Two things here, fantasy needs to bring human nature fully to a new environment so that you can return to reality and more fully appreciate the wonders of human nature. Avatar is not alone in blurring this line between reality and fantasy (the humans in the story are extensions of our human reality as we know it, not humanity in general brought to a new imaginative dimension, as in Lord of the Rings). Harry Potter does it, Twilight does it; and the problem with all of these is that if not read or watched by a viewer with discretion, they can serve as a form of escapism, rather than an imaginative avenue to become more human. Also, do we become elves or do we stay ourselves and encounter elves? Because I don't think a rightly excersied imagination should be abandoning its human nature.
First, to all those who are complaining about pedantry: This blog was founded on it so stop whining.
In response to the above. I think you're somewhat right, but allow me to define and conquer. The artist's role is to lead viewers into his mindset. The question that should be addressed doesn't concern the quality of imagination, but rather the "reality" with which the artist's imagination is working with, or is falling victim to. The imagination is often coerced by reality. The imagination is eternal, if you will, yet differentiated through cultural mores and many other things, by reality. If you want to point the finger somewhere, point it at the state of culture or "reality." Reality is what forces art into certain corners.
So you see, escapism is the most honorable thing in the world. GOOOOD ART turns us away from the pressure of reality, which is always flawed. GOOOD ART utilizes the pure substance which is imagination. So, yes, Avatar is not GOOOD ART because the imagination which created it was pressured by the reality of the blockheads and greenies in Hollywood, yet it still has the characteristics of what good art does, because Jake Sully does "escape" from reality. It isn't good art because he escapes to the real wish of blockheads. At least some escaping is going on though. And it works on a technical level, and at the very least, it reminds us that we do have imaginations. Escapism is good.
5 comments:
Au contraire, Mr. Horan, I would say the purpose of "GOOOD"(1) art, and I say this in all seriousness, is to bring us to a better perception of perception itself. Of course, leading us to perceive falsities with our naive faculties of perception in the same way we perceive realities is one of the greatest tricks up art's sleeve. In that sense, escapism is artful.
But escapism in itself is hell. In my experience, the most powerful form of escapism is video games. Is WoW greater art than, for example, Roden Crater? (jfgi). And psychotropic drugs? Hell.
Is the Bourne Supremacy art? Not really. Is is great film? Oh my god yes. It's convincing, fast, and fun.
Is Avatar good film? No. Because it stabs too many backs before you get to take a good look. There are never sides to take because as soon as the movie starts you're on the one that the movie puts you on. No sides means no allure. And because it's not consistent. Because the characters are not realistic, nor the movie in almost any way. Nevermind it's a movie about beings on another planet. What about the creatures in District 9? Far more empathetic, at least.
Anyway, back to the glitches in Avatar. Here's just one thing (of MANY) that really bothered me: Where does geekboy-researcher get his avatar when they break out of prison? One second they're being all sneaky and getting shot at, the next they have the research crate and geekboy is in his avatar's body.
And why do Sigourney Weaver's feelings to the main character change so quickly and inexplicably? She hated him, then he knocks over a lot of shit and runs away from everybody, then they're good pals.
Dear James Cameron and other directors like (I shall call you Legion, for you are many), if you're going to take those sorts of shortcuts when making a major motion picture, you're better off making comic books, or, I don't know, waiting tables somewhere.
Gawd, it was just so bad. I'd ignore the whole buzz, but it got a goddamn 8.7 on IMDb, and IMDb, I had such trust in you! You failed me!
Footnotes
----
1. Why sometimes four, sometimes three Os? Hell, why not two?
Escapism allows us to encounter that which is unadulterated. I'm using the word not as it is understood in common cant.
There is no dichotomy between falsity and reality. Falsity can, however, exist in reality.
Better perception of perception itself. Do you mean art helps us to perceive the world better? I agree completely. Escapism is how that happens. Trust me, we're on the same side. You're just having a bad reaction to the word escapism because of its widely used pejorative sense. But I suspect that won't be good enough and I can never dissuade you from your opinion so this back and forth is meaningless. The simple fact is that when you dive into a book, you are escaping from reality and entering the world the author presents to you. I'm speaking from a literary standpoint in all of this. I'm sorry I touched so briefly on the cantish, moralizing nerve.
Your "swagger" which follows is disconcerting.
Video games are not art.
Now that I have been pedantic as I could be, my work is finished.
It's escapism for the sake of escape that I have a "bad reaction" to. There are books that they sell in the supermarket close to the checkout lines that are far more gripping than the book I'm currently reading (W. G. Sebald's Austerlitz), but I choose mine because la petite mort that comes after finishing a book is much less painful when the escape has gotten you somewhere/something that you can keep with you after the book is over. And I'm not being puerile and saying there's a moral to everything that you come away with. But there's something nebulous that you get from good books. It's hard to define, probably because it's different for every book and different for every reader.
Because we are sentient, we have a model of how the world works. A physics, say, or logic, that tells us when something is not right. This sense is extremely adaptable—Newtonian physics is not a given, but only an instance of the way we feel that physical objects ought to react. If the Force comes along and compellingly fools us into thinking else—it's totally okay. But there is a baseline of acceptance, when viable escape dissipates—sort of like universal grammar. We are born with a foundational sense of reality that is developed over our experience. If this foundational sense is violated, escape becomes impossible because the environment becomes too unlike ours to enter into for awhile. The greatest sci-fi is the greatest because it gives us a followable path from the real world to the fictional. It enumerates the changes and the analogues, enabling the transition—the transition which is more important than the destination.
Avatar creates a beautiful destination, but their beautiful creation is dysfunctional in our terms, and they provide no way (or reason?) to rectify the imbalance between here and there. Avatar doesn't make sense (nor does Twilight, precisely wherein lies its failure). Harry Potter does, and Star Wars, etc. for all the good ones.
('"swagger"'? Boy, you ain't seen nothin' yet.)
This conversation is indeed quite interesting; however, let us consider whether or not we are shedding light or heat on this subject.
Pah, light is for anti-pedants.
Post a Comment