Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on March 17, 2005 at 13:09:47

In Reply to: You don't think that intentions are *implicit* to works of art? posted by rhizomatic on March 17, 2005 at 10:25:44:

"Regardless of what 'level' the work is at, I think it's the work itself that makes a claim on its status as art."

I guess this is where we agree to disagree. I do not see any creative product, whether you call it art, entertainment, etc., in any media, that makes a "claim" for anything. I think the work is an extention of the creator of that work, particularly in a medium such as film. If Eastwood says that his work is designed to accomplish some ideal, then he should be judged accordingly. Unless he holds his work out as an example of something, then who are we to tell him that his work stands for some idea, theory, what have you, that he never intended, and we would judge his work according to whether his work accomplishes our idea of what he was trying to do. I suspect that in two hundred years we will not be making these judgments about Eastwood's films (if that is what we are doing) just the same as I do try to attribute "claims" made by painters who painted six hundred years ago.

I never asserted that Eastwood's motives were independent of the film. Only that I do not know what his motives were, and I would not presume to guess what his motives were by the tone of the film. Nothing I have seen posted attempts to provide anything more than fact masquerading as conjecture. I know the motives of Unforgiven, because Eastwood told the public what he hoped to accomplish. Therefore, it is fair to judge him accordingly.

Maybe if we just threw out those terms like "high art", "middle-brow", etc., we could do away with what they are supposed to represent, and instead deal with the merits of the film. Or lack thereof.