How Movies are Ruining Your Art
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Besides the events of the writers and actors strike, we have noticed how movies can be ruining art. Not the art itself, but the experience of taking it in, the same way you would when you visit museums or look at a runway show. Artists are trying to present their work of art on its own terms, and our ability to understand it may be too far gone.
Watch Exclusive Videos: / blissfoster
Follow me on IG: / blissfoster
Join the Patreon or I’ll mess your hair up
💫💫
can we talk about fosters home for imaginary friends..... why was it ok to just give away a sentient friend you spawned in and got tired of isnt that morally fucked up, imagin out growing your dog so u just give him back the shelter. also what if there are imaginary friends that are among humans like replicants is that scary does it matter. what if you fell in love with an imaginary friend by accident? is that legal, do they age to they mature? these are questions i shouldnt bring up in a fashion youtube comment section. shout out craig mckraiken love his work
These are the type of threats that will make me join the Patreon
hey Bliss, did u go to the Junya Watanabe SS 24 show? Can you make a video about Junya? Im curious about your thoughts about him and the brand. Thank you
@@aslakaln7189 hey! We did go to the new show by him, yes. Will include it in our big PFW review. We also have a review of his last runway in our 90 PFW video that’s already out!
Hello fashion man, 'tis I, non-fashion girl. Don't know how I got here but I'm happy every time that I am
Me too 🫣 he’s always asking us to join the Patreon so we can be part of a community of fashion historians/analysts, and I’d love to support the channel, but I wouldn’t have one meaningful thing to say about clothes or haute couture. Honestly he’s yet to convince me that fashion isn’t the lowest form of art and just an excuse for pretentious elitists to cosplay as citizens of the Capitol from the Hunger Games, but I watch every video on this channel anyways hoping one day he changes my mind. But yeah who knows how tf we got here 🤷🏻♀️
in my humble opinion, I agree fashion and honestly every other form of art really, have been seemingly almost monopolised by the rich.
Many of the art pieces we all know are unfathomable expensive.
But I’m saying seemingly, because: that’s not all there’s to it. There’s still the people painting in their backyard, the people taking pottery classes, the people sewing cute flowers onto their trousers.
Fashion is as much of an art for the people as any other. It just depends on at what level you’re looking at it.
Hope this helps :)
Waddup, Emma 🦾
iconic comment
"Fashion man" lol
I agree and disagree with you! While it's true most mainstream films require no mental energy there are a LOT of films that want you to think think think all the time. Just like fashion, films have different levels to it too! I would recommend you to check out films by directors like Andrei Tarkovsky, Pier Pasolini, Park Chan Wook, Shane Carruth, Kryztof Kieslowski and Roy Andersson if you want to enjoy films that ask for you to interpret what's happening on the screen in front of you!
Sorry if I messed up the spellings haha these people have insanely unique names! Love u bliss😘😘
I think there is simply a distinction to be made between mainstream/arthouse films, just like there is one between clothes you would find at most fast-fashion stores vs. high fashion. It's not that there's nothing going on in mainstream cinema/fashion, it's just that its purpose is to please most people. Whereas arthouse/high fashion are made to challenge you and your perspective on the world. The goal is just not the same and I don't think it only applies to film.
The thing is, arthouse films can be appreciated at a surface level (no shame in that) and people who are not particularly into films don't even suspect there is more to it because the presence of a narrative prevents them from seeing it. Before majoring in film studies there are so many things I wouldn't have considered while watching them.
To anyone interested, I would add : Chantal Akerman, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Ingmar Bergman, Werner Herzog
apichatpong weerasethakul
As a film student (also into fashion as I’m here rn) I would add Andrzej Zulawski
*Pier Paolo Pasolini ❤👍🏻
you're right! but commercial works don't really say "hey, pay attention" and they kinda rule the box office. Did you ever see James Blakes Retrograde video, Kinda Tarkovsky's dinner party end of the world movie?
As a writer who’s taken writing workshops, I’ve noticed that writers today often write their books as if they were movies- putting a large emphasis on visual description, dialogue, etc. I can attest that as a novelist myself it can be hard to get over the urge to want your book to be “adaptable” if you ever struck it big and got to see it made into a movie. Novels are their own medium and have their own unique advantages and opportunities that movies don’t have, and I’m really thing to learn that!
Yesterday I sat down to rewatch Miyazaki's Spirited Away, which I hadn't watched since a teen. In the first quarter, I found myself asking all these questions about the film that took away from the "sinking in" experience. In the act of rewatching I feel like there are three intentions: nostalgia, further analyzation and re-expereincing the actual film itself. For myself, I found it hard to simply enjoy the film while analyzing it, at some point i had to quiet my brain and allow space to just watch and sink into Miyazaki's world. In this moment I felt a sort of moving backwards-- not in a negative sense-- more like when you're a young and can really get lost in a movie world. Which I find is so much harder to do now as an adult.
