Chloe Sevigny
Out of context: Reply #93
- Started
- Last post
- 188 Responses
- winter0
Well i think it's pretty obvious that art is still an important concept for most people.
And to most of us, art is still some kind of reference to its own history, to society and always a kind of experiment that tries to bring a new epistemological perspectives over its practice. The individual as a He or a She is utterly irrelevant in the end. An artist is close to a philosopher that works with matter rather than ideas; but most of its work has a similar methodology. What's happening now is that there are many artists that are not artists at all and the consumer is submerged by a powerful shallow machine.
Cinema is not an art when the purpose is just to tell a story. Cinema is an art when there's some sort of effort to bring a new way of storytelling.
On the other hand, this is an individualistic epoch, so the artist becomes a subject too. that is the problem that breaks a more traditional definition of art (that is still implanted in our brains - and that's good). The problem is that individual subjects on art lack reference and as such the evaluation (good/bad art/no art) is impossible.
Gallo's self-centric world has no meaning to cinematography. The way he shoots it may have. Which also doesn't imply that one shouldn't mind the story. 2 different layers. Entertainment is the bottom one. imo.