Art vs. Entertainment

In 2007, the Washington Post received a Pulitzer Prize for Gene Weingarten's social experiment conducted in a Washington DC metro station.  The experiment consisted of watching a musician play the violin in the subway station.  The study was really monitoring the people who passed him by, the other patrons in the station.  Perhaps you've heard this story through Facebook or an email forward, but for once this story turns out to be completely true.  For those of you who haven't heard of this, the man played for 45 minutes, all while being recorded by hidden camera.  In that time seven people stopped, but for never more than a few seconds, to watch him play, occasionally depositing a dollar or some change in his open violin case.  At the end of the 45 minutes, the violinist had made $32.17 from 27 passersby, out of thousands who walked past him during Washington DC rush hour subway traffic.

People walked right by those dreamy eyes.

The musician's name was Joshua Bell, widely regarded as one of the greatest musicians on Earth.  The violin he was playing was a 1713 handcrafted Stradivarius violin worth $3.5 million, and the six pieces he played are considered some of the hardest to play in the world.  Three days earlier he had sold out the Boston Symphony Hall selling seats for $100 each.  But of those thousands of people who passed him by in the subway, only one recognized him, and he only made $32.17 from people who didn't bother to stop to see what should have been a grand display of art they could have told their grandkids that they were privileged to witness.

Now the conclusions of the experiment as interpreted by Weingarten were that we as humans walk around with our heads down, and pass by so much that we don't see.  People didn't notice a once in a life time opportunity because they were in a rush to get to a menial job on a day they'd forget in two weeks.  We should all stop and smell the roses more.  Look around us and see the beauty in the world, instead of hurrying around with blinders on.

I'm going to propose a separate conclusion.  One a little more cynical.  What if we only know what art is because someone tells us it's art?

Maybe it's ignorance of violinists, but to put it in context of something more people know about, let's say you had a time machine, (or a TARDIS, now that I'm a Doctor Who fan), and you went back to the late 60's and picked up John Lennon and Paul McCartney, put them in disguises with make up and prosthetics, and brought them to today, placing them on a street corner with two guitars.  Do you think you'd notice them?  Do you think you'd hear them and say, "Wow!  Those two are quite possibly the greatest rock musicians the world has ever known!" Or would you listen for a second, thinking how close they sound to late Beatles, and drop a dollar in their case on your way in to Jimmy John's?

Choose wisely.

I think if we're being honest with ourselves, you'd see that the very most of us fall into the latter category.  

But why?

Is it because we aren't smelling the roses, or is it because out of context (or even within context), art is completely subjective?  Are Lennon and McCartney REALLY that good if we wouldn't notice them on our way to get delicious sandwiches?  Are they really that amazing if we aren't told they are?  Are our opinions on art our own, or are they heavily influenced by people who we don't want to look stupid or uncultured in front of?

Now, I'm not disputing that Lennon and McCartney were/are talented musicians.  And the purpose of this blog isn't to make people defensive about what is and isn't art.  The purpose is to raise the question on why we communally agree on what is and isn't art.  To question why we call a creative person a genius (an objective term), when creative art is completely subjective concept.

You may wonder why I'm writing about music on a filmmaking blog.  It's really all the same with any creative field.  There are films I hesitate to admit I hate in certain company, because people tell me that they're art.  There are films I hesitate to admit I love because people tell me they're garbage.  

We also get defensive and use incorrect phrasing when talking about creative pieces.  I've been guilty of it too.  There's a difference between saying "Stanley Kubrick is a genius" and "I think Stanley Kubrick is a genius."  The first is subjective, and thus unprovable.  The second is objective and the only proof needed is for me to say the sentence out loud.  (And actually the second is a lie.)  But then we kick it up a notch further by saying things like, "If you don't think Rubber Soul is the world's only perfect album, then you're a moron," or "If you don't think Stanley Kubrick is a genius, then you must only like movies for dumb American audiences with explosions and boobs."

Pictured: A certain "je ne sais quoi."

The thing is this: I love Galaxy Quest.  It's one of my favorite movies.  Does that make me uncultured or somehow less than someone who loves to point out how they have seen a bunch of foreign short films and can say words like "denouement" to describe them?  No.  Not at all.  It means we have different tastes.  I like films that are classically good as well.  Casablanca for example, is also one of my favorites.  But if you don't like it, I don't think that gives me the right to make you feel bad about it.  I can't understand that impulse.

That's the great thing about art.  We don't all have to agree.  It's like ice cream.  I love Cherry Garcia.  If you don't, you're not wrong.

