A few years ago, in an Inside the Actors Studio interview (I’m
a fan) James Lipton spoke about how theater and acting, in general, realized
the distinction between performing to impress and doing it to express, and as a
result, changed forever. This kind of stuck with me.
I then, as is my general modus operandi, took the concept and
tried to figure out its implication in all art. I soon realized the rather
obvious conflict. It’s more apparent in movies and T.V, but it’s transcendent
in its effects. When an artist creates something, he or she usually does it to
express something from within and this urge to communicate with someone is why
they often seek subjective perfection or at least unrepentant satisfaction in
their work. Art is proclaimed beautiful when the attempt not only becomes a successful
exercise in communication but manages to deeply impress its perceiver, often creating
within him or her, an urge to communicate as well. This is why art is formless
and defies conventional definitions (the subject matter and medium of
communication could very well be anything).
But we live in a world where art is commercial as well.
Money is a great motivator and inhibitor of purpose. And art is big business. This causes
intentional and unintentional changes to the way the modern artist thinks,
because the more you manage to impress the audience or consumer (an important
distinction), the more profit there is. How many movies, for example, out there
today are products of this mechanism? How many times have we come out of the
cinema and wondered why we feel nothing emotionally but remember laughing and
applauding while it was going on? We then coin phrases and terms that help us
cope, like ‘popcorn movie’ or ‘summer entertainer’.
I actually know of an instance, when a script writer for an actual movie after
presenting it to a friend of mine who works in the ‘industry’ for his opinion,
kept asking him at various parts of the screenplay - ”Do you think we will get
an applause from the crowd for that line there?” He was quite pleased with
himself, no after thoughts or anything.
Apart from the monetary issue, there is also a far deeper,
more personal one, a basic subconscious need ‘to be liked and maybe even loved’.
We are kidding ourselves if we say that this is not a factor in our artistic
motivations. Because often the thing that is struggling to break out of you and
make itself known to others, be it an idea or an emotion, might not be one that
would be received well. People don’t particularly like to feel bad about
themselves or the world, if the option is presented to them, that is. I can
personally attest to this conflict within me when I write something. Deciding
what I can and can’t say, and then deciding how to say what I can say. Keep in
mind that most of what I write has no prospect for material returns. What I
found out was that, to keep my sanity and the only way to obtain some satisfaction
was to make conscious decisions that ensured that the primary reason to write was
to express something and only once that has been taken care of, to give in to
the need to impress. I don’t want to know what happens if you throw money in to
the equation.
This conflict actually sheds some light on some running
themes in art – why ‘great’ art is often considered ‘controversial’ and why
many artists were not appreciated in their lifetimes? The audience or the perceivers haven’t
changed much in the past few centuries, certainly not when it comes to basic
tendencies towards aesthetics. It’s just that the rules of society hadn’t changed
enough to allow them to be impressed by the art at that point in time.
Especially, if the art expressed something that the perceiver was not, due to
many reasons, ready to receive. So they refer to the artist years later and say
“Well, he was far ahead of his time..” Yeah, and you were chained to yours.
In conclusion, it boils down to one of those “It is what it
is” scenarios. Nothing much we can do about it except be aware of it and ask
the right questions. The world may be hell bent on calling all movies “art”,
but as a relatively free individual with internet access and a voice, I am
equally hell bent on declaring that those movies conceived, produced and
marketed specifically to make money and for no other reason, are consumer products and not art, and the making of them is strictly commerce.
I am not saying that I hate or even dislike them that much, all I’m saying is that I know
the difference when I see it. Can’t fool me... ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment