Currently there are missing links to some of the films of his I discuss. Basically, I systematically destroy the argument that his films' incoherence is a boon to the viewer.
Here's his most famed film, Mothlight:
Ok, not exactly La Dolce Vita, nor even 2001: A Space Odyssey, but is it really art? Probably, but bad art.
In short, as I pointed out in my review of My Kid Could Paint That :
1) Claimed abstraction in art is rarely, if ever, abstract. Why? Because there simply and rationally can be no such thing as non-narrative nor non-representational art. Yes, you read that correctly. A smear of orange color is a smear of orange color, and can represent a smear of orange color. That smear, or dot on a piece of paper, also has a narrative, and that narrative is, ‘smear/dot on a canvas.’ Yes, that is a narrative, but its utter banality and bereftness points out just how creatively barren a work with such a paltry narrative is. Imagine the mind that could create, or be fascinated by, such an inane display of so-called skill and talent, and such a ridiculous narrative thread. It might take a few seconds to craft, but only a few thousandths of a second to grasp. Art is a form of communication, but a higher form of communication than mere language, therefore the skill in which the communication is laid out is essential to its determination of excellence. Art is a verb, the how an idea is communicated; not the idea (the noun) itself.
2) One can, as do many of Marla’s buyers, imbue anything one wants into the painting/artwork, but while great art constructs no, or few, boundaries, what it can do is give linkage to imbue, a bit, of non-obvious things into itself; but NOT the whole thing. If the whole thing can be imbued there is no reason to work at art- the whole rationale behind found art. This displaces the creative impulse from mostly on the artist, and slightly on the percipient, to being 100% on the percipient. So, if the percipient of the claimed artwork is doing all the creative heavy lifting with imbuement, what exactly is left for the so-called artist to do? This folly, naturally, sunders art from the realms of skill and craft. Art that works on multiple levels of interpretation is usually a deeper and more profound thing. Claimed art that has infinite levels of interpretation is a scam, because, logically, if something means everything it means nothing.
3) Intent in art means nothing. One can claim they intended something, but so what, if it fails that claimed intent? Since there is no true way to know what an artist intended, it has no bearing on the art. What is left of the art is all that is required; that someone was going through a divorce at the time, had gall stones, was pro or con a certain political position, or was squabbling over a real estate transaction, might be interesting, but those facts are just as likely non-factors as factors. This false idea, of intent having stature in art, also allows for absurdities being propounded about certain art and artists- like Pollock’s drip paintings somehow representing the nuclear age because they somehow represented the whirl of the atomic shell.
4) If seen as a subset of intent, the art then becomes less about itself and more about the backstory; a further reduction of modern life into the disease of the celebritization of everything. As example, Jackson Pollock’s pre-drip paintings showed him to be a meager, callow, and highly imitative artist; but it was his heavily promoted tale of woe (alcoholism and failed love life) and ‘rebirth’ that made him a ‘star’ in the art world, not any real skill.
5) Finally, there is the plain old common sense notion that if something is claimed as art, that any layman can do with no effort or in little time (draw a dot in the center of a piece of paper, use a roller to paint a canvas one color, toss paint at a canvas and let the drips fall where they may), then it is simply not art. Now, this does not negate great photography nor cinematography, but I only mention these two art forms because folks often mistakenly claim both can be done with little effort and time; without realizing that most photographs, even by claimed Masters, simply do not rise to the level of art. It takes years of practice, and understanding the ‘impending moment,’ to make a truly great photo, or scene in a film, work. As mentioned earlier, simply contrast Marla’s painting sludgefests to the young violinist in the documentary stock footage- he shows skill, she does not; it’s really that simple. In fact, in the best moment of the film (and one he should have used as a template for the whole film) Bar-Lev torpedoes the hilarious claim that the DVD painting Marla did, to prove her abilities, is substantively no different from any of her other work, by showing side-by-side stills of the DVD painting and others; even as gullible patrons ooh and ah over it. One sees, also, that there is no logical coherence (and not even a Keatsian Negatively Capable coherence) between the titles of Marla’s paintings, and what is on the canvas. The names are immanently random and the paintings utterly generic messes.
Ok, now go watch the Fellini film!
