"Too many colors deaden the eye"
I think it says that in the Tao te Ching.
Now, I have no idea what that means, but it sounds good. Oh, uh... and I do wear glasses, so I think the "dead eye" thing is relevant here.
Now everytime I go to buy a new pair of glasses I think: "cool, I get to express myself with some sweet new shades." I always want to get some really funky gothic looking specs like my neighbor Bill has-- you know those cool black framed glasses like Clark Kent used to wear... or maybe some of those cool Ben-Franklin-lookin' glasses that were meant to be reading glasses, but look so cool that you wear them all the time anyway. Or possibly those purple cat-rimmed glasses that Grandma used to wear-- now those are some artsy glasses.
But when I get to the optometrist's office, I freeze. There are just SOOO many different frames to choose from. There are 72 different Ben Franklins, 98 different Clark Kents and a full 437 Grandmas on display. What is a guy to do? So everytime, I go for basically the same pair of glasses that I've been wearing for 10 years now.
And maybe that's the reason that in the land of the world's greatest art beers everyone drinks characterless beer-flavored wine coolers like Miller Lite and Budweiser.
I don't know what it's like in other countries these days, but I do know about the state of the arts (and not just the state of the state-of-the-art arts either) in the US of A. And it's not that Americans don't care about art, it's just that they care about money more. And with the internet and libraries and museums and concert halls and that weird guy on the street corner... art is just too... confusing.
Americans do care (at least a little bit) about movies. Not FILMs though. Just movies. And there is a difference. A movie is any picture show with robots or ninjas, or robot-killing ninjas....
Film is more like this:
A film by bob.
Title: man on toilet drinking booze from broken VCR.
Cut to scene 1: Dirty man sits on toilet drinking booze from a broken VCR. Man throws down VCR, smirks, and lights a cigarette.
The End.
So why would any American part with his hard earned cash to support "the arts?" I mean, artists are weird, and they hardly ever karate chop robots. And this is why at one of my last rehearsals, my director cried in front of us, because the "money people" had just told her that Mozart was no longer economically viable in the US...."maybe if there were robots or something...."
6 comments:
Gah
Money and culture don't mix, because the drive for money has left people with no time to learn about culture. This winds me up a lot.
Gah again
Oh, and american beer? Not a patch on the Belgians, man. Not a patch.
See, I'd disagree here, but maybe I've allowed my definition of the word "film" to expand. You seem to look at it in a sort of Andy Worhol way and sure, there's not a market for that.
But I think there's a lot of "film" mixed into our "movies". I like to use the recent Lord of the Rings trilogy here. Sure, it's a "movie." There's lots of digital effects and stuff blows up on occasion and lots of fine looking men and women for the "movie" crowd. But, there's a lot of art there to appreciate. The craftsmanship on the costumes and props is amazing. The cinematography, the sets, the "bigatures", the digital art, the love and dedication that can be seen in every frame there is art to me.
I'll agree that art has perhaps taken a back seat to money, but they aren't mutually exclusive. Everywhere one looks, there are little pieces of art to be discovered. The other night, I was watching TV and some sort of sports drink/nike/reebok/whatever commercial came on. In one shot, a basketball player dunking a basket is silhouetted in black against a golden sky. So beautifully done I had to rewind (thanks, Tivo) and take another look.
The studios want to make money, but as long as someone loves the project, the art happens naturally.
Scott you make very good points....
And I basically think I agree with you. When the LOTR boxset came out, I went to a LOTR party with some guys that worked with me as set construction faculty at the University of Illinois Theater Department. We watched one of the extras about the making of Isengard, and one of the guys said "hey that's just like what we do in the shop." After a moment of silence, we all simultaineously busted out laughing. We all felt like what we did was art, but next to Isengard, our sets looked like a bunch of lint stuck to an old piece of scotch-tape.
And it's great that you find art even in TV commercials-- and your right!
BUT:
One of the groups that I sing with right now does some fund-raising events, and we have to sing some pretty attrocious music. Now these are some great young singers who have done some work with the Lyric Opera of Chicago and such, and we often surprise ourselves when we're singing a ultra-cheesy arrangement of "feelin' groovy" and we make it art!
The Dad of one of our singers is a painter. she said that his last big paying job was a nock-off of a Michelangelo, with the hands of God presenting a giant double cheeseburger. She said he cried. But he made it art Damn it!
But he shouldnt' have to do that, should he?
And should any artist have to make Fricken commercials for running shoes?
Maybe film has a certain amount of immunity from these trends, because there is sooo much money.... but for the rest of the arts....
as our good friend JK says, "gah!"
And JK my friend,
If you ever come to Chicago, I'll have a bottle of Westmallen Trapist Trippel waiting for you.
Thank God for the Belgians.
"But he shouldnt' have to do that, should he?
And should any artist have to make Fricken commercials for running shoes?"
Well, there's the problem right there. No artist sjhould have to make running shoe commercials, or put a big mac in God's hands. And they don't. That's the unfortunate love child of creativity and money.
Making a living doing what you love seems like a no-brainer, right? Why would I want to work some crappy office job somewhere if I could be expressing myself artistically?
Problem is, self-expression is cheap. Look at us all doing it for free on Blogger. These days, if someone is paying you for your song/painting/poem/script/other piece of art, they're most likely looking for you to express THEIR idea, make them some money in return, or both.
The term "selling out" gets thrown around pretty harshly, but isn't that pretty much what it means? Are we willing to use our talents to express something we find distasteful for money?
It's encouraging for me to live in a digital age where, really, if you're passionate about something and you put it out there on that great big ol' world wide web, there's a good chance you'll find someone else who feels very passionately about it too, if you go poking around the right places.
But is there any money in it? Does there need to be?
Wow, that might have come out more harsh than I meant it. I don't harbor any bad feelings towards burger-in-God's-hands-Guy or running-shoe-commercial-Guy.
What I mean is this. We have our need to express our ideas and feelings. We have our need to support ourselves and our families.
Only the very luckiest of us, in my estimation, get to mix the two.
Post a Comment