I also love that you touched upon the amount of nuance that exists on tik tok, cuz there really is.
100%%%%%
I'd argue novels do the same thing that you're arguing film does--they typically have a clear narrative that is immediately obvious to the reader. It seems like this is a question of narrative vs non-narrative art rather than film vs all other art. I totally agree that being able to tolerate ambiguity and appreciate subtlety and less overt forms of meaning-making is valuable, though I still love a good story! I also don't think it's a bad thing to want to understand a work of art on more analytical level (e.g. what does this song's bassline contribute to its meaning)--and being frustrated with our own lack of understanding can still be a generative position through which we can engage with art and understand ourselves through art. Personally I think the only "wrong" way to engage with art is to simply dismiss it ("it's not that deep," "I could have done that," etc.)
not all things are created for artistic purposes(such as most if not all propaganda piece, anything made solely w/ profit in mind, etc.), but as for those that are made w/ artistic purposes over any other potential motive for its creation? I can get get behind you on how the only “wrong” way to interact w/ art is to dismiss it in the way that you’ve described
I feel lucky that I haven't felt this before. But I generally agree with this. I would say that the "cure" for this is just to surround yourself with art that makes you think. Recently I saw a play called Father (Otac - in my language) and it was a really emotional experience that left me thinking about it's meaning for days
Bliss, we all guessed McQueen within 3 seconds
I guessed mcqueen then I was like it’s bliss so it’s a trick question so I said margiela
Angel's Egg. Can't explain, just appreciate, it's art.
as a freelancer illustrator and finearts painter... that "taking it as it is" was somewhat natural to me but frustrated me insanely when my non-artist friends didnt do it and ask 1000 question.
Thank you Bliss for giving me words for my vague frustration
I've had my fare share of experiences similar to what you told. I studied art history for a year, but then decided to drop out, because I felt like being an art historian means to dissect pieces trying to find "true meaning" of it. I remember vividly two different episodes in museums - one when I was still an art history student and another after dropping out. The first one is when I visited Hermitage museum in Saint Petersburg with my classmate. I was showing him pieces I like, and he kept asking me why I liked it, waiting for me to start referencing different specifications about technique or story etc. I couldn't find an answer to his question, because the reason of my liking was somewhat of a gut feeling. The feeling of a deep connection to a piece with no need to explaining it to myself or others. Back then I was ashamed because I didn't know exact cultural background of an artist, as if without me knowing those details I have no right to like the painting.
Completely different experience I had when I saw for the first time in my life "Composition VII" by Vasily Kandinsky. I've loved his works ever since I was a child, I've read his diaries and found myself in some moments, had all the background I needed to know about the painter, but when I finally saw the piece, I just stood there. Nothing of this previous knowledge had ever crossed my mind. It felt like the painting is surrounding me and becomes an even bigger and important part of my life - just as important as it was to Kandinsky himself a century ago. It happened a year since I dropped out of art history course and had already enrolled to another university to study textile and costume design. I think right at that moment, in front of the Kandinsky painting I've felt that I'm moving in the right direction - following once again my gut feeling instead of pretending I know something that no one except artists themselves would ever know. I'm not saying that cultural bcacgroung has no value, but I think that modern humanitarian science tends to overinterpritate and overcomplicate pieces that were created to evoke the only thing humans good at - human feelings.
The simple fact that ur gut told u that Kandinsky was ur shit just WOW
Love the work !!!
On the topic of how film-watching ruins our perceptions, I've just been reminded of an interview with Vsauce where he made an observation that many conspiracy theories are inspired by the fact that, in real life, details are often random and don't fit in - for example, you may see kids running around in t-shirts in the middle of winter. In film, you will never see such details, as filmmakers would deem them too distracting to include in the background. That's why many people will zero-in on innocuous details in media footage and try to claim that it's fake or planned because of something unexpected that appears in the background.
I don't think being clear about the narrative is inferior to ambiguous work at all. When I create art, I'm trying to communicate something. I try to meet my audience where they are because I know I'm competing with over one gazillion other things going on. "Be kind; you never know what someone is going through" or whatever. I always have easter eggs and puzzles for my own amusement, but I make the central thrust clear. Making my work accessible is a form of humility.
