On "Factotum" and "Basquiat"

I am concerned that all of the “good” artists and writers were on the fringe of society. Bukowski was a drunk and Basquiat was an addict. Critics claimed their work suffered when they were “clean.” Does one have to be repellent or an addict in order to be "Great?" Maybe not even just seen by others as Great, but even be capable of being Great? Many of the Great authors committed suicide or died in obscurity. Why? I am concerned that maybe they they understand things that others don’t, or that looking into the abyss for too long may make you cast yourself in.

I have spent a few hours (on the Internet) with Charles Bukowski and Jean-Michel Basquiat and I find them interesting and important. I had never heard of either of these artists before seeing the films about them, (Factotum and Basquiat) much the same as my fascination with Diane Arbus since seeing the movie “Fur.” With every new film I expand my appreciation for Art. I also believe in this idea or concept of Art, and that it is what makes us individuals and is innately human. Maybe it is that great capacity for individual creativity is what set apart Bukowski and Basquiat and in the end overwhelmed them.

Everyone should explore this ability even if it is just for themselves. Write-paint-draw-play-compose-move-dance-stitch-weave-construct-discover-CREATE. The capacity to create makes us human, and individuals.

Imaginary Portraits

I love watching movies like Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, where I am left with many questions and quests. The quest of course can be many things, but in this case, I had no idea who Diane Arbus was, and felt I really needed to know her after the film was over. I of course started at Wikipedia, and then killed approximately two hours looking at Arbus photographs and reading about her life.

But this brings us to the question: Is a movie like Fur required to be "authentic" and factual? Can this work of art that stands on its own, be a valid work if it is imaginary? I guess what I liked about Fur specifically is that it tests the boundaries of what conventional movie goers expect. This is not a biopic per se, but a film about the essence of Diane Arbus. How does one capture an essence? I think of poetry, and how the medium of film is like poetry in that what poetry does with words, film can capture mood and tone with images. Arbus's pictures are that way, wrought with emotion, and I think the film captures that essence.

There is specifically one scene that is extremely thought provoking. When Diane's husband discovers that there is an emotional affair going on, and he discovers that her lover Lionel is going to die, he asks her, "What difference does it make. He is going to die anyway." I felt he was asking her, why is she hurting their family, and him so much by continuing on with her actions, if it is not going to come to any kind of fruition? My wife who was watching the film took it to mean that he was giving his wife (Arbus) permission to complete the affair physically, because it would not matter if Lionel was going to die anyway. Arbus kisses her husband and says, "I will go an end it." And proceeds to go up stairs and make love to Lionel. Is that really what the husband was expecting her to do? I thought that it was a nice piece of complex acting/writing to have two people watch the same scene, and have two distinctly different impressions about what was happening. It spawned several conversations about feminine and masculine perspectives, and a discussion over whether committing the physical act of adultery with a dying man really matter?
Nichole Kidman was captivating as Arbus in the film, she has that just so prim and proper manner about her, that when she is able to shed that veneer and show the true sensual woman inside her, it is powerful. I had a few moments during the film where I recalled Eyes Wide Shut, and I may need to see it again, now that I can't seem to stop thinking about this film.

Time, Art & Criticism by Paul Trembling

I was linking the fabulous website East of the Web to my blog page, when I stumbled across the excellent sci-fi short story Time, Art & Criticism by Paul Trembling.

A would-be artist, Taran Vechery, has used the alien technology of time control to capture a tree and make it grow from acorn to death in one minute, it grows, and the seasons change-- everything--then the process begins over again. The most influential art critic in the world, Demidi De Soliel, has passed judgment that what Vechery has created is not even art. But just an engineers imitation of life, and poorly done at that. After several attempts with different and more sophisticated pieces, Vechery still cannot convince De Soliel at creates a final sculpture that contains... De Soliel himself.

This is an excellent story that at its heart tackles the question, "What is Art?" Is a piece of work called "art" because the person who created it says it is, or does it have to mean something to someone else, too? Well then, what makes it "good"? This is something that every person asks himself or herself at some point in his or her life. How do we know what is beautiful? If something helps us illuminate the human condition, or touches us personally in some way, it is something that affects us. Why?

I think that using the genre of science fiction is excellent choice as well, because this story is exactly what science fiction is about, social criticism. Here Trembling tackles several topics such as art, science (technophobes), racism (xenophobes) and crime. Is it a crime if the act of trapping De Soliel in a time warp is something for which there is no law? We have this scenario cropping up everyday, most recently internet stalking and bullying--"crimes" for which there are no laws. Youtube and Blogger have recently updated their terms of agreement to reflect certain attitudes and self censoring (Like against hate crimes and racist rants) that will probably become laws some day. Just because we may feel for Vechery and because De Soliel is the kind of person that needs to reap what he sows, does he deserve what happens to him?

This seems like a traditional Ray Bradbury story, and he does tend to get a twinkle in his eye when he talks about stories that involve the comeuppance of a character like this... I'm sure he would approve.

Oh, and the irony of writing a review about a story featuring criticism is not lost on me.