Auditoire: Audience versus ART
a commentary
A film audience watching in 3D Shades.Photo credit to this site!
Anyone one who says that film is for entertainment does not know how to watch a film.
In an increasingly vibrant post-modern age, many of us were born in a time where cinema is at it's peaks. This is probably the time when words suchs as 'stars' and 'showbiz' gain popularity, and became a household, layman terms to refer to actors and their busy yet fabulous lives. The basic premise of such existence of terms is because the nature of film: audio-visual.
The glorified and popularize connection between the audience and the film casts is intensified with the opening of the new age of television when you can actually see the faces of your favorites almost all the time. The television brought us talk shows and reality TV showcasing the 'stars' and celebrities who gained popularity because of their existence in film-making and the media. Iconic figures are, themselves, the definitive aspect of existence of the world of film making.
However, this contributes also to the decrease in the fundamental quality of film, that is to portray art to viewers.
Art is viewed in multiple ways. As suppose to the visual art of painting, the role of the viewer should be greatly influential.
Viewers of art divided into two, one group being the uneducated and the other one being the educated one.
A viewer plays a very important role in film. One must understand that his role as a viewer expands from just buying a ticket to making a comment about the film. In this range, most people that i know has the incapability to connect their reaction with their 'brains', that is the capability to comprehend art.
Comprehension is always important in literature. Comprehension is most important in art.
Imagine yourself looking at La Gioconda (famously known as Mona Lisa) and another person asks you, "what do you think of this painting?" if the uneducated viewer of art responds he would say, "the monalisa is beutiful."
However, the educated viewer would say, "Late Renaissance art consider Da vinci's work, La Gioconda, as the most detailed that even the ruffles look like the real ones. Da Vinci pushed the renaissance realistic style into it's zenith by painting it as if it was alive and breathing."
A commentary of a viewer is most important to the work of art. It assumes a responsibility in the evaluation of the art work and the artist's triumph or failure to display his purpose. Therefore, each commentary must be sufficient to answer the questions: did the artist achieve his purpose in portraying his own interest to me? and what does the artwork tells me?
These are primary questions that most film audiences forgot to answer after a cinematic experience. Today, with the increasing number of film audiences in cinema their influence in film making became so important that most of films are made just for them. And this is what 'the entertainment' is all about.
Looking at the big picture, most films or, the more appropriate term, movies are commercially made with the lack of artistic rudimentary qualities. This is rather a shocking trend in film making. The political influence of film made it a commodity like shampoo and clothing line consumed with the direct influence of advertisement and marketing efforts. The socio-ideological quality of film became more influential that it's formal-aesthetic quality.
The passive role of the film-audience highly contributed to the attitude that film is a commodity and therefore for entertainment only. What can I possibly do? I realized that before i started blogging about film, i was living in mainstream age of film. As i appreciate film even more i realize that i am living in a false-narrow-minded reality of film making and i must break out in this political anomaly of film. As an art enthusiast i must reconsider my perspective in film making. I must consider, before buying a ticket and after leaving the cinema, did i achieve art?
Ciao! God bless!
