The sound in here is deafening….
I can appreciate what Kandinsky is talking about but I think a problem arises when an artist does try to create a specific message and maybe that is lost if that makes any sense. I think this is my problem with art that I find really pretentious. Also, I think we should be concerned with what others think of us to a degree. After all that is how we learn how to function within a group, specifically society as a whole. However, we should not give up our individuality entirely either.
David lynch was once said to remark that the ones who didn’t appreciate or understand his films were “Mongoloids.” I agree with Zane here when talking about being the viewer as juxtaposed with navagating socially. Sometimes we can be our selves and it just clecks, other times we try to be respectful, and may decide it’s probably gonna click better with some one else, and thats perfectly ok.
Part of the reason I took this course is the similarity I have with Zane on his views of art. I have a very opened mind and sometimes I appreciate art, but not as it is often delivered. I feel like a lot of times viewers force an interpretation of a piece of art when really the artist may have just thought it looked cool. Learning the history in this course and some famous works of animation may however broaden my appreciation for even the most abstract and experimental animations.
Furniss’s discussion of avant-garde does make us question the way we view works. Furthermore it makes us questions the way we view how history has written about works, let alone anything else for that matter. If it is all open for interpretation, and different people arrive at different intersections, which ones are concrete and how much of what we have been taught about history mere speculation?
I don’t know if you can actually come to an absolute concrete claim. Although an absolute might seem too ideal, I do think that when you look at all the perspectives as a whole gravitational points become apparent, which allows us to go off of commonalities rather than by struggling to figure out who has the best interpretation.
I agree with your statement that animations aren’t the only motion pictures that can get away with the ridiculous. I feel as though it’s more dependent on the context that allows certain shows to get away with less respectable actions, but animation can directly influence the context to have a more improper value that would allow it to get away with more ridiculous behaviors.
Ooh nice point about being unable to reflect inside ourselves as a society, I didn’t think about that. Must be why it was so hard for me enjoy experimental films. No, after this week’s readings, I’ve learned there is more to appreciate about experimental films. As you and Furniss said, one must be open to the experience, not necessarily the logic of it.
While I cannot remember who, someone once said that the artist doesn’t create the meaning of the piece, the viewer does. For anything. The artist could mean one thing but the audience could interpret it entirely differently. So then who cares what the artist meant, if the spectating took it differently, then his intent was meaningless (or unjustified). Either way, I really believe in this statement. Some art is easier to interpret with the same meaning as the artist intended. But others is not, and that’s okay too. In a society where so many people do or wear or talk about the same things, this gives you an experience all your own.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.