"What then is the purpose of this activity? It seems to me that the purpose of art is to prepare the human soul for the perception of good. The soul opens up under the influence of an artistic image, and it is for this reason that we say it helps us to communicate - but it is communication in the highest sense of the word. I could not imagine a work of art that would prompt a person to do something bad." AT
Tarkovsky's films and words have been a great solace for me these past few weeks. They're both uplifting and wondrously complex. Too many have suggested that I should evade such thoughts and questions and do something "fun" instead, at least until I'm feeling less dispirited. I find that escapist and unhelpful. Delayed.
"Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. If you look for meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it. Take a watch to pieces, it doesn't work. Similarly with a work of art, there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it." AT
Thinking is overrated. Judging situations based on feelings is considered weakness. If something can't be rationalized, it can't be accepted. I think this is part of our culture's de-humanizing nature, where it's more acceptable to evaluate a dilemma in terms of financial impact than moral. This is obvious in government and corporate decision making, but I don't think we realize how much it burrows subconsciously into our personal and daily choices. It shouldn't be acceptable on any level. Maybe we're at a point where we think we understand too much of the world around us. Too much science is infiltrating our everyday rationalities. (I think the higher up scientists realize the ambiguity of their formalizations, but only the succinct answers seem to flow down to the common level.) We're bombarded with too much analysis, too many statistics giving us false security, allowing us think that our positions are more predictable and explicable than they really are. In fact this over-simplification is self-demeaning. We do this in our daily lives. We do this to our art.
Being better at sciences but always more drawn to the ambiguities of art, I find myself trying too often to apply formalistic techniques to the latter, which still isn't that much. Well, I mean I do in my descriptions of them, in the sense that I'm always insecurely looking for the right interpretation instead of just enjoying the film for what I take out of it. I still struggle to adequately express feeling; I think too much. I am still too rigid. I try to apply meanings to the works themselves instead of allowing them to apply their feelings onto me. ...if that makes sense.
[Uck, this tea I'm drinking tastes like boiled peach cobbler, which can sound good in theory but actually isn't.]
Tarkovsky's films and words have been a great solace for me these past few weeks. They're both uplifting and wondrously complex. Too many have suggested that I should evade such thoughts and questions and do something "fun" instead, at least until I'm feeling less dispirited. I find that escapist and unhelpful. Delayed.
"Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. If you look for meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it. Take a watch to pieces, it doesn't work. Similarly with a work of art, there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it." AT
Thinking is overrated. Judging situations based on feelings is considered weakness. If something can't be rationalized, it can't be accepted. I think this is part of our culture's de-humanizing nature, where it's more acceptable to evaluate a dilemma in terms of financial impact than moral. This is obvious in government and corporate decision making, but I don't think we realize how much it burrows subconsciously into our personal and daily choices. It shouldn't be acceptable on any level. Maybe we're at a point where we think we understand too much of the world around us. Too much science is infiltrating our everyday rationalities. (I think the higher up scientists realize the ambiguity of their formalizations, but only the succinct answers seem to flow down to the common level.) We're bombarded with too much analysis, too many statistics giving us false security, allowing us think that our positions are more predictable and explicable than they really are. In fact this over-simplification is self-demeaning. We do this in our daily lives. We do this to our art.
Being better at sciences but always more drawn to the ambiguities of art, I find myself trying too often to apply formalistic techniques to the latter, which still isn't that much. Well, I mean I do in my descriptions of them, in the sense that I'm always insecurely looking for the right interpretation instead of just enjoying the film for what I take out of it. I still struggle to adequately express feeling; I think too much. I am still too rigid. I try to apply meanings to the works themselves instead of allowing them to apply their feelings onto me. ...if that makes sense.
[Uck, this tea I'm drinking tastes like boiled peach cobbler, which can sound good in theory but actually isn't.]
No comments:
Post a Comment