As somebody who has never taken an art class, cared much about art (in a critical sense, I obviously enjoy watching movies and whatnot), or analyzed art – such as looking at deeper meanings or significances, this article was both difficult and enlightening.
Since I’m not entirely sure what form these responses are supposed to take, I will just discuss the two aspects of the article that were most intriguing for me. The first of these is the idea of the shift from production value to conception that came along with the rise of conceptualism. This is something that I find especially interesting, because I just spent the summer in LA and frequently hung out with my cousin, who is an independent film director. During the summer, him and I had extensive conversations about what it’s like to be an independent film director. Through these conversations, I gained a good appreciation for how influential production value is, and how much easier it is for “mainstream” sources of entertainment to create music, film, or art with good production value. Having the resources to make a movie look good with special effects is something that clearly distinguishes “Hollywood” movies from independent ones. My cousin further explained to me how he is relying more on plotline and concept to make his movie good, since as a self funded project, he simply does not have the resources available to create a high level of production value.
The other component of Drucker’s analysis that I found intriguing was her discussion of how language is privileged as the best representation of ideas – all the while visual representations are just as viable. As I previously mentioned, I’ve never been involved in art, and have definitely taken for granted the idea that linguistic representations of meaning are more superior to visual representations. After reading this article, I will definitely reexamine the way in which I look at both visual and linguistic representations.
No comments:
Post a Comment