A week after watching those 3 films, we were divided
into three groups and each group got a question.
Group one: Who is the artist? The one who makes the film or the one who acts in it.
Group two: Compare the art of direction between Pollock and Rothko’s film.
Group three: Discuss the artistic process.
I was in group one. By this time, we had already realised that Who is the artist is one of the most difficult (and Narendra’s favourite) question. So, when we all sat as a group, we had no idea what to say. Because this question can be answered in so many ways, yet none of them seems completely true.
We discussed the films and tried to relate the question to them. Artist according to us, was everyone involved in making the film as well as the person it was based on. ‘Artist’ is a term too diverse to be used for a specific job.
In making of the film also, a lot of work had to be put. Script writing, shooting, direction, lighting, and all of this, according to us is art. So, we categorized all of them as artists. Then, the person on whom the film was based is also an artist because of the work they did.
While discussing our findings, a lot of question were raised, especially about the hierarchy system for the artists. What defines this hierarchy? Is it the skill or something else? And is it fair if the films sell because of the artist (actor) involved instead of the director. According to me, it is very subjective. In the commercial sector of films, the films usually sell because of the actors involved, because for a layman to think about the script writer or to know the director is very unusual. But, if you are into the artistic field, then your outlook changes accordingly.
Then, we moved on to other question and groups. One of the groups talked about documentaries and docu-fictions (something which I had never heard about). According to this group, a film can only be called a documentary if it is shot at the time when the action is happening. It cannot be something that is being re-created or re-told, even if it is without change.
If some event is being re-told, then it will be called a docu-fiction.
There was a lot of debate on this topic.
We also discussed about the artistic processes, and if art can be created by doing something without having a conscious sense about it. According to me, it is alright if someone creates something and later finds meaning in it (while doing it or after finishing it).
This is one of the things that I love about Narendra’s classes, no matter what the topic of discussion is, all our debates lead onto something very different yet very related.
For the next class, we were all asked to think about what sort of installation we would like to do, and research and present 5 installation artists whose works we like.
Group one: Who is the artist? The one who makes the film or the one who acts in it.
Group two: Compare the art of direction between Pollock and Rothko’s film.
Group three: Discuss the artistic process.
I was in group one. By this time, we had already realised that Who is the artist is one of the most difficult (and Narendra’s favourite) question. So, when we all sat as a group, we had no idea what to say. Because this question can be answered in so many ways, yet none of them seems completely true.
We discussed the films and tried to relate the question to them. Artist according to us, was everyone involved in making the film as well as the person it was based on. ‘Artist’ is a term too diverse to be used for a specific job.
In making of the film also, a lot of work had to be put. Script writing, shooting, direction, lighting, and all of this, according to us is art. So, we categorized all of them as artists. Then, the person on whom the film was based is also an artist because of the work they did.
While discussing our findings, a lot of question were raised, especially about the hierarchy system for the artists. What defines this hierarchy? Is it the skill or something else? And is it fair if the films sell because of the artist (actor) involved instead of the director. According to me, it is very subjective. In the commercial sector of films, the films usually sell because of the actors involved, because for a layman to think about the script writer or to know the director is very unusual. But, if you are into the artistic field, then your outlook changes accordingly.
Then, we moved on to other question and groups. One of the groups talked about documentaries and docu-fictions (something which I had never heard about). According to this group, a film can only be called a documentary if it is shot at the time when the action is happening. It cannot be something that is being re-created or re-told, even if it is without change.
If some event is being re-told, then it will be called a docu-fiction.
There was a lot of debate on this topic.
We also discussed about the artistic processes, and if art can be created by doing something without having a conscious sense about it. According to me, it is alright if someone creates something and later finds meaning in it (while doing it or after finishing it).
This is one of the things that I love about Narendra’s classes, no matter what the topic of discussion is, all our debates lead onto something very different yet very related.
For the next class, we were all asked to think about what sort of installation we would like to do, and research and present 5 installation artists whose works we like.
No comments:
Post a Comment