reviewing. This is a skeletal framework of ideas on a complex topic that will evolve and expand as time permits, so excuse the simplicity of some of the concepts, they will be nuanced when I have time to consolidate my readings on the topic. I have added chapter breaks to make it easier to navigate]
i On the two values: art-experience and commodity
ii On aesthetic contemplation
iii On the ‘destablizing’ of art and the meaning of ‘artwork’
iv My aesthetic tastes (film): on technique
v My aesthetic tastes (film): on narrative
i.
Aesthetic contemplation is essential to my life. I am, in some fundamental way, an artistic being, one who engages insatiably in both the act of art-making and art-experiencing. As Walt Whitman wrote: ‘Dazzling and tremendous how quick the sun-rise would kill me/ if i could not now and always send sun-rise out of me”. For me, life is an economy of artistic urges (to paraphrase and do assault to a Freudian concept) a network of exchanges that incite self-awareness and destabilizes ‘understanding’, so as to set in motion the revisions of identity. Art is not merely a beautifier of culture, or a historical footnote to humanity, but is the firmament of living, it is about the living transmitting to the living the germ of being. There is no hypothetical value to a work of art (in my interpretation), and those who insist upon a technical superiority to a certain aesthetic speak of something entirely different from what I talk about by ‘art’, for in my definition art is authenticated by the experience within the participant… art is art as something qualitatively valuable because an individual receptor experiences a momentary destabilization, or, spiritual re-evaluation of some aspect of being. art is not art because history tells us it is so. History can only speak of the commodity aspect of art, which is only the material remnants of an artwork, and not, the art-experience itself, for the art-experience is intimately personal. I am not even willing to admit that all our art-experiences are linked to some single source, the germ of all art, and that through our exchanges we pass on the ‘archetypes’ of this substrata, because that sort of presumption is not really necessary. What ultimately matters is that we believe there are connections, intangible and esoteric as they are, and the exchanges enliven our sense of being, our self-awareness and serve to educate us on how to live.
I think it is important to separate the two valuations of an artwork, to distinguish how independent they are, that, for example, the art-experience value is not directly linked to the commodity value of the artwork being experienced. This is to say, just because ‘Citizen Kane’ is arguably a technical achievement of filmmaking, and may be compared and contrasted with other films to show that it is of a superior quality, in say the screenwriting, or the cinematography, this does not necessitate the art-experience value of the same film must be similarly superior.
1) The art-experience value and the commodity value must be separated in evaluating an artwork.
2) Art-experience value is more important than commodity value.
ii.
In my previous entry i spoke of art-experience, and by that i mean an experience of a certain pedigree, measured according to its residual effect on the individual’s understanding of self. On a sliding scale, the art-experience sits at the high end, with profound repercussions on the way the individual interprets the world and his/her self within it. The experience is rooted in a confrontation with self in an active sense, and I realize by using the term ‘aesthetic contemplation’ there is an unfortunate implication of passive participation, when in fact, the aspect of aesthetic contemplation I most value is characteristically active, when the individual is integrated into the art and destabilizes his/her previous convictions.
To use an analogy, I consider the ‘art-experience’ proper to be the agent and the ‘commodity aspects of the work’ to be the vehicle to aesthetic refinement which may contribute to, but are not solely the basis of, the art-experience occurring. So yes, because I have a huge adoration for Richard Linklater, this hero worship may have contributed to the art-experience I had watching ‘Before Sunset’ but I consider these aspects peripheral to the deeper personal response to the narrative of the work. One may also analyze the manner in which the narrative was conveyed in its material form, how emotions may have been manipulated to reach a desired effect, but ultimately the experience is individual, and the significance of each moment is esoterically linked to the individual’s dormant self-history. It is therefore unsatisfactory to articulate the art-experience according to social analysis, or technical analysis of the film, as it negates the individual’s liberty to freely grasp his or her own conclusions, that which I think is most important about aesthetics. It replaces actual value with hypothetical value according to standards issued outside of the individual.
