Art and Audience

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
You're senses are closed off to Greenaway and Godard. You see the pretention, not the real intent- which is exloration of the medium. I have read a lot on Greenaway. He is the first champion of the medium. Great directors love the medium and what it can do. All the ones I've listed LOVE THE MEDIUM. Therefore they are the most worthy. You may call them exploitive and non-redeeming, but the truth is you will not come to the work. You demand the director to at least meet you halfway.

I say that a director is allowed to order his audience to accept his work as is IF he gives you something in return equal to your "attention" to it.

You, knowing me, should know that you are being completely unfair to me here.

First, I appreciate the craft of filmmaking at work in directors such as Greenaway and Godard. You know this. Hell, for one, we watched "Pillow Book" together and discussed it at quite some length. Also, my website promotes "Hail Mary" in the section of my website devoted to Bible and Film.

Second, my point is that neither Greenaway or Godard, aside from their expertise in craft, deliver on your "IF" in at least some cases.

Third, art ought to be redeeming, especially if we want to see our society evolve into something more than the "society of idiots" you claim us to be. Showing someone pissing for longer than anyone needs to see is not "redeeming" nor is having your actors/actresses engage in bizarre perversions to no particular thematic end nor is passing off random jump cuts as profoundity.

Note: By redeeming, I'm not suggesting that every movie ought to be Mary Poppins. Rather I am saying that artists are compelled by their own craft and their gift in filmmaking (or music, painting, etc.) to communicate Truth... the failure to do so is a travesty against themselves and their audience!