I like ideas. I like exploring them, sharing them, hearing them. I just love ideas. That’s why I like art and storytelling in general. It’s those wonderful ideas. Even the not-so-wonderful ones, I like receiving them. They can better inform my own opinions or give me wider perspective. This is why I write. This is why I draw. This is why I watch. This is why I read. Regardless of genre, medium, year, country, demographic, it’s these discussions, perspectives and ideas that I appreciate.
Still from Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
While this has always basically been the case, I remember when I first consciously made the decision to not waste anyone’s time with my creations. I believe it was after having watched Sergio Leone’s Once Upon A Time in America (1984), the 250 minute version, and listening to the score by Ennio Morricone. I don’t think I’d ever been that moved by a work of art before, and just listening to Morricone’s music elicited this wave of emotions and ideas within me that no music really had before. It was around that period where my views on art in general were starting to really develop and expand, and in that particular moment, I’m sure something deeply moved within me. Something so fundamental that I truly felt that the power of art isn’t something to be wasted, not by those who recognize it, at least. I decided that whatever I do, I should make it count. Regardless of medium, demographic or intensity, I must make things that last with people. Explore ideas that widen perspectives. Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable and all that.
But then..
The self-consciousness kicks in.
I start getting more experimental with my colours, filling them with symbolism, using more abstraction. I start using words like ‘post-modernism’, ‘vernacular’, ‘romanticism’, ‘zeitgeist’ in normal conversation. I speak overly formally with even close friends. I start watching more art house and more European films, lots of cigarettes and fedoras. I start going nuts because I feel starved for stimulating conversation, then I feel guilty for interrupting people’s day with my mind-bending topics. I complain about art. I praise 4+ hour long films. I use the word ‘films’ more than ‘movies.’ I look at myself. I realize that I’ve become a cliché. Again. A sentiment that I’d deliberately decided to abandon for how limiting it is. But here we are. I've left my weeaboo phase and become a pretentious art geek. Nuts.
And just like that, I start holding myself back.
Most great artists of any field, I think, do their thing because they love ideas. Artists view the world, process it and express what they make of it. We have all these ideas and perspectives that we absolutely MUST get out, so others can relate and even LEARN from them as we have with others. Most storytellers want to create something with SUBSTANCE, with DEPTH. They want people to stop and think, contemplating these ideas. They have those opinions and perspectives growing, evolving, boiling, rising to the surface just wanting to EXPLODE on a page or a mic or a canvas or a screen. And JUST as they’re ready to do it, they feel stifled. “What am I doing” “Who am I trying to fool?” “I’m not smart enough, someone else should do this.”
When I was… 13 (such a year in my life), I said and did several things that I’d like to go back and slap myself for (as most of us did, I’m sure), but one thing still haunts me. There was this one time where was telling someone from school about a story idea I had, and I remember the discussion of the necessity of killing characters off came up. So, I felt the need to (with full confidence) proclaim that offing a character makes something deep.
I was proud of myself, too.
This is, of course, a sentiment that I find to be.. more than a little ridiculous, now, but it’s not something unusual for a 13-year-old to say. It’s just that CONFIDENCE. THAT’S what haunts me. I remember at the time, I was thoroughly under the impression that I was quite smart. (You chubby little boy, you.) The way how radically my thoughts have changed in a few short years is what really frightens me. Throughout my adolescence, I’ve deliberately refrained from expressing my opinions, too much, especially on permanent records like the internet. Now, I’m almost out of that stage, so I’ve eased up on that a bit. Thus, here we are. Another factor was the fact that my opinions have been pretty stable and have mostly been evolving, rather than changing, for the past few years so, hey! But still, there are those lingering feelings of, “I’m still young and stupid. What will I think of this in the future?” or “Surely, smarter people will pull up and see right through my rambling.” This is the kind of thing that may hold lots of people back. This might be one of the biggest fears of any creator (or one of mine, at least): being seen as ‘pretentious.’