The art-experience is therefore a privileged one, held above structural associations with the technical aspects of the work, and the socio-cultural phenomenon surrounding it and the individual viewer.
iii.
furthermore:
a slight revision is needed to what I meant by the art-experience, because in past references I mentioned its ability to destabilize, which I still believe, but there was the implication that this destabilization led 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. rather than speak of the character of the new understanding, I would prefer to speak of the nature of the new understanding, which is a destabilization, a jarring confrontation with self. The art-experience is an indicator to the subtle yet significant distinction between living and merely existing. Living, I define as self-awareness, and this is at the heart of the art-experience. The art-experience is a flash awareness, a living, that incites evaluation into one’s identity.
The aesthetic sensibilities are the time-proven triggers to this awakening, and these are naturally individualized, and deeply personal. Now, there is something else I should touch on before I get into my own aesthetics, and that is that by ‘artwork’ I mean more than what is ordinarily supposed, and in retrospect, artwork is a poor word to use because of this confusion. The medium of an art is another factor in one’s aesthetic sensibilities, some prefer film over literature, or music over theatre, etc. And for me, unrehearsed conversation is a medium for art. This is where everything get Duchamp-y, but there is a whole artistic movement which I endorse, where art is taken out of the museums, out of the conventional setting, and brought into the audience, into the real world, and in the most mundane sort of guises. I am liberal with respects to the definition of art, of what it can be, and who can achieve it. Its difficult to analyze the aesthetic techniques of an unrehearsed conversation, but within my classification of aesthetics, that is not a problem, since commodity aspects are of minor importance, and in their place the awakening, or destabilization itself serves as the point of inquiry into the meaning of the art event. The package is less important than the content, or the subtext that is grasped through self-evaluation. If one is moved by a conversation he is having with a friend it is usually conceived as up to the individual to think about the content, rather than the package, or the socio-cultural implications of the conversation in order to satisfy understanding. This same rationale should be applied to all art-experiences, else the individual may get lost in supposed meanings, rely on pretense of various external authorities, and appropriate their answers to his own. The effect of this is one ceases to know their own voice, understand their own existential pangs, and gloss over them with hypothetical explanations, devised by groups on false pretenses. i.e. a woman may be convinced she likes weepy romantic films because the cultural stereotype insists it is in her nature to, and with this easy-made answer not probe further into the specific implications of the art-experience.
iv.
Each art medium has its own benefits to offer, however, from my own experience, I have long since chosen literature to be the highest of the arts, with film taking on a secondary role. It is film that presently preoccupies my mind. Last time I made three separate categories of my favorite films according to distinct narrative trends that resonated deeply in me. The most important category includes the films ‘Chungking Express’, ‘Before Sunrise/Sunset’, and ‘Lost in Translation’, among others. The aesthetic sensibility of this category consists of a shared narrative and stylistic technique.
First technique:
somewhat poetically I associate the stylistic technique of this category with a historical movement in painting I am quite fond of, which grew out of the Venetian school in the late sixteenth century: this was known as the ‘painterly style’. This style, like so many in art history, grew out of ennui with the established manner, and may be characterized by its rebellious quality. Prior in the century in both northern and southern europe the mimetic potentialities of painting were reaching their fullest perfection. the artist had achieved the god-like task of reproducing nature with illusionary exactness. Satisfaction with this lasted about a day before the restless artists of the renaissance sought new ways to entertain themselves. The Venetian artist Titian was one of the first to explore the impressionistic possibilities of paint, and elevated the spontaneity and decisiveness of mark (dormant in the lowly art of sketching) to the rank of high art in painted canvas. In the hands of a great master such as Titian, the mimetic quality of a painting could be preserved while still simultaneously making visible the brushstrokes and the creative process that existed for the viewer to perceive as another level for appreciation. It became a courtly conceit that this unfinished quality to painting showed the true genius of the artist because with the briefest of strokes, and not concealing any of his craft, the artist could still maintain the illusion of the subject being portrayed. I should stress this ‘painterly style’ is not ‘impressionism’ as in the nineteenth century movement that put Paris on the map, it is not as obtrusive and experimental. The painterly style still strongly holds to the goal of reproducing nature, and yet through subtle manipulation of the medium of paint, the style also sought to partake in a kind of artistic bravado that is only successful in its subtleness and in its ability to achieve both wonderment for the subject and the object of the art nearly simultaneously.
