Contemporary American Cinema

[svsg]

Aug 28, 2008 4:27:48 GMT RNL said:

How can the evaluation of an object be only subjective?

Sorry, but that's such a banality.

Surely, intrinsically, any evaluation of an object requires both an object to be evaluated and a subject to assign it a value. And surely the factors that determine the qualities of that assigned value are only the subject's understanding of the identity of the object, however comprehensive that understanding may be. So, what an object is is what determines our evaluation of it.

Again you have gone deep into semantics. Yes, I know, it has been said over and over again, but appreciation of art (or even the metrics used for appreciation) is entirely personal (what I referred to as subjective, as is commonly used). Now I have no idea what you mean by an objective measure. I presumed it to be something that everyone can agree upon (that is, not dependent on the person evaluating it). Probably my English knowledge is to be blamed here.

That's true. Truism actually. But what's your point?

The fact is that the author had intentions. Ascertaining what those intentions were does improve our understanding of what the film is, which is the sole criterion by which we determine its value.

So, difficult to clearly and fully identify as it may indeed be, authorial intention is of paramount importance in evaluating a film (if you want to understand the film to the best of your ability before you do so, that is).

For most movies I watch, I have no idea who the editor is or the cinematographer is. I don't read their interviews. I have no way of knowing what his or her artistic intentions are, other than by looking at the end product. I think my point is this: End result matters the most, not so much the intentions. And how do we know that their intentions translated well into actual implementations?

[svsg]

OK I think I understand what you mean. Replace the words "entirely personal" in my post above with "stuff that people need not collectively agree upon".

What I referred to as subjective => translate to: things that not every one agrees upon.
Yes, of course, they are describing the object, so you are right about the 'objective' part.

What I referred to as objective => translate to: things that every one can agree upon, or not dependent on individual opinions.

So you are looking at an objective measure of the artistic intentions of two directors? The object here is their films, if I understood you correctly - right?

[RNL]

Aug 28, 2008 4:45:16 GMT @svsg said:

Again you have gone deep into semantics. Yes, I know, it has been said over and over again, but appreciation of art (or even the metrics used for appreciation) is entirely personal (what I referred to as subjective, as is commonly used). Now I have no idea what you mean by an objective measure. I presumed it to be something that everyone can agree upon (that is, not dependent on the person evaluating it). Probably my English knowledge is to be blamed here.

Yes, the phenomenon of appreciation is personal; it occurs in the person, the subject of appreciation. But the qualities of that appreciation are determined by the subject's understanding of the identity of the object of appreciation.

For most movies I watch, I have no idea who the editor is or the cinematographer is. I don't read their interviews. I have no way of knowing what his or her artistic intentions are, other than by looking at the end product. I think my point is this: End result matters the most, not so much the intentions. And how do we know that their intentions translated well into actual implementations?

The 'end product' is the object of your appreciation. Your appreciation is determined by your understanding of the identity of the object. The identity of the object is due in large part to the intentions of its creators (among many other objective factors that are not materially manifest in the 'end product' itself).

How do we know what their intentions were? We investigate. Reading interviews is certainly one way to do that. Reading biographies is obviously another. You can see who these people are, what the objective conditions under which they made the film were, you can judge what is likely to be said and what isn't. You can look at their other films, look at what they've said before. You look for correlative data. You look for the who, when, where, why, how.

How do we know whether their intentions were well-realised? That's part of the value judgement itself.

So, "authorial intention is of paramount importance in evaluating a film", but, of course, that's only "if you want to understand the film to the best of your ability before you do so."

[RNL]

Aug 28, 2008 4:51:50 GMT @svsg said:

OK I think I understand what you mean. Replace the words "entirely personal" in my post above with "stuff that people need not collectively agree upon".

What I referred to as subjective => translate to: things that not every one agrees upon.
Yes, of course, they are describing the object, so you are right about the 'objective' part.

What I referred to as objective => translate to: things that every one can agree upon, or not dependent on individual opinions.

So you are looking at an objective measure of the artistic intentions of two directors? The object here is their films, if I understood you correctly - right?

It's not as though part of your evaluation is objective, and everyone can agree on that part, and part of it is subjective and that part's open to disagreement. The evaluative process is by the subject of the object. The identity of the object itself is what it is. But evaluation is always contextual, so other evaluations--value systems--provide a framework in which each evaluation takes place (at the risk speaking too metaphorically). And that's where disagreement occurs. And that also makes evaluation inherently moral.

But whatever...

Yes, the objects in this case are Inland Empire and Transformers. As I said, I know which one I prefer. But objectively speaking, on what grounds do we argue for the primacy of either? I'm sure there's something that can be said, but with neither artist deliberately engaging with reality it's hard to make a case for the primacy of one or the other. There's a fatal disconnect.

[svsg]

Aug 28, 2008 5:28:44 GMT RNL said:

Yes, the objects in this case are Inland Empire and Transformers. As I said, I know which one I prefer. But objectively speaking, on what grounds do we argue for the primacy of either? I'm sure there's something that can be said, but with neither artist deliberately engaging with reality it's hard to make a case for the primacy of one or the other. There's a fatal disconnect.

OK, just throw in a film from a director who you think has artistic integrity. Shall we take Zerkalo from Tarkovsky just for the sake of argument? If you want, choose something else, but I remember this was a 5-star film in your list once.
Having thrown in that (whatever) movie, can you objectively compare it with Inland Empire and make inferences on their(directors') artistic integrity? Leave Transformers aside for now, I haven't watched it.

[Robert C.]

Aug 28, 2008 5:28:44 GMT RNL said:

The evaluative process is by the subject of the object.

[/Mini lesson of the day.] Thnx.

The subjective is the ego, the I.

The subjective and objective cognitive processes must both be considered during the evaluative process. The object (art) being evaluated by the subject must be analyzed, as must the subject (viewer/critic) itself - i.e. human psychology, neurology, aesthetic sensors, etc.

[Capo]

He was awake. At that time. Typing that stuff.

[Cuddle]

[RNL]

Just to get back on topic for a moment, yesterday's news about Life During Wartime has reminded me that Todd Solondz exists and is one of the most interesting contemporary American filmmakers.

[RNL]

Haha... apologies for the metaphysics. Woolly subjectivist banalities set me off.

[Robert C.]

No need to apologize to me, I've been wanting to have this conversation for quite some time. Now if I can just get someone to help me compare/contrast 'modernism' and 'post modernism' (hint hint).

[Kino]

Wetdog, after Wendy and Lucy, do you consider Kelly Reichardt a world-class filmmaker? Or does she need to have about one or more films at least on the same level of Old Joy? Or something else?