The Art of Criticism 3: Accessing the Artist

In a film class I took 2 or 3 years ago, I remember how, on the last day of class, the professor began to discuss the nature of art. Its something I hadn't really considered before, but at the time I remember being struck by the importance of the question. Although true in every medium, film is particularly problematic when discussing the artist of any particular film. Truffaut, Bazin, Rohmer, and the rest of the Cahiers du cinéma would have you believe that the director takes all the credit in what is known as auteur theory. The idea is still hugely influential and it is probably true that if you know any film theory, you know auteur theory. Naturally, though, it is incorrect. There are so many people involved in the making of a film, from the sets to the camerawork to the kid who gets coffee who just slips in a suggestion to one of the actors, that giving credit to one person seems, besides being wrong, just plain irresponsible. Even films made by only one person are still relying on a camera built by someone else or are filming in a location constructed by many others. No film is made in a vacuum. Yet that isn't really the level I'm interested in, even though it seems the most important. It certainly has the most written about it, yet I believe its possible, and necessary, to dig deeper. As in, is the above discussion even possible (or relevant)?

When my professor asked the question about the nature of art, the comments poured in about directors and screenwriters and a nice tidy little discussion began about finding the right balance, "the director should get the most credit, but after that its probably the screenwriter." All that jockeying for position (by a bunch of aspiring screenwriters no less) seemed to me to be missing something, so I raised my hand and asked, "Are all films art? How can we tell the difference from those that are and aren't? If we can't even reliably tell if something is art, how can we tell who the artist is?" (or something like that, I don't have a photographic memory after all). The question is an important one, primarily because I think the answer is that we can't know art from non-art. Sure that's dependent on definition but if we can agree on a couple primary points then I think the conclusion will be obvious.
The first point is that art is dependent on the process. That it requires a creator with a purpose. This seems to be obvious, after all we have a word for that which is created by someone without a purpose, "kitsch." A snapshot taken of your feet, just because, is obviously not art. A photograph of your feet with the intention of creating something separate and beautiful could be though. The most obvious example is a beautiful view in nature. Certainly it is beautiful but (leaving out God) there is no creator and thus, it is not art, until someone paints it, or films it.

Second, that one only has access to their own creative process. I'm not sure how many people feel like they have ever made art but for those that have I think its very easily seen how no one else can understand it. It is extremely personal. A concrete example though, might help for those who haven't. Think about any great painting. Its easy to admire the image, the brushstrokes, every technical achievement can be praised or criticized. Yet, we cannot access the impetus behind them. Even if the artist were to describe what it is for them to paint, we would still be in the dark. Its impossible to completely, accurately, describe anything non-verbal, verbally (an important distinction, even if it seems silly and small).

So, we can't have access to what seems essential in art. If you buy my brief arguments, then what are the consequences? Obviously it means that we cannot label things as art. So what then is the point in creating it for consumption? Well, is any movie or painting really intended to impress people with its artiness? If so, then I think that artist was missing the point. Art can't be accessed but it can still be profound. There's the old joke about how if you get enough monkeys and typewriters, you would eventually get Hamlet. If that was where Hamlet came from would it be any less good, or meaningful to you or I? Probably not. That's the point. You have to look for meaning everywhere and stop worrying about where it came from or why. The beautiful view we find in nature is just as full of possibilities as the painting. Its still interesting to canonize and list, poke and prod at movies and other "art." But it should be at all movies and all art. Life is an opportunity to think about everything, not nothing. You can't pick and choose that which is meaningful and that which isn't, at least not before giving everything a chance.

So what does that mean about assessing artists? It means that it isn't important, at least not really. The work is important. Sure, we can probably say that a director is probably the most important person in the creation of any one film (but that is not always the case, I give you Charlie Kaufman as a widely held counter-example). Canonizing films by director can be useful and interesting too. But I would argue that it is almost the same as talking about films as genre. Everyone working on the film is probably trying to fit it in with the director's previous work, making it appear even more as if he is the primary creator, but that may be an allusion. Take Spike Jonze who's work this year on Where the Wild Things Are has garnered him a lot of praise. Looking at his projects as a whole though, its tough to give him credit for all of his success. Being John Malkovich, Jackass, and Where the Wild Things Are seem so different for a lot of reasons. Giving equal credit to say Charlie Kaufman for Malkovich, Johnny Knoxville for Jackass, and Dave Eggers for Wild Things doesn't seem unreasonable. We should keep discussing films in all sorts of contexts, but we shouldn't forget the problems with each.