after a spirited discussion with a friend, i've been seriously contemplating the aesthetic integrity of our culture and how this is seemingly manifest most vibrantly in works for children.* * *
in the age of digitopia and mass consumption (quicker, faster, stronger, brighter), the voracious appetites of adults no longer allows us to behold art that is meditated on, deeply digested, and from the creative standpoint, properly aged. Like a bottle of wine, the mysterious flavors are not released until it has spent a sufficient amount of time in stillness, and they are not savored unless the palette is properly prepared. gone are the days of joyce, where an author could afford to spend sixteen years on a Ulysses, largely because the days are gone where a reader could find the time to actually begin to get a glimpse of what lies beneath and between such a text. but maybe this is a good thing. maybe we are not meant to absorb beauty, however slowly, simply for the sake of our own aesthetic edification.
* * *
the highly individualized nature of our society has not quite stretched us enough to think critically about who we believe we are and what it is we think we can offer the world as artists. in my own life, i find it most liberating to focus not on what i consider to be my gifts, but rather, to hone in on my weaknesses and attempt to live in a world where my own ideas and ponderings are not king. to think from the perspective of 'other' as opposed to 'self' may not be entirely possible, but a deep exploration in the abyss between them could render a lifetime of beauty and contemplation.
* * *
so this friend was elaborating on how the richest and most profound works of cinema have been coming from Pixar and that the most visionary minds in the medium are transforming works for children into the most subtly detailed and complex films our theaters have seen in some time. think dark knight, pan's labyrinth, wall*e, up (from what i've heard), and perhaps, hopefully, where the wild things are. and then there's this. these are not simply 'kid's stuff', as we all know. they occupy a space where the vision of children and adults are interrelated.
* * *
maybe the aforementioned 'aesthetic integrity' is not in the object of any film or work of art itself, but in the relational void that is filled--to some degree--when we allow ourselves to be transported and transformed by the imagination of others. transfigured, even. and especially by the masters of pure imagination.
1 comment:
quick thoughts:
-sorry for being lame and not checking this in a while
-my big problem with "quicker, faster, stronger, brighter" goes back to the issue of work. when an artist (or pseudo-artist i.e. - someone who abuses the arts to make a quick buck, perhaps an idea to be disected later) operates "quicker, faster, stronger, brighter" i find that they are often just using modern bywords to excuse their laziness.
-i also am fascinated by work for "kids." i'd add to that list the works of Hiyao Miyazaki (who's latest film, incidentally, opens soon i believe).
-i forgot to mention that there is one exception to the working faster thing. when an artist works fast, BUT constantly, seeing artistry in their labor. i'm explaining this poorly, let me use an example. I've recently been introduced to the filmworks of Seijun Suzuki. he worked (works?)in post-war Japan. the studio system there forced him to churn out film after film if he wanted to stay employed. i believe he's made somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 films. in addition to the deadlines and budget restrictions, the scripts he had to work with were cookie cutter; yakuza stuff over and over again. in other words, he didn't have the space and opportunity to be Kurosawa. what's fascinating to me is that he 1) worked with the tools at his disposal to make the cookie cutter scripts into unique films & 2) didn't worry about making a statement with each film (or his entire ouevre for that matter) but let his life's work talk for him.
Post a Comment