Comprehending honesty
I've been struggling for years with different art theory problems. And the latest, which I intend to use for my undergraduate thesis this fall, is certainly no easier. (The problem is basically that I believe art must have the potential to be understood and I am investigating what creates this potential.) I have already come across some wonderful things as I begin my research and I am sure there is much more ahead. My latest discovery was an interview with Andrei Tarkovsky, my film-director hero. He spoke at some length of the responses he received after his semi-autobiographical film The Mirror. Many of the people who wrote to him were amazed because they felt the film expressed their life. Tarkovsky, who made the film with very little thought to its audience, but more to recreate certain episodes in his memory, was also amazed. So he spent some time analyzing why people had responded so strongly. His conclusion is fantastic: "If someone expresses his true feelings in a work of art, they cannot remain secrets to others. If the director or the author is lying, makes things up artificially, his work becomes entirely...contrived. Such work does not move anyone. So a mutual understanding between the author and the audience, without which work of art does not exist, is possible only when the creator is being honest." I am so impressed. Honesty is indeed a necessarily quality which I was forgetting or obscuring. And we do recognize it. Even when we can't understand it well enough to name or articulate, we know when it is or isn't there. And when it is, I believe we also find that comprehension is possible, though not necessarily easy or immediate.
posted by Beatrice Maeve at 3:16 PM
4 Comments:
At the same time, as an artist, the element of communication must exist or it seems that the art has in some way failed its purpose. What I mean by this is that the artist may focus on himself and his experiences, not in an egotistical sense, but rather as a bridge between himself and the universal pathos of the human race. I think many artists, especially in the modern age, feel that their art is "honest," but leave the viewer/reader too little of a key to unlock that confession/expression. If the honesty becomes lost in the artistry, then the skilled performance looses its purpose.
Sorry for the unorganized scraps of thought, but the idea is not completely clear for me yet either. I'm just bouncing off ideas. Thanks for the intriguing posts- keep it up!
Kel,
What I was trying to say is that honesty is what enables the communication. Yes. I agree that if you can't engage a work, it does seem to fail. But then, we aren't always ready to engage a work. Sometimes we aren't mature enough. I learned the painful way that not everyone falls in love with Eliot the first time they read him. So the problem is really a big one. But I am more and more convinced that honesty is a lot of what creates the possibility of communication--especially when the subject matter is difficult. Although, I should add that when we respond to the "something" and feel that some kind of communication has happened, we still can't always verbalize it.
Keep your thoughts coming, I really appreciate them.
thanks for your comments - i love food for thought as you well know ;)
Those are some interesting thoughts. I wonder, then, if the most natural or naturally-talented artists are those to whom "honesty" comes easily. I think a lot of times the honesty one wants to give in an artistic work is hampered by ego or self-consciousness. I guess it must take a lot of courage to show yourself so honestly to others.
Post a Comment
<< Home