Darth Vile said:
This general conversation is really interesting… as it touches upon something that I find fascinating on both a sociological and physiological level i.e. ‘interpretation’.
Playing the Devils Advocate on this one… Perception is everything. Movies (or indeed art) don’t exist in a vacuum. Interpretation can be influenced by the conditions one is exposed to during the viewing/performance - it helps form/solidify and re-affirms our opinions. Therefore, one could posit that conditions shape and determine aesthetic values just as much as ‘technical’ merit.
There are no rules for what really constitutes art, other that what is defined by society in general… and ‘art’ itself is merely a social construct. Therefore, mass interpretation is a good a way as any to define something’s merits i.e. if audience participation improves the aesthetic experience; it improves the piece of art. How good would the Mona Lisa be if everyone thought it were rubbish right?
Again playing the Devils Advocate… it seems like many an Indiana Jones fan; you have a strong emotional connection to the character and movies (just like me). Therefore, I’d suggest that we’re really the last people who can have a truly objective debate/view about the movies. That’s not to say our views are unimportant, uninteresting or uninformed, but that they are not emotionally detached from the subject matter (something true objectivity needs).
I can understand that my perception of Indiana Jones (and Star Wars for that matter) can be skewed (both in the positive and negative), because of that strong resonance that emotional connection creates. I strongly believe you to be the same (and that is not a criticism). Indeed, one could argue that we are strongly biased, whatever side of the fence we sit… which in turn leads to the sometimes passionate debates/arguments. This is ultimately not borne out of logic and objectivity, but rather emotion/attachment for the subject matter.
On that same note, how can one be totally objective when it comes to art?
Ultimately, the only opinion that matters is that of the viewer. We can question, qualify, and quantify tastes, expectations, knowledge, and countless other factors all we want, but a film will hit each person in a way that is totally unique....just like any other experience in life.
Think about that. You and I may love the same film, but never totally in the same way....not down to the nth degree.
That is why art is so great. It touches each of us on a personal level, and even when we
can step back and objectively see a film for being rather average or below average, there might still be factors in the film that hit a chord with us and make us love the film, in spite of the flaws we recognize from the get-go.
It's why one person can hate
Independence Day (me), another person can love it, and still another person can like it and forget about it altogether while they drive home from the showing.
Darth Vile said:
How good would the Mona Lisa be if everyone thought it were rubbish right?
That's a great question.
If I saw the Mona Lisa on my own, with no history or expectations, I could see myself liking it.
Going further, if I had heard about the Mona Lisa being rubbish from the get-go and I then saw it....would I be already be searching for the flaws over the positives?
I would like to think that I wouldn't. I know, ultimately, once one is away from the hype and influence of others, and alone with the art, that is when they can be most objective. I would appreciate the Mona Lisa in time, but initially, I am not sure if I would have been able to appreciate..or judge it fairly enough...with expectations already in place.