Week 1 - Auteurism

After throwing the word "auteurism" back and forth in various classes for the last four years, it still makes me feel gross talking about it. It's not a pointless notion, but it is not anything remarkable or necessary. Any work, creative or not, will most likely show similarities to other works by the same creator. It is nothing unusual. That an entire film created through the collaboration of many people could possibly be attributed to just one "auteur" is laughable. While the director leads the team in the direction of a common goal (production and eventual distribution and an audience's viewing), it is hardly just "his". Each camera move is in the hand of a cinematographer and then camera operator. The relatable nature of a character depends upon the effectiveness of the actor and also the scriptwriter. The pacing and how engaging a film is addressed by the editor and composer. Unless it is honestly a solo piece created by ONE person, a film is and must be a collaborative. Actually, as soon as a film is viewed by an audience, even a solo project, is BECOMES a collaboration. Without an audience, a film is just a personal study, a hobby. I'm getting a little too close to the "tree falling in the woods, does it make a sound?" scenario. I digress...

Per Barthes,the explanation of the work is always sought in the man who has produced it, as if, through the more or less transparent allegory of fiction, it was always finally the voice of one and the same person, the author, which delivered his “confidence.” In actuality, the most relevant explanation of a work is the one arrived at by each individual, each audience. The creator of the work has already done his job and it rests upon his technical skill in chosen medium as to the ultimate impression that each audience may glean upon viewing. If a writer has a good idea, but cannot convey it effectively, then many nuances and subtext may be lost. Alternately, someone may view what is renowned by many to be a priceless piece of art, but if it is not to his liking, then, bluntly, it is his own problem.

What is most irksome to me, however, is when someone dissects PUBLICLY an expressive work and states their opinion of interpretation objectively as FACT. While common discussion of person interpretation is often enjoyable and might open people up to possibilities they had not otherwise considered, imposing ones view onto others and REJECTING theirs destroys the entire intention of the work: to be accessible to anyone.

It is the responsibility of creators to create well and it is the responsibility of the audience to be both receptive and think critically when prompted and yet also be able to simply sit back and enjoy the experience.

To finish, here's a thought from one of my undergrad classes that's stuck with me: "All art is the product of just such compromise between the artist’s idea and the inflexible properties of his medium [and, I posit, audience]. And any creative man who is not in a constant state of siege is not worth his license."