In Reply to: Re: Well, no... posted by jamesgarvin on March 17, 2005 at 09:26:56:
Regardless of what 'level' the work is at, I think it's the work itself that makes a claim on its status as art. All of the supplementary baggage plays a role, but the role the supplementary baggage plays devolves upon a consensual undertanding that the work itself makes some claim upon judgment. I don't doubt that you weren't sitting in your chair keeping a running tab on the relationship between Mystic River and other films or other works of art, but I don't believe that you're sitting there understanding that film, or anything else, as some sui generis experience that's incomparable to any other film or work of art. We understand things only through reference to other things, implicitly or explicitly. The very tone that Mystic River takes comes equipped with historical baggage. Film is as historically bound a medium as anything else, and there's certainly nothing in Mystic River that is genuinely original (in the sense of technique or plot development, characterization, etc.), as I think even its strongest defender would concede. So never mind Eastwood's 'motives' as something independent of the film. The film situates itself relative to other films via its aesthetic choices; those choices make some claim on a status relative to the cinematic tradition. Agreed?Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about its pretensions to high art, and maybe that's the wrong way to frame what I'm trying to say. My problem with the film is its overseriousness, on the one hand, and then an issue that may be extrinsic to the film itself: the idea that overseriousness is supposed to be the province of 'high art,' and that's what legitimates popular disdain of high art...
Er, I've gotta go to lunch but I'd be happy to continue this discussion, as I think it's interesting and you've made good points.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You don't think that intentions are *implicit* to works of art? - rhizomatic 10:25:44 03/17/05 (3)
- Re: You don't think that intentions are *implicit* to works of art? - jamesgarvin 13:09:47 03/17/05 (1)
- But I'm not judging Eastwood. - rhizomatic 13:54:02 03/17/05 (0)
- Oh, by 'supplementary baggage' here, - rhizomatic 10:27:05 03/17/05 (0)