I get what you mean and admire your intentions but I think equating ambiguity with inaccessibility is doing a disservice to your audience. Ambiguity doesn't always necessitate academic analysis. If something 'needs' to be understood but cannot be interpreted easily, it's not ambiguous, it's just opaque. Ambiguity allows raw feeling to take centre stage, because we are responding to the overall 'vibe' rather than direct information. Ambiguity allows individuals to bring their own experiences/values/knowledge to the table; and allowing that to happen, to me, is the ultimate act of humility on part of the artist.
I feel like ambiguity has to be earned in a film. Christopher Nolan is a director who creates ambiguity simply by refusing to tell the story in a straight forward linear way, which sometimes, in my opinion does disservice to the film. Ambiguity for its own sake isn't enough. I agree that the extreme time limitations have been good for art. Constraints are often good for art. A film that leans into it's weaknesses and makes it a strength--Blair Witch Project is a striking example--can completely change the game...the ambiguity in that film (the real actual darkness that overwhelms so many frames of the film) added to the terror. It perfectly captures the uselessness of a flashlight at night in the woods, which leaves you feeling exposed and vulnerable and blind to everything out of a tiny circle of light. They spent so little money and genuinely abused those poor actors but dang if it didn't make for an incredibly effective horror movie.
i agree with you but i wouldnt say nolan movies are evasive… he does a LOT of explaining through dialogues in most of his movies and tho the story isnt linear you are never left fully wondering whats happening
shout out notifications - reminder to hit the bell (not a paid sponsorship)
Your check is in the mail 💫💫
I find that ambiguity is already everywhere in modern society.
Personally, I love narrative and it is an extremely powerful tool that humans, in essence, are attracted to. Some even say that the advent of narrative is what makes us the human animal and differentiates us from other animals (like the advent of worship which was applying narrative to natural occurrences like the movement of the stars or rainfall). And these were understandings shared by a group of humans. It’s kind of like how we naturally tend to anthropomorphise objects, animals, and even abstract art. There’s also pareidolia where people tend see patterns and faces where there isn’t one.
Interestingly enough, there are some who hypothesize that we truly became humans distinct from other animals when our species first made clothing. And even ascribe weaving as the precursor to architecture or even the first architecture humans made. Very fascinating.
I think I can understand what you are trying to say with being ok with not understanding but at the same time I am big on understanding why you like what you like & I’m an overall really curious person that questions things; At the same time I do have to say I can relate to not being able to enjoy a piece of art because of not understanding it. I think I just have to find the right balance between analysis to enjoyment ratio
I think the underlying misconception here is to assume that "everything is given to you by the filmmaker" and that watching a film does not require any form of investment by the viewer other than "leaning back and watching". it may be true to some, or even the majority of movies, but I'd argue that movies are by far outperformed by most fashion out there when the claim was "there is nothing to discover but the surface". as with any other forms of artistic expression, the great examples of such are concerned with much more complex agendas and obviously require you to invest yourself. at the end of the day it is a personal decision and applies to essentially everything that can be considered a human experience.
there are also different modes of perception. not all art wants you to ask all these questions you list, some art should essentially just be experienced. the experience is the thing itself. whilst this sounds very easy in theory, in my personal experience can be actually quite difficult and most people have to learn or unlearn in order to engage with such an experience.
it's kind of dull to try to make this whole point and call the whole piece "how movies are ruining your art". I would want to respond that not movies are the problem but that video comments with such titles and such little effort are much more problematic. it's an easy fix for someone who unlearned to engage with the world in an easy-to-digest 13 minute video. I'd recommend watching a movie 4 times as you might want to look at a painting 4 times or at a video documentation of a fashion presentartion - I'd be surprised if your thoughts would not go beyond that first experience.
one last thing I wanted to mention is that you can look at films in such a way as they reflect the world in which they are created and funded. analysing hollywood movies through a particular lense might tell you something about the state of the world we are living in, eventhough this might not be the intention of the filmmaker or studio.
x
don't agree with this clickbait title after seeing the whole video, nor do I necessarily agree with your main thesis, even if I understand that this is something that you and perhaps others experience. It's not something that I experience, however. Then again, I don't consume tiktoks or reels.
I think you’re kind of making more broad general statements about movies and art where I think the point being made is about passivity in taking in art. There are countless books, paintings, even designers who don’t have much deeper than what’s on the surface and the idea that this is more true about movies than other art forms feels like a huge generalization. I think it’s easier to see this passive intake in movies because of things like streaming services that have hundreds of bland empty movies but just because a medium has been exploited by those who don’t care for it doesn’t necessarily make the medium less “worthy”. Its like if someone claimed fashion is ruining art because it encourages people to engage with it only to flex their wealth. While that’s true in some cases it isn’t fair to use Philip plein as the rule and margiela as the exception. The same way that marvel movies shouldn’t be seen as the rule and David Lynch shouldn’t be seen as the exception. Just because corporations encourage passive intake for the means of profit shouldn’t negate the artists/art form.
