response to Alex89 On David Lynch and the Audience

I am going to have to politely disagree. Yes, it is all about us – especially when it involves film as the art medium. When you are making commercial art for purposes of profit, you have to think about your audience. David Lynch is a filmmaker and MGM gave him money to make this film and they expected profits in return. And WE all paid to see it – some with money, others with just time, others paid emotionally. So high art, low art, bad art, good art – none of that matters when you’re a paid artist because you are getting paid to cater to an audience.
And yes it is mostly about us even when it doesn’t involve film because art is a form of expression so the “what’s in it for me” aspect of that communication is the message you are receiving from the artist. You can’t accept artistic works you don’t understand because that kind of defeats the purpose of the communication going on between you and the artist. That would be like reading a novel and taking absolutely nothing away from it but then at the end saying, “well, the author tried so I appreciate the effort”. You just gave that author, that artist, hours of your life and you got nothing in return? Why would you celebrate that?
I think of art much like I do talking one on one in a conversation with somebody; if you got something to say, speak up and say it but when you do speak – don’t mumble, don’t speak gibberish, don’t make it a one sided conversation and basically don’t do anything else that makes it impossible for your audience to understand you and do involve your audience or else they will walk away.
Alright, I’ve said too much. I can already see Mr. K lining up the chairs tomorrow for another great debate. ;)