In Walker Percy's first novel, The Moviegoer, the lead female character, who has psychological/emotional problems, utters a line like, "I wish I could have a nervous breakdown like those people in the movies." The point being, nervous breakdowns and other such things are not at all "aesthetic" experiences. They are painful and ugly, but in order to render them artistically they have to be in some way cleaned up, made more presentable. Yet, by doing so, they are falsified, at least to some degree. The solution of modern art/music/drama/etc. has been to develop a repertoire of truly ugly sounds, images, techniques which do more vividly portray these things. The reaction of the general public (at least it used to be) is to say, "well, that's not art." I used to be unsympathetic, but I think that they are correct in that it is certainly not classic Western art which insists on a certain level of beauty.
This is a subject that needs more exploration. Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Again, as others may have alluded to before, I think this depends on what you are looking for in a movie. If you are looking for "art", as in pleasing, harmonious, finely crafted visuals/symbolism as part of the experience, then certainly these more realistic, "ugly" portrayals won't satisfy that. However, if you are looking to experience a gripping or interesting story, utilizing audio and visual, rather than the printed word, then perhaps these more "raw", realistic movies serve that purpose. Some movies are one or the other of the above, some manage a bit of both.
I think movies can be an art form, and also just another means of effective storytelling, allowing you to "experience" a story in a more realistic, raw form, even though perhaps aesthetically displeasing at times. I will qualify this, though, by saying that if something is presented in a raw, ugly form, in order to protray more "realism", it had better have some kind of moral or message, or else, what's the point, other than idle voyeurism? That is, I think the point of these more realistic, raw types of movies should be to provoke thought on serious issues.
I can get something out of either kind of movie, and which I "prefer" depends on my mood at the moment.
I don't know if I have ideas, but maybe more questions . . . Is death ugly? What makes certain techniques, visual or otherwise, "ugly"? A vague thought I have is somewhat along the lines of anne's point about voyeurism: the ugliness of violence, etc., portrayed in film or anywhere has to do not with the realism, but with the purpose to which it is used. The problem with ultra-violent films is not that they show violence as it really is, but that the overall message of the film can become that violence is all there is; the worldview gets obscured, and then it becomes ugly.
I think it all goes back to the question of "what is art?" I don't know how a modern textbook would define the term, but when I think "art," I think of something that is intended to elevate and inspire one way or another. The "ugly images" of which you speak certainly do not do that, so I wouldn't call them art. If used to convey a specific message about a serious issue, then I would say these images fall more into the category of propaganda (not necessarily a pejorative term in the sense of "Communist propaganda," but meaning anything which is used to convince others of the truth--or at least expediency--of one's position). If the ugly images are gratuitous, then they are done not for artistic purposes, but for the sake of a sadistic pleasure in the tortured. This is simply evil, and as far as I'm concerned, can belong to no other category.
It may be worthwhile to remember that artistic talents (the techniques) may be used in the creation of that which is not art. One may have the ability to render detailed drawings, but again, if the work is not inspired, the work may be said to be crafted by means of the art, yet remain non-art. Again, I don't know if anyone still holds to the traditional distinction between the craft and the art. It's an interesting question, about which much more could be said with much greater clarity than I am capable of attaining.
Post a Comment