Lynch undoubtedly has an enormous amount of creative power at his disposal, but to this power he owes a great deal of responsibility. This is where Lynch dropped the ball for me. As an artist, especially an artist who has an agenda, message, central concept, underlying theme, purpose, what have you, you must take into account your audience. First I must consider the fundamental question"Can art exist without an audience?" For the sake of this argument I will say, no. At parts of this film I felt like the audience was completely left out of consideration. If there is no point to an action or a scene other than the artist liked it and it has some significance in his mind that he alone applies to his piece of art, particularly in film and theatre, than the artist has a responsibility to his audience to clue them in on it. This is not theatre of the absurd, or abstract art, this is a cohesive work of cinematography (for the most part) and I think that the fact that we have spent the last two weeks of class talking about it and analyzing it points to the notion that it indeed contains some significant message or theme. If an artist requires that I enter his world in order to fully appreciate the work he is presenting to me, than I expect him to at the VERY least not pull me out of the world without purpose, and maybe even make certain concession to ensure my involvement in that world. Lynch, obviously disagrees. Lynch pretty much expresses that if you don't get it he doesn't care. So my question for him would be, if your audience is working hard to try and understand your vision and you purposefully make that exceedingly difficult than whats the point of having an audience? Why not just watch it at home?
0 comments:
Post a Comment