Still from The Dick Cavett Show (1968-1986)
Still from The Joe Rogan Experience (2009- present)
I think there’s been a cultural shift, too. There’s been a noticeable change where intellectual or deep thinking or conversation (or at least claims of such) isn't so much presented the way it used to be. This can be seen in media and the way people present themselves in general (based on what I’ve seen, at least). Everything’s become more casual and simple, more approachable. From the clothes we wear to our entertainment to the way we talk, even. This isn’t a bad thing, though. It is nice that ideas are now generally more easily accessible and down to earth. What worries me, though is that along with it comes a kind of ‘over humility.’ I’ll be watching a podcast or something, and someone might say something really smart and touch up on some interesting ideas. But then, they will take it back by saying something like, “… or something, I dunno” or “I don’t really know what I’m talking about.” I get why, too. When it comes to things like ideas, there is usually no real certainty, and you may want your audience to know that you very well might be wrong and your fleeting thoughts shouldn’t be taken as fact. Again, this isn't a bad thing. What fascinates me, though, is that it expresses the attitude change toward presenting yourself as smart. It’s a bit difficult to describe, but I watch a clip of The Dick Cavett Show (a late night talk show that aired around the late 60s to mid 80s), and the guests carry themselves with this class and articulate their thoughts so well. When they speak, I listen, even if I’m not well versed in the topic or know the guest. I won’t compare contemporary talk shows with Dick Cavett (that just wouldn’t be fair), but the closest thing we have now, contemporary podcasts, have this distinctly more casual atmosphere. Have I mentioned that none of this is bad? I know that relaxed atmosphere is a large part of the appeal of podcasts as well as allows the guests to be more relaxed and maybe open up more. The difference, though, is that the guests on Cavett feel important, even if you have no idea who they are, so you may feel more interested in hearing what they have to say, while the guests on today’s podcasts feel like normal people like you or me. If you don’t already know who they are, you may not see any real reason why they are important enough to listen to EVERYTHING they say. They feel more normal, more approachable, less ‘important.’ Like I said before, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, this casual humanization is very refreshing and can make the guests feel more down to earth. The difference I’m trying to point out is how the concept of ‘importance’ has changed and how casual everything has gotten. While this casualness makes things more refreshing and accessible in most cases, any kind of show of ‘importance’ or intellectual value may be more met with resistance, whether from audiences or the creator, themself. Still, whether this humility is really a bad thing or not, I suppose is up for debate. I think a healthy show of confidence is important if you are saying something you really want people to take seriously, but then again, you also may run the risk of coming across as a pompous clown, or worse, an ignorant one. That’s something I’ll leave up to you to think about, but the effects it has on how we perceive ourselves and the validity of our thoughts/ ideas is what concerns me. Most artists today don’t seem to even like referring to the things they create as ART, anymore. It’s as if they’re too scared to give their creations a title that respected (even though the title is so vague that literally anything can be called art, today).
Andy Warhol, Marilyn Monroe (Marilyn) 1967
I’m pretty sure this cultural shift is a direct result of post-modernism. Post-modernism (to grossly oversimplify) was the philosophical and art movement taking place around the latter part of the 20th century, where basically, the whole notion of objectivity and truth was called to question. Pretty much all labels, classes and largely accepted truths were blurred, deconstructed, subverted and downright rejected. An example of a result of postmodernism was the demolishment of the notion of ’high’ and ‘low’ culture, ‘elites’ and ‘the common’, ‘sophisticated’ and ‘mainstream.’ Think, the social implications of ‘wine’ vs. ‘beer.’ The rising philosophy was the whole, “Why is this more valid than that?” “Who is allowed to assign value to these things?” deal. An artist from the time who largely contributed to this movement was Andy Warhol who was of the first to really blend consumerism and pop culture with high art, birthing ‘pop art.’ The results of this movement are deeply embedded in our present culture, there is ABSOLUTELY no doubt about that.. for better or worse.
I have very mixed feelings about post-modernism. I can definitely get behind a few of the ideas to some extent. The idea I raised in my ‘Why do you smile for pictures’ essay about relative normalcy and the abstraction of life is definitely a post-modern one, but my biggest issue with post-modernism as a whole is that it’s pretty nihilistic. Post-modernism kind of screams, “EVERYTHING IS VALID, NOTHING MAKES SENSE AND LIFE IS MEANINGLESS, SO LET’S BURN IT TO THE GROUND!!!” without offering any real solutions. Postmodernism has created this increasing attitude of ‘nothing is sacred,’ ‘nothing is important.’ I think the effects have had mixed results. As has historically been the case, I think my issues with postmodernism as a whole are most evidently reflected with the current state of art, and if you know me well, you probably know I am more than a little disappointed with it (this absolute cesspool). More on that some other time, though.
As for what’s relevant here, since postmodernism kind of erased the concept of value, it’s become a little more difficult for those who have ideas they view as valuable to get those ideas seen.. and easier for those who have ideas that aren’t really trying to do anything special to be better accepted. The easier, simpler ideas are more approachable, while more weighty ideas that dig a bit deeper may be more impenetrable. But thanks to postmodernism, both ideas are seen as having the same value. Same value, sure, but they might be made with different intentions, maybe they are meant for different audiences, the execution may be different, one has a MUCH BETTER shot than the other of getting attention. Since postmodernism, saying what I just said can get you labelled as an ‘elitist’. A pretentious one. So, you’re kind of faced with that struggle of trying to be smart or introduce ideas of value, but you don’t want to be seen as pretentious jerk who’s trying to look smart and trying to shove shallow ideas in people’s faces. After all, “What value do YOUR opinions have, anyway?” “What makes YOU special?”
