The question is, does art have to have a message or can it just be for entertainment?
I class all paintings, installations, sculptures, films and music as art. Well, with the latter two, especially the music and film I like. Even films like Batman or Hulk try and give some sort of moral message, or an analogy for modern life. All film directors will try and give a message, and film writers don't just want to make you smile, they want to change your life, or at least make you think.
Also with music, writers and lyricists will take time to tell you something, otherwise they might as well just use a keyboard for the music and sing la la las for the words.
Anyway, I went to an installation at the Serpentine Gallery a couple of months ago. It was essentially different shapes of light with smoke. Although I enjoyed it, I struggled to find any message. But half way through I noticed everyone enjoying it, and at one point my art partner said it was like walking to your death toward the light. 'Was this the message?' I thought. I doubt it. So even though I found no message but it was entertaining.
So why when I went to see Lonesome Jim last night, a film, was I searching for a message too? Films are more likely to be classed as entertainment but I was ultimately disappointed that there was no message? I can be entertained by some light and smoke, but a well written film with great performances and funny moments had me wanting more. Maybe it was just a little lacking that I wanted a message to make it all come together, whereas two of the best films I saw this year, namely There Will Be Blood and Control just came across as complete pieces.
Discuss.
No comments:
Post a Comment