I recently had a conversation with a film producer about a new film project. She told me that the message of my script was not very clear and that this was a significant issue. She pointed out that we live in a world where everyone looks for lessons from a film and wants to know what the film is about. She even sent me excerpts from industry experts’ discussions, emphasizing the importance of a clear message.
I fully understand her argument; indeed, it is challenging to make a movie these days without a clear message. At many contemporary film festivals, I have observed how crucial it has become to have a film with the “right” message. Most directors feel pressured to justify their moral integrity and their stance on social issues. If you don’t prove that you believe in equality, democratic rights, or the rights of historically suppressed groups, you will quickly find yourself marginalized as an artist and risk being canceled. However, I think something fundamental is missing in this process. We have lost the ability to engage with a work of art as it is; we no longer experience a sense of awe with art. Instead, we often try to see how the artwork aligns with our preconceived notions of good and bad. Art, in this sense, is becoming a moral tool, and in many cases, watching new films feels like attending a sermon at church on a Sunday morning.
We can criticize the search-for-meaning approach from different perspectives. From a film review standpoint, this approach can lead critics to feel superior to the work of art. They aim to uncover the latent message of the film and demonstrate their mastery in deciphering it, a task they believe only they, with their superior intellect, can accomplish—something beyond the grasp of the average viewer and even the filmmaker. This can create a sense of superiority over anyone watching the film, including the filmmaker. This is the main argument that Susan Sontag helps us understand in her brilliant work on psychoanalytic analysis and its relation to art criticism.
As Sontag argues, historically, psychoanalysis, particularly the Freudian model, involved categorizing and interpreting a patient’s experiences through normative theoretical terms. The psychoanalyst’s job was to listen to the patient carefully and then interpret their dreams according to preconceived ideas of normality. This process aimed to demystify and understand these experiences; while it helped the patient make sense of their dreams, it often resulted in creating a sense of distance and superiority in favor of the doctor. The doctor felt superior to the patient, believing they knew exactly what was in the patient’s mind and thus saw themselves as someone who should help the patient make better decisions in life. The patients, in turn, viewed themselves as someone who needed to listen to the specialist who understood better than they did, forgetting their own unique personalities. According to Sontag, the same pattern is emerging in art criticism. Critics often seek to impose their theoretical frameworks and their own interpretations on artworks, interpreting and categorizing them in ways that create distance between themselves and the art and the artist. Sontag believes this approach can lead to a superficial intellectual engagement with the artwork, where the critic feels superior to the subject they are studying and believes that only they can guide the filmmaker and the audience on the true intentions and appreciation of the artwork.
One significant issue with this approach is that it reduces the artwork to a set of theoretical constructs, stripping it of its immediate impact and emotional resonance. The critic, like the psychoanalyst, operates under the assumption that there is a hidden, latent meaning in the artwork that must be uncovered and interpreted. This process often results in a depersonalized, detached analysis that fails to engage with the artwork’s emotional and aesthetic dimensions.
This is where the arrogance of interpretation becomes evident. Critics, much like psychoanalysts, assume a position of authority and superiority over the artwork, believing that their role is to uncover and explain the true meaning that the artist may not even be aware of. This arrogance leads to a hierarchical relationship where the critic stands above the artwork and the artist, dissecting it from a perceived position of greater understanding. Such a stance not only diminishes the artwork’s intrinsic value but also undermines the artist’s intent and the audience’s experience.
Furthermore, this mode of criticism can perpetuate the status quo. Critics, in their quest to categorize and interpret, often reaffirm existing cultural norms and theoretical frameworks. They believe there are norms that everyone should adhere to, often overlooking the fact that these norms are typically dictated by social institutions and those in power. They impose a normative model on all artworks, which can stifle innovation and marginalize voices that challenge the status quo. This is particularly problematic in today’s cultural climate, where art is often seen as a tool for achieving social justice and challenging dominant narratives.
In this context, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of style in art criticism. Susan Sontag argued that the focus should not be solely on the content and hidden meanings of the artwork but also on its form and style. Style encompasses more than content; it is the way the artist integrates various contradictory elements to create a coherent universe. These elements form our first experience with a work of art. By analyzing the style, we can have a more immersive and immediate experience of art, closer to how the artist intended it. By concentrating on the techniques, brush strokes, color contrasts, and overall composition, critics can appreciate the artwork in its true form, rather than projecting theoretical interpretations onto it.
This approach is not about rejecting analysis altogether but about finding a balance that respects the artwork’s integrity and the artist’s vision. By doing so, critics can avoid the arrogance of interpretation and allow for a richer, more nuanced engagement with art. This shift in focus from content to form and style encourages a more open and immediate experience, fostering a deeper connection with the artwork.
The emphasis on style aligns with the argument that art criticism should aim to make works of art more real and immediate to us. Critics should focus on how the artwork is what it is, rather than solely on what it means. This approach involves asking ontological questions about the artwork—how it was composed, what techniques and styles were used—rather than just epistemological ones about its meaning, how it was made, and under what circumstances.
For instance, consider Vincent Van Gogh’s “Starry Night.” A content-focused critic might analyze the painting’s symbols, such as the stars representing dreams or the cypress tree symbolizing death. They might also consider the social/political circumstances under which Van Gogh produced this work. However, a style-focused approach would examine Van Gogh’s use of color contrasts, brush strokes, and the painting’s composition. This shift in focus allows for a more immediate, immersive experience of the art, free from the constraints of theoretical interpretation.
Additionally, style in art can significantly influence how it is perceived and experienced. Art created in a particular style, such as Nazi propaganda, perpetuates the status quo, while art performed in a style that challenges cultural norms, like a drag show, inherently provokes thought and challenges existing narratives. Therefore, style is not only an aesthetic experience without thought or reflection; the process of thought involved in its creation makes it suitable for critical reflection. This demonstrates that the style of a piece of art can be as impactful, if not more so, than its content.
This new type of criticism, focusing on form and style, moves away from the arrogance of interpretation. It allows for a range of aesthetic experiences that do not require an expert to deliver all the meanings. This approach encourages critics and audiences to embrace the complexity, confusion, and intensity of experiencing art on its own terms. It is a call for humility and generosity, accepting that we might not know all the complexities of others’ thoughts and that they are more than a copy-paste; they are individuals with unique life experiences and they express their uniqueness through the style of their art. It aligns with the idea that critics should not seek to dominate their experiences or feel superior to them but rather engage with them fully and viscerally.
In conclusion, art criticism today risks becoming a detached, superior exercise that mirrors the issues found in psychoanalysis. By overemphasizing interpretation and theoretical analysis, and by overly emphasizing the role of politics in art, critics create distance between themselves and the art, reducing it to mere constructs. Emphasizing style and form can counter this trend, fostering a richer, more immediate engagement with art. This approach respects the integrity of the artwork and the artist’s vision, challenging the status quo and allowing for a more dynamic and vibrant field of art criticism. It is a call to move beyond the arrogance of interpretation and to experience art in a way that truly makes it real and immediate to us.
© 2020-2024. UniversalCinema Mag.