Unfortunately for our professor, I thought about this for a while during the movie and subsequent lecture. I tried to sense both ways of watching the film: analytically and for sheer enjoyment. I wondered if there is a difference between the two. I wondered whether there were similarities as well.
To enjoy something. What does that exactly entail. To enjoy art. I'll narrow it down a little bit more. There has to be some understanding of the art, perhaps on different levels than expected by the artist as well as other onlookers, but at some point there is an understanding.
Now that I began to define the issue, I began to see the problem with the issue itself. It really isn't the art that we would be dissatisfied with, but the process of analysis. We still are left with some questions, but some are within an answerable realm.
So now that we have variable levels of understanding a piece of art, why would one be more desirable than another? I don't believe that there is an inherently 'better' way of looking at art.
I think the real differentiation between 'liking' and 'disliking' any certain method of realizing art is within an individual's personality. It is relative to their own experiences and prior likes and dislikes as well as their anticipation towards each of these experiences. (Negating mention mood, relative disposition in other areas, and any other anomalous factors that are unquantifiable).
So my latent answer to Dr. T's quick question would be: no, this class isn't ruining the experience. It's just giving us more options, different viewpoints and inevitably inviting us to watch more cinema (or tv heaven forbid). And perhaps some that we would have otherwise disapproved of.
No comments:
Post a Comment