The TV show Twin Peaks! But then you realize how much room there is for analysis and 8 years later you realize your still analyzing 😅
Today, my art teachers revealed the available themes for our end-year art assignment, they all came with examples and inspirations from other artists and i was disappointed. Because all of those themes and example were pieces i either didn't understand the meaning behind or what the intention of the artist was. And that isn't to say i didn't enjoy those pieces of art, i love getting lost in art (visual, written, music and sounds) and just floating and being in this trance of "oh i like this but idk why", but as i was watching the examples i kept asking myself "if i made art like this how would i explain it to my teachers to get a good grade?" "I don't know what these pieces mean or are about, it wasn't described what this is how can i arrive at a story i can tell with my final piece?" "I need to have a story to tell with my piece but also make it random and out there but also meaningfull and important but also in mediums that don't fit me", this video kind of outlined the problem i had with this whole assignment, that im so focused on the story of my art so that i can exactly define what it means to my teachers and get a good grade and that made it hard for me to make art where i can just lose myself in the piece and let it be authentic and say "i like my piece because it hust feels right and i feel satisfied with it", i love when artists make something that means so much to them and maybe has that deep meaning for them and i dont have to know that meaning and still enjoy that piece because i just like it because i do and nothing else, I don't have to know a story or the meaning because i can just make it up or not even worry about it at all and just be
That is to say there's this pressure for me to make people understand my story/art for them to like it and not ask questions i dont have answers to
Im sorry for rambling im sure this is too long and maybe doesn't make that much sense but i couldn't express myself better, thank you for this video and insight into all of this
Fashion wise, I think the first time I’ve actually had this awestruck moment was with the Plato’s Atlantis show of McQueen’s. At that time, I was 11 or 12 years old trying to make sense of what I’m seeing. It evoked such deep emotional feeling in me that my younger self thought “so people can actually dress this way” or “there’s no baseline or streamline way of wearing what you wanna wear”. Till this day, I find myself revisiting the show from time to time, taking in what was the thought process or what was the inspiration or how the heck did someone thought of this beautiful art. It’s like my “gay awakening” but in art form if that makes sense.
Just here to say that i knew Karen was Alexander McQueen 😎😎😎
Hell yea 🦾
Trauma , insanity and padded glass cell was the give away
It sounds like what you’re actually saying is “not all art needs to tell a story.”
Because there are paintings that tell stories (biblical or historical) and there are movies that don’t have clear narratives like David Lynch.
Our brains want to categorize information into context, so it’s natural to want explanations for everything. But purely aesthetic experiences can be immersive, emotional, or healing on their own. I think the best example is music without out lyrics.
Bliss- in this vast thing called internet, you are a gem
Leviathan (ironically a movie)
A documentary featuring a ship.
I'll leave it at that to not spoil anything. I wish anyone trying it out a great time.
the first time i was introduced to thom Browne i was so confused as to who would dress like that (proportion wise) and who layers their clothes this way, and why this color palette. I was attracted to it but it seemed so strange to me. eventually i realized i didn’t need the answer to those questions because it wasn’t really relevant. the story is the bigger picture. the lives lived in the clothes matter more than my interpretation of what Thom is trying to say.
I got lost in all of the paintings in Brice Marden’s show titled “These paintings are of themselves” They silenced the mechanism of the mind & I just appreciate them on a level beyond the intellect. RIP Brice ❤
I am loving Substack for having more things put in front of me that send me to that ambiguous mental space where I have to mull them over to make sense.
tarkovsky "mirror", "nostalgia", "stalker"; apichatpong "memoria", "uncle boonmee who can recall his past lives"; sergei loznitsa "austerlitz"
youtube video "Hypnotizing circle dance by Sufi Zikr"
A show alluding to trauma and insanity? that Karen must be Alexander Mcqueen
no idea which runway in particular would be though, but that's what came to mind right away🤣🧐
Celine and Julie Go Boating, bonkers French movie from the late 60s. All the ambiguity! I still think about it years later, haven’t worked it out at all.
That baby girl tiktok/reel made me cringe soooo BAD!!!! 🤣🤣
yeah, but he was foine and those lips hehe
I can’t quite remember what it was called, but in my hometown, there was a little art museum in my grandma took me there. There was this abstract art that could be interpreted in so many different ways. Either way you never knew the backstory
I figured out it was McQueen before you got to sentence two and that’s entirely because of what I’ve learned from you in watching you backlog. You’re a great educator.