Okay... maybe a little wrong.

This happens in music, in literature, in painting, in sculpture, in film and television, as well as any other creative medium.  It's all subjective.  You can have an opinion that's unpopular, but you can't have one that's wrong.  There's no such thing as a wrong opinion, only wrong facts.  I can tell you that I don't like Stanley Kubrick films.  It's not a popular opinion to have in the independent film scene, but it's not wrong.  It's the truth.  I don't like Stanley Kubrick films.  Does it make me stupid, or ignorant or uncultured? Not at all.  Hating them without watching them would.  Loving them without watching them would.  Watching them and having an opinion about them, not at all.

Nothing can define art.  That's what makes it art.  It's non-quantifiable.  People try.  Oh, do they try.  Every time you see a movie that's a direct rip-off of the last big thing, that's a financial backer trying to mathematically quantify art.  Mainstream Hollywood has become saturated with remakes and reboots and sequels.  People trying to do the last big thing that has already been done.  But they're missing the point.  The reason the last big thing was the last big thing is that, before it was done, it was the next big thing, not just a copy of the last big thing.  Most indie film makers point this out and lament that creativity is dead in everyone but them.  But here's the rub: they're usually guilty of it too.

To take it back to music for just a second to explain that: TV is filled with these reality singing competitions.  How many times have you watched a show like American Idol or something and thought, "Man that person can really sing!"  Probably quite frequently.  They're talented singers.  How often have you thought, "That person is an artist!"  I'd guess a lot less.  Susan Boyle blew up YouTube when she sang "I Dreamed A Dream" from Les Miserables.  And she was great singing it.  But there's a difference between singing a song, and singing the lyrics.  Singing what is possibly one of the saddest, most desperate songs ever written with a giant smile on your face shows you can sing, but not that you understand why you're singing it.  (Granted, it's a singing competition on TV, not a Broadway audition.  She obviously did what she was supposed to do).

They're singing the same song.

That concept of ability vs. artistry translates into film all the time.  Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you're doing it right, or even that it's to be done.  Directors imitate other directors in films that aren't even similar, just because they think the other director is an artist, and to be an artist, you have to do the same thing.  I can't tell you how many times I saw the "vertigo" shot in film school by people who thought Hitchcock and Spielberg's use of it was awesome. So when the pizza delivery guy knocks on the door, we cut to a vertigo shot of the guys face as he gets ready to pay him.  Why?  they don't know, they just thought it was cool and artsy.  And Hitchcock and Spielberg did it.

$14.99?  But I have a coupon!

It's not artsy.  It's just as unoriginal as any Hollywood rip-off.  It's parroting.  Here's a YouTube video of a parrot singing "Let The Bodies Hit The Floor."  It doesn't know why it's doing it either.

So what is art then?  Is it okay for something to just be entertaining, but not art?  Is it okay for something to be art, but not entertaining?  

I'd say yes to both of those things.  Because nothing creative should need permission to exist.

Is it okay to like Police Academy and not Citizen Kane?  Absolutely.  And anyone who makes you feel less than for it is insecure in their own right.  Art is made for everyone, and snob is not a positive term.  Know what you like and own it.  And even more, own why you like it.  Anyone can say they like Kubrick.  More so, anyone who went to film school can regurgitate that it's due to his use of space.  Beyond that, you're going to get a lot of drop off when you ask for an explanation on his use of space, because most people only remember the Cliff's notes version of what they're supposed to say to sound like a cultured expert.  If you legitimately love Kubrick, that's terrific.  I don't think most of his films are terrible.  If you say you love Kubrick, but you're just saying it to fit in, you're just like that kid in junior high who said he loved Metallica to his friends so he could fit in, and then went home and listened to Genesis' "A Trick of the Tail" album from 1976, the first to feature Phil Collins as lead singer after Peter Gabriel left the band.  (a.k.a. Me.)  The thing is this, I wish 13 year old me would have spoken up, because I still think A Trick of the Tail is a much better album than anything Metallica ever did.  I was just too afraid to say it because I didn't want to seem "uncultured" to my fellow 13 year olds on the merits of Metallica.  Seems pretty stupid now.

Well... 

So I open it now for discussion.  Either here or on Facebook.  What is art to you?  What is art at all?  Have you ever said you liked something that you really didn't, or been silent about something else you liked because you wanted to fit in?  Do you think art is definable? Is it quantifiable by value?  Vincent van Gogh couldn't trade a painting for a cheeseburger while he was alive, and recently one of his original works went for $71 million at auction.  Why does that happen?

Please discuss.