Jean-Luc Godard
Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most influential filmmakers in the history of the form. He along with a few other young film critics like Francois Truffaut, Eric Rhomer and Jacques Rivette paved the way for a movement known as the Nouvelle Vague/ French New Wave, primarily in the 1960s. The movement sought to challenge a medium they viewed as growing stale and dying and push it to new limits by breaking the established rules and creating new ones with their (at the time) ground-breaking techniques and new perspectives that audiences (again, at the time) had simply never seen, before. That’s something I can only have the highest possible respect for. You watch a film from before the 60s and after, there’s a noticeable difference that even a the most untrained can notice, and the French New Wave is a large part of the reason for this. Monsieur Godard was one of the better known (if not the best known) forerunners of this movement. His pictures like Breathless (1960), Bande A Part (1964) and Pierrot le Fou (1965) had this very unique presentation that absolutely changed the way how audiences and filmmakers alike viewed the medium. People hate this guy. If there’s one artist who I’ve seen called pretentious most frequently and most PASSIONATELY, it's Godard (besides Woody Allen, but something tells me it’s not really his films they’re mad at). People hate how his characters talk, they hate the presentation, they hate his stuff, man. :(
Clip from Bande A Part (1964)
Not everyone, though. I suppose Godard is one of those ‘love him or hate him’ cases. I like his stuff, though. I think they’re pretty cool. I like the vibe, I like the aesthetics, I like the presentation and like I said before, I have only the HIGHEST level of respect for what they stood for. The main criticisms I’ve seen against them, though, seem to be for those very reasons. Many people watch his films and think to themselves, “LOOK AT THIS JERKHEAD OVER HERE!” “You think you’re BETTER than cinema or something?!” “Keep your cigarettes to yourself!! Here makin me feel like I’m gonna get lung cancer just watching this movie -no- ‘FILM!!’ My apologies, “Your Celluloid Highness”.. People see him as pretentious because his films are presented as “better” than everything that came before. You see, this has me SCARED, now, because I also have full intention to at least TRY to make things that surpass the things that came before. In order to do that, you may have to make some deviations, break some rules and critique the things that came before with your work. You kind of have to convince YOURSELF that you’re capable of doing better, then you’ll make the difference.. but what if you’re wrong?
I like ideas. They are strange, they are tricky, but that’s a part of the charm. They’re not so easy to figure out, there aren’t really any rules. There can be lots of blur. Morals, logic, facts, feelings, all these things can be a bit more difficult to track. When expressing ideas (especially publicly), you have an equal chance of being seen as either a genius or a complete dingus. It can be very stifling. What’s worse is that the more people know about you as a person, whether because they know you, or based on your previous work, the more it affects how your ideas are perceived. I think most of us would like to be seen as the best possible person we can be, especially if we have ideas we want people to consider. That’s why the biggest fear we can have is being seen as pretentious. It’s such a stifling thing! People can dispose of great ideas if they live in that fear. You want to be smart.. “BUT WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG AND LOOK STUPID?!” You know what? Maybe you ARE stupid. But you know this ONE thing. Maybe you ARE wrong. You FEEL this one thing. You’re LOSING SLEEP over this one thing! Then it hits you:
Who cares?
Still from Frasier (1993-2004)
Don’t get me wrong, though. GENUINE pretentiousness is a sin. Playing the role of the high and mighty intellectual isn’t getting you any friends. Using big words JUST to look smart, flexing that you don’t listen to mainstream music, shooting your scene in black and white JUST to give it some fake ‘depth.’ Get out of here with that. No one likes that. No one needs that. Eat a bag of rocks. But if you really have something to say, being seen as pretentious is just a risk you’ll have to take. That’s the tricky thing about this whole thing. The rules aren’t so simple as ‘deep,’ ‘pretentious.’ You can always work towards creating something great, but it’s perception is really out of your hands. The best I can suggest is to create something that MEANS something to you. These are the ideas that tend to stick. Something that’s just made to be ‘deep’ for the sake of it is what usually stinks of pretentiousness. That’s what I think, at least. How people receive it is really out of your hands. So, who cares? I think. But I like Godard’s stuff, so who knows? I may be wrong, even if it is true that history favours Monsieur Cigarette, regardless of what a few people think. I don’t know if that’s a good enough conclusion or just a cop-out……….. This whole thing might not even really make any sense.
How many people can relate to this anyway………
I’m sure I’ll look back on this in a few years and think this is dumb. Or just one year- Or a month- Or a week- Tomorrow-
Actually, what is this?
What am I trying to-
You know WHAT? Forget it!
Forget everything you just read!
I just-
uh-
Comments