response to doug

Of couse MGM paid David Lynch do ecaxtly what he did. They are no idiots; it's not like they weren't familure with his work. And yes we all paid for an experience, but we paid for a David Lynch experience if  the audience member wanted their hand to be held and their tummy to be rubbed, then they should have gone to see Mulan, Finding Nemo, or anyother Disney movie. (I'm not ragging on either film. I mentoned them because they're my favorites.) 

 And obliously art is about expression, the artists expression. Are you implying that we should'nt apprechiate anything we don't understand? I beleive that is where the notion of book burning began. If i speak to you in a language you don't understand that does not make me a bad communicator; it just means simply you don't speak my language. Just because some of us don't understand David Lynch's language doesn't mean what he said wasnt important or that he's "defeating the purpose of communication" as you stated. You are ignoring the use of communication as a form of self expression.

I think the things we don't understand should be celebrated the most. If we were to disregaurd everything we dont understand as unimportant we would miss out on allot. Also Doug, you need to remember that film and "musem" art (i.e. paintings, sculptures ect.) are dead mediums. They are one sided. You can talk back to a painting but it will just keep saying the same thing. You can yell at a David Lynch film but every time you pop in the DVD the same scenes and lines will play. Art and films are not like this blog; they are not interactive. They talk at us not with us. That's what's beautiful about them...it's not about us... unless we of couse we keep insisting that it is.