The Artist's Art

While I think definitions of art are always problematic partly because the word "art" is thrown around so much in the media but also because there are so many vastly different individual works, people, and crafts that I would truly designate as art.

But when an artist is creating a work of art, he should adhere to a very rigid conception of art in order to give the work a unity of vision. Watching as many movies as I do, I've become partial to certain concepts of art that have affected me more than others. So here's a few such concepts, where I get them from, why I like them, and specific films that I think exemplify them (a little preachy, but so are most people when they try to express their deepest convictions) :

1.) A work of art should give it's audience the freedom take it in their own way. An artist should present the world as he sees it but should avoid overt statements. It is much more interesting to engage critically with what is going and drawing one's own conclusions than to have the film itself proclaim its film's themes and world view. I agree with Andrei Tarkovsky when he says that the filmmaker should meet the audience halfway.
Tarkovsky's Stalker or Mirror

2.) "The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but rather the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity."
-Glenn Gould

Although I'm not convinced that wonder and serenity are the end goals of art, I do think art has an important role in individual's lives and society at large. These roles of art are not played out viscerally through sensationalism, but possibly through the role of reenacting people and conflicts in a structure that allows an audience to see themselves and their conflicts more clearly - a luxury not afforded by the chaotic flow of everyday life. In this way art has definitely had a profound impact on my life.
Bergman's Wild Strawberries

3.) I am interested in the non-dramatic moments in life. I'm not at all attracted to making films that are about drama.
-Jim Jarmusch

When films involve lots of drama, they tend to bore me. I don't necessarily believe that this is an artistic truth, but when drama comes first it is often accompanied by cliches and stereotypes.
Any Jarmusch film, Malick's Badlands

4.) Don't reduce characters to simple psychological causes.

Badlands

Art vs. Entertainment

Film, especially in the United States, has always had an inseparable and uneasy relationship between what people consider "art" and "entertainment". I will not attempt to make any sweeping statements about what constitutes art or entertainment because no matter what ideas I read about and tend to agree with at one time or another, I inexorably find exceptions and contradictions within such theories. The one criteria I'll put forth is that "entertaining" films are generally more geared towards making money than "art" films.

As an aspiring filmmaker myself, I struggle with what kind of films I would like to make. Although I'm not whole-heartedly an idealist (I eat meat even though I think it is immoral), I've always leaned towards wanting to make art films because the films I love and hold dear are the ones commonly referred to as "art". If I had to choose, I'd rather be making films I like and have no money than making films where I compromise my ideas and "artistic vision" for films that will make lots of money. Okay, so I'm idealist.

But there have been many great filmmakers who could have virtually complete control over their films and become wealthy simultaneously. Alfred Hitchcock is the epitome of this type. His films were hugely successful, very well received, and now considered some of the best films ever made. This was possible because Hitchcock's artistic vision was also commercially viable and one that people found entertaining in addition to artful.

Hitchcock's American counterpart might be Orson Welles (these 2 directors are consistently rated above all other directors in critics' and directors' polls). Other than his first film, Citizen Kane - which he made at the age of 26 and is now considered the best film of all time - he hardly ever had control over his films because he could never find funding for the kinds of films he wanted to make or after making a film, the studio in charge would considerably reedit his film.

There is also the filmmaker who supports his artistic endeavors with blockbuster successes. Steven Soderbergh is perhaps the greatest example; Becoming one of the faces of American independent film in the late 80's, over the last few years he has alternated between making the star-studded Ocean's 11 movies with small low-budget artsy films like Bubble.

Assuming I become a competent writer and/or director (let's play along), I know I would never like to make my living making Hollywood films. The few Hollywood films being made today that I do like are just not stylistically what I'm interested in making myself (sorry mom and dad). One of the paradoxes of independent filmmaking is that it is equally bent on making money albeit on a smaller scale. No one is going to fund your film if they don't stand a chance of getting their money back, no matter how "good" you are.

So what can I conclude? Hollywood sucks but other non-Hollywood (independent) modes of filmmaking suffer the from the same problems. So I'll have to rob banks on the side.

"I've got a peculiar weakness for criminals and artists, neither takes life as it is. Any tragic story has to be in conflict with things as they are."
-Stanley Kubrick