Marc Chagall. Rene Magritte. Nina Simone. Ingmar Bergman’s Persona. Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Love in the Time of Cholera. Samuel Beckett’s Endgame. A spiky choker with pearls by Shaun Leane and Alexander McQueen.
In video format? My two cents: All of Matthew Barney for starters, then Bill Viola does it incredibly well too. But the very latest one that captivated me was Hicham Barrada - Présage (2018), a very wide projection (about 10-15m long x 2m high) showed the slow and rapid chemical reactions and matter build-up, of different elements in what seems to be a water tank. Mesmerising
As an experimental movie guy i think you are right. Narrative movies, which are "a vectorial set of meanings texturized by adding frame after frame in the linear plane" (quote from co-founder of chute film coop, baran bozdağ) a lot of the times hurts our perception, or hurt us in other ways (like the movies that show emotions that don't even exist). Avant-garde director Stan Brakhage creates the concept of "innocence of the eye" by focusing on the damage to our perception. He says that a baby sees more clearly than any of us. Innocence of the eye is destroyed by the imposed visuality and the imposed ways of seeing/percieving, and one's perception is reconstructed.
I think since the basis of film is that it modulates movement, film senses movement, and film is sensed before it is made sense of. At least it is expected to be so. If we grasp an object conceptually rather than perceptually, our experience of that object becomes mechanical, and when our reaction to or experience of that object is mechanical, there is a shortcut that bypasses the process of seeing and perceiving, a point at which the object is essentially imperceptible.
it would be such an oversimplification if you think movies are just about plots and stories. No, the art of great movies is not really about what story is being told, but about HOW it's told.
the reason why movies are more nuanced than tiktok videos is that good movies always give stuff slowly to the audience, while tiktoks are messages and information concisely packed in few minutes. Time is a really important element for anyone to truly immerse in the fictional world and get sucked into the emotional complexities. I do agree that there are bad movies that are made straightforwardly in a linear fashion like tiktoks or even less interesting than tiktoks.
reminds me of the movie “Idiocracy” where Luke Wilson’s character becomes president gives a speech about art and he spoke in regards to a popular movie in the story called “Ass”. and he was like “I believe art can be better and stories can be complex SO YOU CARED WHOSE ASS IT IS AND WHY IT’S FART and I believe those days are upon us.”
If you're looking for experimental cinema I recommend filmmakers like Stan Brakhage, Maya Deren, James Benning, Jonas Mekas, Hollis Frampton, Chris Marker, Derek Jarman (Blue), and my personal favourite - Chantal Akerman.
Slow cinema also challenges many aspects of spectatorship and the medium in general. Many of them intersect with the experimentalists and those of the so-called 'art cinema'. For this I'd look to people like Tarkovsky, Bela Tar, Theo Angelopoulos and Lav Diaz.
This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. There's no shortage of challenging and confrontational cinema. The history is rich. Just have to seek it out.
“They’re beautiful aren’t they”
“What?”
“The stars. We never just look any more”
✨
Hi Bliss as a art/director/film watching enthusiast id like to chime on some points in this video.
Mostly it’s that the films that lazily just show you the film by telling you the film, by using story as it’s function rather than the feeling of images is simply because in Hollywood if you go back in their history. Their films derive from theatre. It’s basically filmed stage plays where the medium is not being utilised. Shot reverse shot really limits what can be done with a camera and how cinematic language can be used to convey emotion. The early American filmmakers were mostly theatre or stage directors first and just saw cinema as a way to capture more audience $ because you could have several screenings without getting the actors tired. This influence of cinematic storytelling from Hollywood has infected many other films today. Which is why that feeling you describing exists.
The overwhelming nature of it all is also because more and more the profit driven industry have turned movies into content and simply have numbed their audience.
NOW HOWEVER. There’s a seperate lineage of film from europe starting from the Soviet Era of classic films to German Expressionism etc.
Where all the filmmakers where painters first, mostly from europe and they pushed the boundaries of working within the medium of cinema and blew up due to many new waves from Italian Neorealist films-French New Wave-New German Cinema etc.
This films i would say function more on the “show don’t tell ethos.”
There is cinematic language breathing in these films. They often do function as moving paintings and use image and sound without conventional storytelling techniques.
Robert Bresson (my favorite filmmaker) has written philosophy books about this. About how too many films are influenced by theatre which limits what cinema can do because it’s
1. Artificial
2. Not utilising the medium with what cameras can do
3. Doesn’t let the medium exists as it’s own
Which is why he didn’t use actors, hated words like mis-en-scene and hated the Hollywood system. He was a French filmmaker btw.
