run for the hills

Wonder

I just finished reading an amazing article in the latest ArtForum about my favorite director, Terrence Malick, by James Quandt (content coming to the web June 1). I was roped in my the name on the cover and enticed by Malick’s beautifully sublime images.

Honestly, I did not even read the title for a few minutes. I was taken up in some of my favorite compositions and experiences of film. At first I thought it was about the “Embracement of Riches”. A few sentences in, I realized I was wrong. Actually, I was completely wrong.

I am not offended or upset by what Quandt puts forth, I am genuinely grateful. Even though he equated my favorite director to my least favorite painter of all time, he is raising some really great questions about Malick and filmmaking in general: Has Malick’s images become so cookie cutter in his own work that they have become a parody of themselves? What does it mean to copy an aspect of a film and repeat it for a very similar effect? Being a student filmmaker - and having many of those director-crushing film student friends - I see the tendencies in those who are learning to mimic and copy a style. Many here are even known for it. 

I heartily embrace learning through copy and encourage this practice personally. It is how creative learning has been done for centuries and has been producing great artists who have successfully graduated from learning and found their own voice. Ze Frank talks about all of this in one of his recent episodes (~2:30) and really hits nicely on the evolution from learner to master. Now this seems a little bit off point - I mean we were talking about an article not the learning process, right? Let me pull it all around and show you the biggest thing I took away from the article.

Quandt, in short, puts forth that Malick has lost his luster. Though his early films set the stage to tell as story really, really well, the last four seem to reference the same shots in a negative way. Basically, Malick is loosing his contribution. What he has to say is nullifying the effect of his previous work.

As an artist, I have to completely disagree. The Creative Kind makes their life by repeating what they know and then venturing out to change a thing or two. There is a reason painters and graphic designers can be seen in their body of work. As long as one is truly working at their craft and analyzing each situation, there is nothing wrong with repeating a style, or even artistic element, in order to effectively complete your piece. 

I highly recommend this article to everyone - especially those who are fans of Malick. 

———————————————————-

Local Natives

Pilgrim

Larcenist

Today is a Degas kind of day.