I studied art. Did a degree in it. Studied along side some artists who are quite famous now. But as writing slowly became my primary focus. Creating things that might be considered art objects has become less of a priority. I still make things now and then. I have boxes of stuff hidden away and notebooks full of pieces I would like to make when money and time permit. One of the reasons for my diminishing interest in making objects is a feeling that art is someone else’s culture. The a priori knowledge necessary to understand art still seems beyond me. (Reading this back I think I should clarify what I mean. Understanding art is incredibly subjective. And because it is so subjective it is prone to the vagaries of taste. And taste is just fashion. I’m left wondering who sets the fashion.) I often summed up my frustration with the impenetrable nature of understanding “cultural production” with the phrase “art’s just rich people’s decoration.” I’ve been to galleries with people with no exposure to anything you might call art. Their usual response is “I don’t understand it.” I then ask them “When you look at it what do you think?” This. That. The other. Then that’s what it means. But they’re still intimidated into not understanding it. And thus dismiss it as beyond them. Not theirs. I know how they feel. I was in my late teens before I ever went to an art gallery. I only studied art because at school I was a very practical student. I was good at drawing. That ability lead me to eventually to art school. Actually what it lead me to was an education. Not a great one. But enough to make me curious. I wouldn’t have started writing if I had not done all those practical things. Which is probably why I view my writing in very physical terms. But that is the subject for another post. I still have mixed feeling about art. On the one hand I feel I’m an artist. On the other I still feel it’s someone else’s culture. But this morning I got a new perspective. I happened upon a documentary on SkyArts about the American graphic designer Milton Glaser. He quoted someone who said art objects are an extension of the tribal tradition of gift giving. Objects would be exchanged as a way to cementing relationships. Without the exchange of these objects we would be at war. We’d kill each other. These objects provides a collective experience. Tell us a story that connects us. This idea has given me a lot to think about. And seems an interesting way to approach the question. What is art?
In my last post I outlines my rejection by the Euroscript Screen Story Competition and the readers report I received. I sent an email briefly outlining my concerns. Here is the response I got back from the reader.
The relationship comes across very much as having a father-daughter dynamic, which is why I was left with that overriding impression (hence why I clumsily referred to it as such), although appreciate that this is a huge error to have made, and apologise that this has understandably left you thinking your treatment was dealt with inadequately. I hope that the analysis of the other elements of the treatment reflect the level of thought that has gone into what might be required to develop the treatment in future, however. There is a deal of character development required on Christine, regardless of the relationship, and as mentioned, the fractured style of writing should be amended so that the narrative is easier to follow and engage with. Currently the action is described in an abstract fashion rather than in a form that can easily be visualised, and this hinders the effectiveness of the treatment overall. Strong visually exciting scenes, with clearly defined characterisations that are multi-faceted and conveyed through behaviour and action as well as dialogue, will be of great importance for future drafts. Sincere apologies for the mix-up Darrin.