Anyway, people like Andrei Tarkovsky have found ways to elevate cinema and use the image in mysterious ways. The unfortunate thing today is these philosophies have been forgotten and the average person doesn’t know and cinema as an art film is either content or the more popular view of them as “movies” (just moving images nothing more)
The only remnants of artists actually using cinema in todays contemporary world as a medium to create GENUINE ART you could say is the slow cinema movement. Where people hold on cuts when editing and let the image speak for itself without dialogue.
You mention Leviathan in this video. People like Andrey are one of the last artists left genuinely making film as Art with a capital A.
That’s all I have to say. Good points though.
Sounds like a you problem. Videos and movies are an ambiguous form of art too. Movies do not destroy your way of taking in art. Maybe you just have to do some introspection and stop trying to analyze everything analyze everything ever. You're doing the movies you watch a disservice, and you're insulting audiovisual media by saying that it's that medium that ruins all other mediums. You can't start analyzing something until your second watching/viewing/experiencing of the thing. This includes music, movies, paintings, videogames, anything.
I mean this as constructive criticism but you are so wrong about there being no substantial differences between the people of 300 BC and 1800 AD, at least in terms of their philosophical groundings. Like just as an example many cultures in 300 BC would’ve conceptualized women as men who had not fully developed penises (this is so so so simplified you and should look into it if you haven’t already,) whereas by 1800 we had already developed oppositional sexism- the idea that men and women are two distinct types of human. And like, before the Copernican leap, lots of medieval Christians imagined that our position at the center of the universe as actually a damned one. Like, humanity is so evil that we must reside in the center of cosmic chaos rather than on the outskirts of the cosmos, where peace and divinity are. This is also very simplified and I’m getting this from Sylvia Winter’s writings about it. I feel like assuming the pre modern world was stagnant in culture and philosophy decontextualizes our current moment to the point that change itself is seen as revolutionary. I think this blinds us to the nature of our contemporary zeitgeist, we are so caught up trying to see why we’re finally changing when in fact we’ve been undergoing revolutionary shifts in our societies this whole time. This is not to say that the internet isn’t unique. Perhaps it’s been more far reaching and pervasive than any other singular technology. But the revolutionary thing about it, which is lost when we assume pre modern cultural constancy, is not THAT it causes change. Its like, the specific changes and specific interactions between the technology and its context. I hope that wasnt too vague 🤪 or long
oh god i turned into one of those people who write about eps of their lives in a comment but will try to be succinct: my bestie died in the early days of covid (hard to get treated for cancer when covid was all people were obsessing over) and like art, a life needs to be loved in the moment, not dissected. love u, bliss. thankyou
Thanks for sharing with us, Marvin 💫💫
I completely hear you, but I just need to say that this narrative/line of questioning creates an unfortunate divide between tactile mediums of art (fashion, static imagery, written work, etc) and art in the form of experiences. To some, this idea effectively divorces visual media (animation, films, plays, musicals, dance, etc) from being considered as art. Visual media is just as valid as an artform and consuming it does not make you less discerning or whatever have you. I know that's not at all the intention in saying that, but clarifying that is important. Nothing but peace and love!
Wings of Desire, a late 80s German film about telepathic and immortal Angels opened me up to not only a new understanding of the power of the medium (film) but a larger appreciation for life.
yes ambiguity really is ruling many forms if media now but it is unbearably common. Like a music video The Weeknd release called "The Knowing" millions dived into the video and came back up not knowing a thing. It's like one if those things where only after you've matured in understanding symbolism will be the time it takes for the information to be revealed to yourself.
One that jumps to mind is a film i saw in theaters during this ongoing decline of enthusiasm for film, whereas film is what fist defined art for me.
Swiss Army Man... You get nowhere by asking questions, resist its charm and its a waste. The moment i let go, the narrative intersected with my own story at the time in so many ways i wouldve missed. The music video montage style of storytelling made it feel like pure nostalgia for a non-lucid dream (basically a movie) that was so SO good. Swiss Army Man is wildly subjective but i was able to get really close to the writer/director that i understood him and he i. So it was no surprise that his next film, everything everywhere aao, was going to fire up neurons that connected to my subsconscious, so i knew to keave my critic-mind alone and i felt like i absorbed energy from this movie because there was no filter. Thats high art
funnily enough, the art that kinda fits the "ambiguous" description for me was a Chinese movie called "Deep Sea". the majority of the movie seems kinda pointless and the plot didn't really go anywhere but is was visually stunning so i persisted in watching it until the end. but when it resolved in the last 20 mins or so, the entire movie was put into perspective, as if to say "this is what you were waiting for"
doesn't really meet the description of ambiguous you provide now that i think abt it but it's a great movie and deserves a bit of a plug (:
not me being basic otaku with a game pfp and saying Evangelion is my example of thing that i just shut off the "over analysing, i need to watch a video essay about this" brain, lol. there are many others, but i feel neon genesis evangelion is what comes to my mind instantly bc the original run of the show had to be rebooted so many times so people felt like they got a more concrete answer to what was going on, when the most important thing wasnt the text but the subtext, what the viewer felt versus what mightve been going on. I love the original ending, but that is a very famous example of something people hated the ending for so the creators made a lot of extra (unnecessary) stuff to appease fans. so when the last movie (hopefully ever) came out during the pandemic and i was trying to piece together what was going on as well but i was like, you know what? lets just vibe. let's just feel these feelings and not try to overintelectuallize whats going on.
