Following is a brief discussion in Apr 2010 with Hari, a film enthusiast friend who’s on his way towards realising his film-maker dream. It started with a discussion on stories and changed track to the question "what is art?" When Hari mentioned about his forgotten friend, I asked,
Me: Is he the one who wrote a write-up in the name of story?
Hari: hahaha yes, the same
Me: Why is that such persons always wanted to write about dull subjects? Do they think writing so makes them look like a genius?
Hari: Maybe, he dint think it to be dull... isn’t it subjective.
Me: What sort of a person cannot think that was dull?
Hari: In the short film festival that I saw, there was an animated feature called 'Thomas Comma'. It is the story of a comma who wants to find the perfect sentence to be a part of. He does not want to be just another comma who is part of just another sentence. He goes in search of great writers, but finds they are just typing rubbish for money. No great literature or art is to be found anywhere. He strives and strives with no success. He gets depressed. He rues about his life. He wonders why he alone feels that he has to do something different and great and why he simply does not surrender to mediocrity like millions of other commas. The rest of the story says if he did or did not attain what he wanted to achieve.
Now this was one story which I liked. There were no subtitles and inspite of that, I managed to listen to the dialogues in rapt attention. I didn't find one moment of it dull. But 80% of the audience thought so. They never understood what was going on. What they saw was a silly comma shaped thing going around the screen. They shouted, hooted and created a ruckus to stop the film.
Now, oh great king Vikram, tell me if the movie was really dull or not. Was I wrong in paying attention to a dull story or where the others wrong in not understanding it? Answer me or you head will blow into a million little pieces.
Me: hahaha I don't know the answer. I'm thinking what could be the answer. But I know for sure this is the longest reply you've ever typed. Anyway my head is going to explode :(
Hari: Now was the director here purposely creating a 'dull' feature so that he would be thought a 'genius'? Or was he just creating something that was close to his heart and may be because of that only people who could relate to it could understand? If so wouldn't it make art 'subjective'? similarly, may be that friend wrote about something he had seen happening to his friends...the matter might have been close to his heart...maybe he didn't want to create a mass masala humor post.
Possible?
Me: The subjective part, I already know. At first read, what you've written above appeared enlightening. But on the second read this question came up: Just because art is subjective does it justify anything can be created and called as art?
Hari: Definitely not. The ones that create an impact in you by capturing the truth and changes the way you think might qualify as art. Most of the high brow films and literature do that. Shawshank redemption is art. It is not a movie for time pass. Different people find different takeaways from it. Some find inspiration to hang on to drudgery in the hope of release one day. Now that is art. Vijaykanth giving shock to a transformer in not art. Sure.
Me: hahaha. Excellent example. But seriously, I'll definitely say that transformer shock too is an art. Why do you think it is not art? It is an art that makes people laugh; it's the art of making people laugh. Does art only has to make people think or cry?
Hari: Agree comedy is an art. But in the case of our Narasimha it was not intended to make you laugh in the first place. It was just accidental art.
Me: Why is it not like something like you've told: "Different people find different takeaways from it." Some take it as serious action and some as comedy. Why not?
Hari: People who take it as serious action need to be checked for mental stability :)
Me: hahaha But it's not a convincing answer.
Me: Is he the one who wrote a write-up in the name of story?
Hari: hahaha yes, the same
Me: Why is that such persons always wanted to write about dull subjects? Do they think writing so makes them look like a genius?
Hari: Maybe, he dint think it to be dull... isn’t it subjective.
Me: What sort of a person cannot think that was dull?
Hari: In the short film festival that I saw, there was an animated feature called 'Thomas Comma'. It is the story of a comma who wants to find the perfect sentence to be a part of. He does not want to be just another comma who is part of just another sentence. He goes in search of great writers, but finds they are just typing rubbish for money. No great literature or art is to be found anywhere. He strives and strives with no success. He gets depressed. He rues about his life. He wonders why he alone feels that he has to do something different and great and why he simply does not surrender to mediocrity like millions of other commas. The rest of the story says if he did or did not attain what he wanted to achieve.
Now this was one story which I liked. There were no subtitles and inspite of that, I managed to listen to the dialogues in rapt attention. I didn't find one moment of it dull. But 80% of the audience thought so. They never understood what was going on. What they saw was a silly comma shaped thing going around the screen. They shouted, hooted and created a ruckus to stop the film.
Now, oh great king Vikram, tell me if the movie was really dull or not. Was I wrong in paying attention to a dull story or where the others wrong in not understanding it? Answer me or you head will blow into a million little pieces.
Me: hahaha I don't know the answer. I'm thinking what could be the answer. But I know for sure this is the longest reply you've ever typed. Anyway my head is going to explode :(
Hari: Now was the director here purposely creating a 'dull' feature so that he would be thought a 'genius'? Or was he just creating something that was close to his heart and may be because of that only people who could relate to it could understand? If so wouldn't it make art 'subjective'? similarly, may be that friend wrote about something he had seen happening to his friends...the matter might have been close to his heart...maybe he didn't want to create a mass masala humor post.
Possible?
Me: The subjective part, I already know. At first read, what you've written above appeared enlightening. But on the second read this question came up: Just because art is subjective does it justify anything can be created and called as art?
Hari: Definitely not. The ones that create an impact in you by capturing the truth and changes the way you think might qualify as art. Most of the high brow films and literature do that. Shawshank redemption is art. It is not a movie for time pass. Different people find different takeaways from it. Some find inspiration to hang on to drudgery in the hope of release one day. Now that is art. Vijaykanth giving shock to a transformer in not art. Sure.
Me: hahaha. Excellent example. But seriously, I'll definitely say that transformer shock too is an art. Why do you think it is not art? It is an art that makes people laugh; it's the art of making people laugh. Does art only has to make people think or cry?
Hari: Agree comedy is an art. But in the case of our Narasimha it was not intended to make you laugh in the first place. It was just accidental art.
Me: Why is it not like something like you've told: "Different people find different takeaways from it." Some take it as serious action and some as comedy. Why not?
Hari: People who take it as serious action need to be checked for mental stability :)
Me: hahaha But it's not a convincing answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment