(Credit: The Society of the Spectacle Reconsidered, John Clark, Fifth Estate)
The intention being, with this a (relatively) short essay, I will be exploring a recent theory as regards our relationship as viewers to given piece(s), and how that may or may not break us down into one of two potential categories as a viewer. I would like to write a book on art theory, but though I have more than a few years under my belt I feel such things are for seasoned veterans, and comparatively speaking I am still in a stage of relative youth, so for the meantime, I would simply like to share some recent thoughts.
I was out walking my dog in the park across the road one morning about two or three weeks back, and I got to thinking about some of my favourite movies and how often I watch them. Mulling over this, I came home, wrote some stuff down, and as suggested by the long-winded title and the previous paragraph, I have identified two separate categories:
(i) The Intermittent Viewer - a viewer whose experience of a given piece is on an Intermittent basis, but without frequency or regularity. For instance, it might be a work one especially enjoys or admires, but only sees once every year or two at the most.
(ii) The Compulsive Viewer - a viewer whose experience of a given piece is on a Compulsive basis, with frequency and regularity. For instance, their enjoyment or admiration of a given work or piece is such that they can, and do, watch something several times a year.
We each possess something of both in our psychological makeup and how we experience, enjoy and appreciate art. However, as I will show, I would imagine it tends to be that most will lean towards one or the other, and I wish to explore what that tells us about ourselves through our emotional responses. Taking a sample of a (provisional) list of my ten favourite films (which I will decline to name, as that's something for another day), I will now use myself as an example to elucidate upon my theory.
(i) The films in my sample of ten which I watch on an Intermittent basis elicit certain emotional responses within me so that it is only possible for me, however much I admire them, to watch with long spells and gaps in between. I am someone who has such a cerebral response to art that the audio-visual stimulation of my senses takes control of my entire mental and physical self (when it's doing it right). In the cases of the two films I view Intermittently, one of them creates abject terror and horror to a degree that I am exhausted, traumatised on some level, and haunted. The other is a picture of such exquisite poetry and tragic beauty that I am a blubbering wreck by the end of the thing. I love and admire and respect both films immensely, but they carve me hollow from the inside out, so much so I know I can only watch them Intermittently in order to gain the full feeling, experience, of what they do to me, and for me, as a viewer.
(ii) The films in my sample of ten which I watch on a Compulsive basis elicit the kind of emotional responses which resonate with me in such a way that I can return to them time and time again. Indeed, my very favourite, which for me is the complete synthesis of everything good about the medium of cinema, I would say I've seen well over a hundred times. Out of my sample, eight of the films identified fall into the category of pictures I can watch Compulsively. Two are gutbusting comedies which have me in stitches every time, along with an additional resonance that elevates them. Three are international pictures not in the English language which are prime examples of auteurs at the peak of their powers daring to do something different within the medium. One, though fairly recent, is now widely considered to be an American classic, and another by an American though made in Britain is a work which still startles with the level of provocation on display to this day.
You can speculate till the cows come home as to which films I am talking about (as I say, another day, but I imagine it might be soon enough...), but judging from the 8-2 split in my list of ten, by my definition I am (no surprises, really) a Compulsive viewer. It doesn't make the eight in the Compulsive category necessarily better than those two in the Intermittent category, and although I would argue I have become a more Intermittent viewer in recent years, the evidence speaks for itself in favour of the Compulsive.
So what's this broo-ha-ha mean anyway? What's it's all about (Alfie)? By working off the two identified categories I have suggested, you can figure out something of your psychological typography, your perspective, as an audience, towards art, in this case film, through your emotional responses. Perhaps the fact there is an element of pain involved in my relationship with the two Intermittent films suggests I associate them with negative feelings, whereas the eight Compulsive movies, though each challenging in their own way, I connect to positive emotional responses, and that as such I favour the positive over the negative? It's an interesting approach and different angle to my understanding of art, and the self, which I hadn't previously pondered over.
At risk of sounding like a belittling educator (Lord knows I had enough of those!) giving you a homework assignment and a stupid 'how-to guide' as a copout in place of a definitive article, here's some simple guidelines to doing it yourself if you want to give it a spin:
1. Do up a list of some of your favourite films. Doesn't have to be The Real McCoy or require too much thought, just a little something to work with.
2. Assess the relative frequency and regularity with which you watch them. If it's more regular (multiple times within a year), then it's Compulsive. If it is less regular (once within a year to two year period), then it is Intermittent.
3. Tally up both categories and see the result. As you can see with my 8-2 split, it was definitively in favour of the Compulsive over the Intermittent.
As I said, I have been mulling on-off over a book on art theory at some point in the future. While I have maybe about six or eight different theories (The Element of Chaos, The Law of Paradoxes, etc.) I've started to develop the groundwork on, I still think it's the kind of thing you need to give a little before you can make a legitimate statement of authority. At least, that's my experience of things.
Either way, I've been needing to grease the gears and get the juices flowing again, so I thought I would share this with y'all. Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment