nico followed by a lot of ellipses

for a man who does not end a sentence with a single period, a blog is in order... i think...

Monday, November 13, 2006

Again, What is Art?

By Rome Jorge
THE MANILA TIMES,
Monday, November 13, 2006

THIS most basic question is what Humanities and Art Appreciation classes strive to answer—or at least provoke. After all, a lesson well taught ought to leave more questions than answers. At times, it is our disagreement with our teachers that spark true education, which is to think and learn for ourselves.

Art is intrinsically hard to qualify. It is not a quantifiable value like in mathematics where there is only one answer to every question. But daring to be wrong, we can deduce opinions from some basic observations:

Art is a label

Art isn't art until someone calls it art. So who is to say what is and isn't art?

It certainly isn't a democracy. Worldwide record sales in the millions will never make Britney Spears an artist. Art prices do not equate to artistic value. The fortunes spent by the wealthy have sometimes proven to be laughable investments as time eventually exposes what is merely trendy and decorative.

As elitist and flawed as it may seem, it is those who know better—scholars, critics and artists throughout time—who elect what is labelled as art. If you have a better idea, chances are that you have become one of those who know better. And you should know better.

Some artists have it wrong. The trick is not to dumb down art; it is to educate, empower, involve and grow your audiences. As with any other business, so too with art: The economies of scale apply. Public demand motivates both governments and businesses. With our informed patronage can we take art back from the elite and make it accessible to all. Read those art books. Watch theater and dance as well as movies. Travel with museums and performances in mind instead of just shopping. Vote for politicians who support the arts. Know your roots as well as the cultures of the rest of the world. Appreciate your Humanities classes.

Art is what survives

As with crime, so too with art: You would have nothing to call art unless you have witnesses and you have evidence.

That is one reason why the stereotype of what is considered "high art" are classical Western art forms. Long-lasting oil paintings and durable granite sculptures are safeguarded in museums. Classical music is notated in musical sheets, perpetuated in conservatories and recorded onto CDs. That western colonization has obliterated many indigenous cultures is another reason for this dominance. Yet another reason for this dominance is that, traditionally, western art was purist in nature and easy to categorize; it was art for art's sake and art as personal _expression. Many other cultures have always viewed art as functional, ritualistic and communal.

If transient and once-obscure arts such as Manobo poetry spontaneously scribbled onto bamboo branches deep in the forests of Mindoro or Tibetan mandalas rendered with colored powders are considered art today, it is because we have found ways to document and perpetuate these traditions.

Art is what survives our memory. Shocking, timely and relevant themes grab our attention today. Intriguing subtly and sublime mastery beguile us always. Truth forever haunts us. As timeless as art ought to be, it is our generation that now sits in jury delivering verdict on what is art or not, rediscovering and redefining it, at least for our time.

You have nothing to call art unless you can see, hear or feel it. Ideas inside your head don't count as art unless you have the skill to transform it into something other people can appreciate.

Art is limiting

Art is as much defined by limitations of the real world as it is by boundless imagination.

The availability of materials and cultural influences create distinct regional cultures. T'boli tinalak weavings patterns reflect not only the dreams of its weavers; they also show the colors of local plant and mineral dyes.

Budgetary, technological and physical limitations foster ingenious approaches. The musicale Zsazsa Zathurnah endeared and regaled audiences with how fantastic sequences in the comic book came to life on the Sstage.

Censorship and repression spur artists to use subtlety, symbolism, metaphor and allegory. Juan de la Cruz's "Himig Natin" became the rock anthem of the Marcos dictatorship generation because it was sufficiently vague to escape censors.

Maximizing and exceeding the physical limitations of the medium achieves artistry. The genius of Auguste Rodin was that he deliberately allowed rough-hewn portions of sculptures to show—making stone come to life—instead crafting highly polished works of beings frozen dead as lesser sculptors do.

Even thematic constraints can be overcome. The prominence of the wealthy Dutch traders Rembrandt was commissioned to portray may mean little to us in the modern world, but it is his mastery as well as their humanity that appeal to us today.

Art is manmade

Artworks, just like their mortal creators, are products of their time and culture. Again, many contend that art as well as its message ought to be timeless. But everything comes with cultural and historical baggage.

Only a consumerist society can produce a pop artist like Roy Lichtenstein. Sigmund Freud's establishment of the science of psychology led Surrealists to paint their dreams and nightmares. It was their rebellion against established academic traditions that led Cubists, Fauvists and Pointillists to find new ways of representation. It would be unthinkable for an educated people of a democratic society to slave away for a pyramid or a temple devoted to divine pharaoh.

Even moral values change with time. Shakespeare' s Taming of the Shrew espouses subservience of women and his Merchant of Venice renders a stereotypical portrayal of Jews. Shakespeare' s works, as immortal classics as they are, are still products of their time. Yet we still value his works because we understand the playwright's milieu. The man is but human.

Despite notions that art ought to be universal, each genre and art form has its own criteria for excellence. One must judge Noh plays with a different criterion from the one applied to cliffhanger films. Critics are know-it-alls only with what they know.

It is art that makes an artist, not the other way around. Just because he is a reputed genius does not guarantee all his works are art.

As with any vocation, so too with artistry; they are only as good as their work. Art is what makes us human. It is in our nature to create art. The origin of art is as prehistoric as our species. Art is found in all cultures. Art is not mere decoration, hobby or propaganda. Art is essential. Art is not the real thing Art is a manmade representation of something perceived. Even nonrepresentational art was first imagined and intended. Nature and other works attributed to God cannot be labeled art; they are called "Creation." Animal scribbles and random computer generations don't count.

Art tells truth through deception. Representation implies contrivance. To perform with seemingly effortless grace, dancers endure hours of grueling practice. To convey emotions to audiences in faraway seats, theater actors exaggerate makeup and costume and carefully consider their blocking. To tell lifetime stories in the span of a few hours, cinematic directors compress time and limit the number of characters.

On the opposite extreme, post-modern art shatters the illusion, making the creative process the subject of their art.

Even works of fantasy reflect reality. Outcasts and victims of circumstance identify with Mary Shelly's Frankenstein monster and Victor Hugo's Quasimodo.

Life is not all pretty and nice. Neither should art be. For art to be honest, it must reflect the world we know. Violence, sex, injustice, ugliness, awkwardness and defeat are all part of life. From Francisco Goya to Elmer Borlongan, Social Realism still resonates with us today. The explicit photography of Robert Mapplethorpe confronts us with truths that may not be our own.

Art is for an audience

Art has meaning, even when its message is that life has no meaning or when its truth is that there are no truths. Art is what means something to us today. It is the message that matters. And at times the medium is the message. The manner with which an artist chooses to create his art is his statement. Every creative choice he makes has a reason.

Art communicates. Before we can even consider something as art, it must have been done well enough for us to understand. Mastery and composition are means to this end.

Art is a language. You have to understand an art form's grammar and etymology before you can even appreciate what it has to say. You cannot separate art from its culture and history.

Many say great art ought to transcend cultural barriers. And true enough art ought to explain itself. But it's not magic. It is one thing to groove to a song's beat, another to understand it's lyrics and yet another to appreciate its place in music history.

Familiarity with cultural conventions overcomes feelings of intimidation at art galleries, avoids offending native sensibilities at tribal performances and neutralizes yawns, snickers and gasps at ballets and pangalay dances. Knowing the story behind the story deepens your enjoyment. That is why performances and exhibits come with programs and schools teach Art Appreciation and Humanities.

---------------------------

Need i say, Amen?

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Who was eating the cake anyway?

Sofia Coppola, the first XX chromosome to win an Oscar Trophy for her movie Lost in Translation has a new movie... that is Marie Antoinette, although in the movie, her mother called her, "marie antwoi" which got me thinking, are austrians also that eloquent in language?

Kirsten Dunst, which i still remember as the liar in "Jumanji" the bitch in "Mona Lisa Smile" and Mary Jane Watson gave us a glimpse of her depth as an actress, as a lavish, self centered Queen of france... and a glimpse, (although i got more than just a glimpse) of her bosom and behind, (F-I-N-E!!!) which by the way, the King looks first at... Miss Dunst gave a stunning performance, believable... so believable that i am now having an image of Queen Marie Antoinette as her... Jason Schwartzman portrayed Louie Auguste as convincingly as the heroine, and i even thought his sexual passivity amounts to homosexuality... which by the was one of the funniest bed scenes i have seen...

In this movie, Marie Antoinette was not only portrayed as a self centered lavish, luxurious queen that we know, having been instilled in our minds what a one-dimensional devil that she was, it gave us the backgrounder why she acted in that way and why France thought she "spent france to debt" which by the way was very unfair... i mean, when she knew france was in debt, she immediately stopped buying diamonds, just imagine her anguish and loneliness of to not be able to buy diamonds.... on the contrary... seriously speaking though, the movie presented her differently and that she was not the reason why France was in debt, it was because France was helping the the US revolution against their arch rival Britain...

She was presented in a very bad light with the statement that she never made... "Let Them Eat Cake" they said she said... it turns out she never made such a remark, and history tells us that it was Romantic Philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseaou who wrote about her saying those words... being a philosophy major i kind of know Rousseou's philosophy, but never did i realize he was such an activist and a gossip at the same time... although on an ironic twist of cinematic fate, Marie Antoinette was reading a book of Rousseou and explaining it to her friends in the movie... about the natural state of man, as going back to nature, which by the way she did... a queen milking her own cow... come on... i also did not know she was such a martyr, staying by her husband... and the agony she must have felt when the angry mob closes in on the castle shouting and cheering on her death.... and even though she can actually feel hear, the anger, she still went out the balcony... now that was one painful scene... although Sofia Coppola did not include her beheading, i can actually feel the fear and somehow you feel with them... (and probably just one of my fantasis as being a royal blood)

this movie made news, when the director opted to use modern music as oppose to music of that period, Kirsten said that she (sofia) was thinking more of th mood rather than being exact... and i also dont think she used those music to appeal to younger generation... although soem say it worked for them, i cannot sy that it did... its not awkward but to me it just did not match, it did not work, or maybe i was expecting too muh... i dont know...

the movie was exclusively shown in Greenbelt three, and i felt like Marie Antoinette paying for my expensive ticket...

speaking of expensive, did we not have our own, meaning Philippine's version, of her,

a lavish queen while the subjects are in poverty... does the name Imelda Marcos ring any bells...

i can see lot of parallelisms... Imelda was from a royalty of Leyte, Marie form Austria... Marie had love affairs, so did Imelda... both hosted elaborate and very very expensive gatherings, all of which very well attended... both were surrounded by many friends and cronies... living luxuriously while people are getting hungry... both were art patrons... i just dont know whether ferdinand marcos was as passive in bed as Louie August...

Thursday, November 09, 2006

babye fr. tamerlane


now it is official... fr rector, the only rector that i know was replaced by Fr. Arceo... Father Rector Tamerlane Lana... i can only say this, only a rector like you can pull off a name like Tamerlane...

dearly DEPARTED

the first time i heard about this fim was from my cousin Georgia (who by the way, just passed the CPA board exam) she said their profeesor warned them thtat if they plan to relax before the big exam, they should not see the Departed... their professor said to stay away form that film being heavy... and i thought even without getting thatcomment i knew right away that that movie would be heavy... heavily star studded for one... jack nicholson as the bad guy... matt damon as the "rat" in the police force, leo di caprio as the mole in the mob, martin sheen as the head of police, alec baldwin as the head of intelligence and marc wahlberg as the right hand of sheen... oh did i mention this was a scorsese movie...

i find leonardo di caprio' acting impressive, james cameron did not do it for him, baz luhrman didnt, steven spielberg didnt. and only scorsese can bring Leo to his ful potential... of course, being under Scorsese for three times already surely some of his talent and skill would rub off on you... from gangs of new york, to aviator, to departed... they have made a great team... i wonder if this year, scorsese would finally have an Oscar Trophy... which by the way, he most ceratinly deserves... also, Leo, but he is still young, he can still wait...

its fun seeing Jack Nicholson as the semi-bad guy... again... after As Good as it Gets, i always see him as the obsessive compulsive man... this movie once and for all erased that...

mark Wahlberg was really good in this movie... it someho reminded me of his role in FEAR, but he is a good guy in this one... except for the HAIR, (dude, change that hair!!!) which he did...

matt damon has a better luck in movies than his partner (not life partner) ben affleck... (come on, id rather see stuck on you than Gigli,) if you know what i mean...

by the way, only baldwin and wahlberg walks out of this movie... alive.... how's that for an ending....