Jeremy,
When confronted by works that are inaccessible, does this not ask of the
viewer that they give more in the process of perceiving, and thinking
about the work? Such that, in the process of interrogating (this is a
term I've seen bandied about quite a lot recently so I'll use it too) a
film or a painting that seems not, initially, to give much away, the
viewer engages at a more urgent level in the work. To me this has always
seemed the point of art (not only films but movies too), otherwise its
conceptual possibilities would be somewhat limited.
Another thing: I've always felt that work which tends toward *question
ask* rather than *answer give* is more likely to make my viewing of it an
experience rather than a, I don't know, less engaging activity.
One other important thing about this too, concerns the element of trust.
Quite simply, as a viewer of art (all kinds) I think it is more
productive to assume that the artist/filmmaker has produced and presented
their work with the best intentions - regardless of what those intentions
might be (inaccessible intentions are valid ones too). I certainly don't
mean that all artists are categorically *morally correct* in this. Oh
dear, the M word. Better run.
Rose
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|