Well, it is this same technique I long for in cinema. I require a narrative, and I require mimesis, but I do not require reality. That is to say my ideal aesthetic is not a documentary or cinema verite, but the fabrication of reality done so well that I am fooled into thinking it is reality. For me this is achieved chiefly by lingering on the characters beyond the necessity of propelling plot forward, and striving to document spontaneity (Robert Altman is similarly good at doing this). With a film like ‘Before Sunset’ the mind instantly understands that what is on screen is not real, that this is not Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy on an average day, that there is in fact some artifice at work. But the effect of the film is so overwhelming into convincing me that what is occurring on screen is real, that there is real human interaction, real dialogue, real settings, that I become completely immersed in the reality of the film. Yet there are those touches, either inherent to the medium, or applied by Linklater and cast, that remind me that it is something constructed, and this realization increases my appreciation of the film, and increases my hero worship for those involved. Thus the enjoyment factor of this stylistic technique is that my experience may oscillate between the subject and the object of the art without disillusionment, due to the fine balance this technique affords.
v.
Narrative:
Now strangely enough, with regards to my aesthetic sensibilities, the ideal narrative can be independent of the ideal style; for example, while I think there are strong narrative links between ‘Amelie’, ‘Eternal Sunshine for a Spotless Mind’ and the films I listed above, and they are of nearly equal importance in my heart, stylistically these two films are quite different from the first category. they lack the austerity of preserving reality which the above style concentrates on. They are more ‘impressionistic’ in the Paris movement way, experimenting with the potentials of the medium to get new and interesting effects. So I am not limited to one style, but I have a preference for the more austere, as I said, ‘painterly style’.
This first category dominates my aesthetic sensibilities and this is why I give it a supreme position. What ‘Chungking Express’, ‘Lost in Translation’ and ‘Before Sunrise/Sunset’ share are, generally speaking, themes of the regenerative power of love, but more specifically, the conspiratorial dimension to romantic love. I am drawn to this narrative like a moth to a light bulb. In each of these films the protagonists meet one another as strangers, and within a short period grow to feel a profound connection, that then defines their very purpose for living. And in all of these films there is a world surrounding them that continues to go on its way alienated from the internal world of these two lovers, so much so that their connection has a great deal to do with this division, this us vs. them mentality. This fascinates me for some reason, because I think of romantic love as a conspiracy against society, and as the most perfect sentiment a human being can achieve. So I am not much of a sympathizer with altruism in either religious or socialistic guises. Also I identify myself so much by my love, as the regenerative source for me escaping self-annihilation, that it is no wonder this sensibility would exist in me. Love is a conspiratorial ‘nation of two’ that is the heart of living. Perhaps there is a voyeuristic thrill in watching these typically young protagonists experiencing the intensity of first love in exotic places, because I so associate the ‘living’ (vs ‘existing’) with a detachment from habit, from routine. I feel most alive when I travel, I feel most alive when I am in love. I am just incredibly lucky myself that its not a melancholic interest in this narrative, but a reaffirming of what I already feel, and experiencing the living in love just reaffirms what I feel in the relationship I am in. In these films also at least one of the protagonist is at a point of disillusionment with life, and the regenerative aspect of love is made all the more intense by this juxtaposition before and after the encounter.
In very brief terms I will mention two other narratives that appeal to me. This second category includes most of Akira Kurosawa’s samurai films, including most notably ‘Seven Samurai’, ‘Yojimbo’ and ‘Red Beard’. This last film is not so much about samurais, the appeal is beyond grunting, head patting, philosophizing, sword wielding samurais (which are great!) but I guess the Japanese way of life as evoked in Kurosawa’s cinema. For me, this is truly escapist, it is such another world and the style of living appeals to me. There is a code of ethics to the samurai, and it respects sincerity and loyalty and education and attunement with nature, and coming from a culture I find repugnant for its lack of all these things, I am naturally drawn to Kurosawa’s world.
The other category focuses on mortality (a topic of great interest to scorpios) and realistically examines the experience of facing death. I suppose I am not unique in thinking about these sorts of things, I imagine this narrative should have wide appeal. but I like to peer into the abyss, I feel a kinship with it, I feel in equal measure the creative and destructive forces in me, and narratives that examine this perilous moment of confronting death interest me greatly. In this category one may include the war films I have mentioned, but also, more importantly, ‘Gerry’ and ‘Touching the Void’.