that also reminds me of twin peaks, that it was never about _who killed laura palmer_, but the homely, quirky but also very unsettling small town. i went to film school so i can totally see how not only movies, but video essay-brain can be harmful in a way that it makes you exhaust art to mechanics, trends and explanations. while analysing *is* fun and we love behind the scenes stuff, we need to rekindle that sense of wonder, that "i dont know why i love this, i just do". or maybe thats just me lol
ty for the vid, this is yet another i pulled some of your quotes from and jotted down on my journal so ill remember them in the future
I don't think it's all movies in general, I think this is a relatively recent phenomenon that's been primarily caused by the rise of RUclips channels like cinema sins where any action in the film that's not immediately explained is something wrong with the film and most film discussion is boiled down to plot holes and how things fit into their cinematic universes which in turn has caused film makers of these blockbusters to spend too much time spoon feeding their audiences all these answers. There was someone I used to watch on RUclips who made a great video essay on this topic, I'll see if i can find it again.
I understand and agree with what he’s saying but sometimes I think without channels like u and game review channels and channels that talk about movies I wouldn’t be able to see view it the way I do now. For example with movies now I appreciate the cameras and the music and actors and sets because I watched RUclips videos explaining what cinematography is.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I disagree with your tacit premise that abstraction and ambiguity is the only natural and true conclusion for art, and should be valued as being more “art” than other things. For example, I recently went to a French impressionist exhibit, and a piece that really resonated with me was of a daily scene in Paris. Sure, the artist’s brushstrokes and colours were an abstraction of reality, but they served to enhance the emotion and feeling of the familiar scene, not cause me to question what I was looking at
What you are describing is but a fraction of film as a medium.
the fact you are comparing film, a narrative medium, to paintings and fashion is ridiculous. If you arent able to get any thorough and complex analysis from a film/narrative this is on you.
Since i guessed Alexander McQueen in the description, am i a fashin boi now??? (Literaly only knew because of bliss videos)
Definitely recommend the movie “8 1/2” by Federico Fellini. Or really any Jean luc Godard film from the French New Wave!
Ugh, these "fashion shows" with a bunch of fabric in these weird shapes remind me of people dressed in hot dog costumes.
It doesn't make anyone look prettier and it's pointless. I just wanted to share my opinion.
Popular stuff isn't that hard to understand. However most of it has a deep meaning that most people aren't gonna look at either. This true for books., tv. movies, music, dance and fastion.
I guessed the fashion show correctly!!!!
Bliss you're awesome. I need to join your community.
Art is subjective and art is not for all.. to understand what the art showing to the viewer's eyes
Fashion, Movies, Music, Dance are one of the forms of art that some can't identify with
Been wondering for years what a contemporary update of Susan Sontag's essay "Against Interpretation" would have to say and this is more or less it I think.
😂😂 The Intro To This Video Was Funny Because Of The Description Of A Milennial Man.
An early piece of avant-garde film brilliance- "Meshes in the Afternoon" by Maya Deren
how do you know if something is a brilliant and intentional work of art if it is entirely impossible to be deciphered or understood? How can we know that it’s not just a mockery of art or a random selection of items or ideas? Does it matter if something is intentional or if it is just a random selection of items or ideas? i’ve always been so stuck on this but I still have always been drawn to admiring art and attempting to analyze or observe it.
honestly anything by Berlinde de Bruyckere. There's a layer in her work where you can sympathise with any of her sculptures because of how much pain they seem to be in.
Glad I've studied music because I've been taught how to think in depth about art
So I mean just know it's a learnable skill ?
