4 comments on “Filmmaker Quote of the Week #1

      • Perhaps, I can be abrupt, and it might also be off-point by targeting two gallery artists as opposed to film makers. They were simply the first two people I thought of in relation to Tarkovsky’s quote. But what do you mean by their “condition”? The human condition? Or that they create art out of some worthy despair?

        I’m merely highlighting this section from Tarkovsky’s quote: the error in thinking that “any personalised action is of intrinsic value simply as a display of self-will”. I would suggest both Hirst and Emin’s art is indicative of personalized action (E.g. Emin’s bed full of used condoms and tampons [“look at me, I’m a grot and I’ve had a multitude of shitty, one-night stands”], Hirst’s rack of diamonds [aka. “look how much money I have, I can buy diamonds and hawk that as art”]), “value of the individual for his own sake” without the second part of Tarkovsky’s quote to qualify as truly great art “serving a higher communal idea” and “a timeless and insatiable longing for the spiritual”

        There is nothing spiritual or in service of humanity in either Hirst or Emin’s art, their art exemplifies the void, meaningless and death and at best is either narcissistic or empty. There is nothing in their work in search of “the meaning of existence “, their work is about the meaningless of existence.

        I’m not saying their perspective is necessarily incorrect, I’m saying I prefer the goals for art in Tarkovsky’s quote. To me the search for meaning is an inherently worthy pursuit, and is not an impulse reflect in either Hirst or Emin’s work.

        Admittedly I’ve offered my criticism of them in a rather negative and ugly fashion, but with the amount of money they both draw in I very much doubt they’ll lose sleep over my suggestion.

  1. Thanks for your comment Bryan. I completely agree with you when you mention there is nothing spiritual in their art, and you perefer the way Tarkovsky has for his art.

    There are many pieces of art that are absolutely worthless to anybody other than the person who is creating the piece. A lot of things that people can put up for sale at an extortionate price can be considered art simply for the fact of its price. Sometimes it can be done for the sake of controversy, but in a lot of these cases it is not the way it should be done. It is disrespectful to the art itself to simply pass it off as a zebra painted red, or a a crudely drawn picture of two people copulating.

    All of these are indeed expressions of ones’ own experience at that time no doubt, but to put it up on a pedestal without looking at it for what it really is, isn’t the way forward.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.