J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I read blurbs from Tarkovsky's like the one posted and this is exactly what I am talking about; it's as if Spielberg should be ashamed for being the most successful storyteller in the history of Cinema.
I have no doubt in my mind Steve has made a majority of his films for money, for the studio; but let's not discredit the man's passion for cinema. That goes for M Bay now that i think about it. Who the flock are we (and especially Tarkovsky) to judge who is an artist and who is not? There are many perople that think Cinema is not art; that only music, literature and canvas are true art. Are they right and we are wrong?
Is an Artist a sell-out the minute he is represented and his work is exhibited? Is being commissioned for an exhibition an indication of failing in art? This belief is absurd; and this is what Tarkovsky (and Coltrain for that matter) are saying.
It reminds me of music lovers who like a band but then one day they make that one album that makes them famous and suddenly they are sell-outs; which is absurd.
D_and_G says it nicely for me:
This is the discriminating view I keep referring to. This is the the exact mindframe and view that inhibits art. Is it a better film if it plays to no one and does not make a dime? Apparently. I know Coltrain; to be be 100% pure you should make a films and hide them in a vault so know one can ever see them. This way; you have made it for yourself and not anyone else; staying pure. (of course I am exaggerating)
Tarkovsky has just got to be pissed off for working under Russian rule his entire life. He made 12 films in his career according to the IMDB and all but one was made outside of 'Studio Russia'. You can blatantly see the bitterness and negativity stemming from this iron fist that held him thougout his fimmaking journey.
Anytime you start mixing politics and/or religion (appears to be both with Tarkovsky) into Art it's a bad idea.
Then it is no longer Art; it's an agenda. (Damn; I should copywrite that)
Remember that Coltrain.
I have no doubt in my mind Steve has made a majority of his films for money, for the studio; but let's not discredit the man's passion for cinema. That goes for M Bay now that i think about it. Who the flock are we (and especially Tarkovsky) to judge who is an artist and who is not? There are many perople that think Cinema is not art; that only music, literature and canvas are true art. Are they right and we are wrong?
Is an Artist a sell-out the minute he is represented and his work is exhibited? Is being commissioned for an exhibition an indication of failing in art? This belief is absurd; and this is what Tarkovsky (and Coltrain for that matter) are saying.
It reminds me of music lovers who like a band but then one day they make that one album that makes them famous and suddenly they are sell-outs; which is absurd.
D_and_G says it nicely for me:
and maybe if he could see beyond his narrow view of the world and art, we'd have something to talk about.
This is the discriminating view I keep referring to. This is the the exact mindframe and view that inhibits art. Is it a better film if it plays to no one and does not make a dime? Apparently. I know Coltrain; to be be 100% pure you should make a films and hide them in a vault so know one can ever see them. This way; you have made it for yourself and not anyone else; staying pure. (of course I am exaggerating)
Tarkovsky has just got to be pissed off for working under Russian rule his entire life. He made 12 films in his career according to the IMDB and all but one was made outside of 'Studio Russia'. You can blatantly see the bitterness and negativity stemming from this iron fist that held him thougout his fimmaking journey.
Anytime you start mixing politics and/or religion (appears to be both with Tarkovsky) into Art it's a bad idea.
Then it is no longer Art; it's an agenda. (Damn; I should copywrite that)
Remember that Coltrain.