The Black Von Scrolls

Many years ago, Felix and I backpacked throughout Japan we noticed there were no homes built on the hillsides of towns. This seemed odd, so we inquired with an English speaking friend as to why. It was explained that Japanese society reject the “king of the hill” stature, as it’s a blatant way of displaying wealth, power and importance. It’s garish. Tokyo’s imperial palace is in the center of town, not a castle on a mountain. This would go directly against a neighborhood like the Hollywood Hills; one of the biggest houses looking over the city use to be owned by Merv Griffin (old television host and big producer, look him up). Most American cities work in the reverse of this Japanese tradition – Americans like to be the cat sitting on the hillside looking over the land.

John’s point about “tall trees” made me think about equality. And I know he is very much into equality on many levels. I understand his position to pose popcorn movies as the “Art of Our Time”, because in his view it’s like a universal way of coming together on the same level and having a shared cultural experience. There is no one great thing, no markers.

But I still believe that intent is an important factor in calling something art. Hollywood often doesn’t label their popcorn movies “art” – and neither do I. It’s entertainment… just like “The Real Housewives of Wherever.” Perhaps I am more traditional, but I believe that contemporary art has done it’s job through “our time” – and the only factor making it not as accessible as movies is the direct competition with movies. Entertainment trumps art. Entertainment also trumps science and history museums, books and many other activities, because entertainment is easier. No one has to work. You zone out and escape; and stare willfully into that big, rectangular, flickering box. I protest that popcorn movies are not “The Art of Our Time”, simply because they are not art.

http://starwarsmodern.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-want-to-be-old-artist-but-movies-are.html

Bill Murray in “Caddyshack”, 1980

Why are movies not the art of our time? Because movies are entertainment. 

The Hollywood machine, creator of popcorn movies, works as a business to entertain their viewers. Yes, there are instances where an auteur is hired and given carte blanche to create a film. But there are so few directors with that kind of power, and John Powers is posing that popcorn movies are the art of our time because they create “togetherness”. A shared experience.

We talk about movies at the office water cooler. We discuss scenes of a movie with our families. Movies are talked about and can be viewed together, but does that really make them a giant art experience?

I don’t buy it. There are lots of things we discuss at the water cooler (Facebook and Twitter); the amazing meal we had the night before, a problematic book, news, politics, TV, gossip, the boss… we talk about a lot of topics. Just because movies inspire us to discuss them, doesn’t make them the art of our time. I grant they fit within a larger framework which may help to construct our popular culture, but they still serve as entertainment, just like TV.

Are “peaceful technicians” moving in some hive-like way to create some beautiful cinematic art movement? Hollywood is not full of little ants working for a queen. It’s filled with sharks, anxious to make a deal to create movies they think their audience will buy tickets to see. This brings me back to my original point; INTENT.

There are thousands (probably millions) of marketing dollars invested in focus groups to find out what kinds of films will sell. Studios are looking to find a script which fits into a market and attempt to cash in. It’s a business. Who is the artist in this process?

Who is the artist? Art can not be made without an artist behind the work. Studios choose a script, hire a director and green light a film. The director accepts a job and is paid as an employee to create the movie. Artists work and create differently. Perhaps if you’re Damien Hirst, then the reverse might be true. But generally speaking, contemporary artists have sole freedom to express themselves (unless you live in, er, China).

I’d also like to wave the “WTF” flag regarding John’s theory on between architecture, film and art. For me that was a big giant rabbit hole; a smoke-and-mirrors argument which he attempted to explain something about architecture and it’s relation to movies, instead of discussing movies and it’s relation to art. “Movies stand between the extremes of the glass and steel towers and polystyrene installation art.” I realize we’re putting things into categories and calling it this or that, but tossing in architecture just added a whole other element to clutter up the debate. I think he was grabbing at straws.

Daren Fowler left a good comment on Hyperallergic Labs defending cinema. In the case of the exceptions he listed - he’s right. Film can become great art. But John has a broader view and claims that blockbusters, like anything from Jaws to Caddyshack are the art of our time. 

I can’t imagine artists like Agnes Martin or Bruce Nauman taking direction from some studio executive. They were paving new ground in the sixties and seventies, off in their corners deconstructing their own issues and problems. And there’s a long list where that came from. 

To re-cap:

1) A committee focused first on profit can not create great art, it creates entertainment.

2) John’s “peaceful technicians” do not hold up, the “Art of Our Time” must include an artist.

3) Producing movies is a craft; it’s commercial art. It is “crafted” by many extremely talented and creative people to create a product. Occasionally movies created by an auteur can become great art.

Contemporary art continues to break into new territory and expand our consciousness through expression, experience and story-telling. It can impact all of our five senses, sometimes in just a brief moment. It started with Duchamp and has continued to expand into new territory, formats, media - and yes, film. But I do not believe there can be such a thing without an artist behind the wheel.

Some of the Art of Our Time: Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here…