MM: Maloney's Musings Vol. 1
By Brendan Maloney
A long time friend & movie enthusiast who will be contributing occasionally about film
Anytime, anywhere seems to be the objective of all major media these days. The number of outlets audiences can consume their favorite films, music, tv and various other media has been exponentially increased. So, then, has the manner of determining the success of such artistic endeavors. Is a band successful because they are selling out stadiums and reaching the masses? Has a film been put together well enough to break domestic and international box office records, win the Oscar, and be remembered forever and all time?
An objective determination of an artistic endeavors success is an absurd proposition. Even the most base and inexperienced consumer of modern film can formulate an arguable position as to the merits of even the most preposterous of projects. I am likely to never lay eyes upon the third or fourth or fifth or whichever the last installment of Transformers is before Michael Bay dies or is murdered by a film purist; but I will never be able to formulate an argument to a die-hard fan of the series as to why I think the film is garbage and he thinks it’s great. Just the same as I will provide an uninteresting and unconvincing explanation as to why I think Cloud Atlas is one of the finest films I have ever had the privilege to witness while the Transformers fan walks away from me mid-sentence.
There are many tells in the type of “art” people consume. Television shows, books, films, music, games, all the most consumable of media are entirely revelatory of a person’s character, interests, secret desires; whether they realize it or not. I feel a great many inferences can be drawn about a person based on what they like and why they like it. A whole dynamic of their personality can be assessed. A person interacting with art is very intimate. Art is very individualized, but it is formatted to be consumed en masse (duh) through various media. A person hearing a singer in their ear through headphones is having a very deep and personal interaction with the music they are listening to. The masses flood the multiplex for the opening weekend of the next, most expensive, highest profile film from the studio system; they watch the film in a sold-out, crowded theater, but they absorb the film isolated from the peers that surround them.
Does that mean, then, that perhaps our collective identity can be compiled based on the artists and performers we tout most highly? Is there a trend among modern moviegoing audiences worldwide that have managed to establish a common plane on which we may coexist? Of course. Of course there is. How could there not be? How could anything happen that is not meaningful in one respect or another? There has to be some sort of unspoken objective of mankind that we are unwittingly working towards. And perhaps our ability to track our interests and consumption is the greatest advantage our generation has ever had for gauging the global populace’s readiness and willingness for different advancements or changes. But going where? To what end?
One might think that the day we are all on the same page for every issue, then art will disappear from the Earth. There will be no variance in people’s summations or opinions on art, so it would cease to exist because there would no longer be an impetus for its creation. Luckily this will never occur. There is enough infinite variance for the earthlings of any given time period to be vaguely similar while remaining intricately different. That is one of the finest conceits of our beauteous existence.
I do not believe one solely experiences art, without any influence from those around him. Yes, a person can have an intimate connection with the music they are listening to, or with the painting they are viewing; however, I do believe there lies another factor.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens to us, when we hear of new band or song, a new film, or even a new painter, without ever experiencing it for ourselves? We form a preconceived notion regarding the art, already creating an experience. This can interfere and intermingle with how we intend to experience it, (I expect the next Iron Man to be as overzealous and impetuous as the previous one; I expect the next album by my favorite artist to be as enjoyable as the last), or can create a higher appreciation for our final experience, (I previously thought all Batman films were just another humdrum attempt at bringing a comic book to life, until the more recent films, in which I was pleasantly surprised).
I'd like to think that there is a slight connection between the people who are in the theater/ museum/ concert venue with me. We all came to see the same things, albeit for our own reasons and personal gains. We're all there, sharing an experience together. Their audible laughs or moans affect me and my perception of the scene, as I'm certain my own affect them.
Additionally, I dare say that there is a possibility that we never really, truly experience art without some other influence in mind. That is, we possibly never experience art for art's sake, or for our own sake. We almost always, attribute the art to something, someone, or some previous experience we already know and understand.
Is that really what this life is all about? That our influences have an effect on our experiences, and our experiences on our influences? If I lived in a realm of nothingness, would I be nothing? Am I truly a sum of all of my experiences, and nothing more? And if so, is that why everything has a purpose, a place, and a reason?