Unfortunately I'm a massive mcqueen fan so I guessed voss as soon as you said the words trauma and insanity 😭
I've never thought about this honestly. Many of my favourite movies I have no idea what is going on, like Eraserhead
i once went to the MoMA in Manhattan, and they were projecting this video of flowers and a house, i started looking at it and it was so beautiful i didnt even care what was the name of the flowers or where that house was. I watch the entire video loop like two times!
despite what you said about video, i was wondering what the point was during this entire essay! maybe film is more intriguing than expected 🤔
please do more on CCP. i thought i remembered u saying u had another video on CCP, but i cant find it (other than the mainstream downstream one)
The guy in the last video you showed was _so_ creepy. I could practically see the corpse in his trunk. X_X
This is the most interesting comment section that actually discusses thoughtful ideas and personal perspectives. I love it.
Anne Imhof performance „Angst“ . 7 years later I still think of it . Absolutely stunning
I think any art that I make has this emotional effect on me, because I’m like wait, what’s going on here? And then I’m like oh, nothing. And then I cry.
Respectfully, I don’t feel like you’ve been watching the right films
Mad God was a movie that felt like I didn't NEED to understand it, I could just melt away in the horror of it all
i dont remember the name but it was in this museum, and there was this huge wall upstairs and it was painted red. i never understood why but standing there seeing it made me tear up
Bro. Im going to have to check that Santa Sangre out. I didnt know dude had other movies other than holy mountain
piece of ambiguity: the monolith from 2001 a space Odyssey
i watch your sofa seeing if i can read the words that flash up. All i have learnt is who made your top 😂
I've been thinking about this same excat thing for a while now, I'm a video artist myself so this preocupation is very real.
For me it was Francis Alys' Haram football, really beautiful piece, I mean, the context of the action kinda makes a lot of sense of what you are seeing, but it is different than being told what it is about.
Everything by Anish Kapoor. I have no idea what’s going on but I’m so deeply in love that I don’t even want to know
i feel like most of the arthouse films leave you with the feeling you described. so in my opinion cinema can also be ambiguous in a lot of ways, not necessarily telling a story
i had deleted that red light guy from my mind, but i guess i am never safe from it hahahaha
I’ve actually thought about this- sometimes ambiguity is so so sooooo important because it allows the viewer to take what no one else was able to from that piece of art. FKA twigs said once that “once I release a piece of music- it is no longer belongs to me”.
Love this channel
Are we gunna get another Margiela video soon? 🙏
to answer your final question: i feel fantastic. love the video do not want to know more i am not curious :)
Love that Julie Mehretu painting you showed!!
In other words we should treat "it" like a dream not a math equation
There is a book called The Slow Regard of Silent Things
Frantisek Kupka paintings always make me feel this way
Wong Kar wai's fallen angels definitely did that for me
Saw other comments pointing this out but I think movies are multilayered art form combining visual art and storytelling, and its the storytelling part you're referring where it NEEDS to explain all the stuff to do its job; tell a story, so do novels and any literature works. And some "films" lean towards more visual artsy style like short films at those prestigious film fes that no one really understands what's going on and snobs still hype them up(jk there's a beauty in some of them too) Ofc you're from a fashion field, the visual art part plays a huge role in films, but good films for me, are in balance of these two, ambiguous visual art and concise storytelling.
Watch Haneke, you will be happy.
Or Bergman, but his themes are more dated. Talk to some filmbuffs/aka cinephiles. People that call cinema "kino", it will help.
in academia - filmscholars have talked about the lean in/lean back mode of television viewing. Especially streaming. Netflix, HBO, amazon etc, they try to create material that will make the viewer 1: buy an account (they are less interested in customer retention, they want new shows that bring new sales. Which is probably why there is no incentive to do a season 3 of things. ) 2: make you lean back, and enjoy the ride, but also 3: lean in and think about what you are seing, just enough to keep your interest and not just your passive viewing. Shows that can be both lean-in and lean back will interest the largest audience. But, with the massive franchise-buyout wars that is going on - very few franchises qualify. This is an industry problem, not a "film as medium" problem. Go to the cinema, especially the good ones with good sound, not just a large screen, and watch movies made for that type of viewing. Such as for instance Dune perhaps .... though of course, with current conflict with unions we have to wait a bit. But yeah, you need to make the movie an event in order to partake in an event. It is hard to get there through streaming alone - and, like I said, they are not trying to do that. They want the lean-back option close at hand.
The latest piece of art that I felt myself truly immersed into, where I let myself feel instead of observe and solve, was actually a movie. It was Ingmar Bergmans Persona.
Found myself alone in the Hamburger Bahnhof museum in Berlin and saw Bruce Nauman's 'Room with My Soul Left Out, Room That Does Not Care'. It moved me so much it made me cry. I tried to write down all the emotional stages that I went through but I struggle to make it make sense. I highly recommend seeing it if you're in Berlin (And go see around closing time so you can have a bit of privacy with the work)