Field Report One

One aspect that interests me more than a piece of work itself is the artist. Knowing the artist, whether it be their background in art, what has happened in their own life, what they think of their art, changes the way we, or at least I, think of the work. Most would think that is a bad thing, because people like to come up with their own ideas and thoughts on a piece of work, and as Charles Burnett said this past weekend, someone told him when they were critiquing (in his mind) incorrectly, ‘It’s not yours anymore.’ I think that isn’t right. Yes, there have been a few times where I have been disappointed after I have learned the ‘truth’ behind a piece, but most of the time, it makes me appreciate it more and have more respect for the artist.

Prior to our class showing of Stan Brakhage’s ‘Mothlight’ I had studied a little bit of him before, having seen ‘Mothlight’ and ‘Window Water Baby Moving’ and learned that he loved everything about film. Not that he could tell his story, or express his opinions. Not that kind of love for the film, but for the physical piece of film and what you can do with it, what it can capture. It made me appreciate ‘Mothlight’ because it wasn’t just some guy who thought moths would look cool and wanted to show off this neat new trick. He was such a selfless filmmaker. He didn’t want to put his ideas onto other people, he wanted to say, ‘Hey, look at what you can do with film, isn’t it amazing?!’ (of course that’s not a direct quote from him). What intrigued me more was that he didn’t just make films of random objects taped to film, he expanded his subjects, and though many, if not all critics say he didn’t make narrative films, I would disagree. ‘Window Water Baby Moving’ is the birth of his child, how is that not narrative? Though some could say it is documentary of the sorts, which it is, which then leads me to Charles Burnett.

He stopped by the Student Union this past weekend and screened ‘Killer of Sheep’ which was influenced by documentaries. And the thing is, I wouldn’t have known that if he hadn’t stopped by. Yes, of course it has the obvious feel of a documentary, capturing life as it goes, not really have a direct story, but before listening to him, I read about what others had to say about his work and they all said he made films similar to Italian neo-realism and the like. What I liked most about Charles Burnett was his honesty. He admitted he wasn’t professional and people looked into things in his films a little too much. He didn’t mean for the dog mask or the motor to mean something, he just thought it was funny. And why should he have to put meaning into his work? ‘Killer of Sheep’ was a reaction to Blacksploitation films in that he didn’t relate to those films, that’s not how he and the people he knew lived, so why should something so realistic have so much hidden meaning?

It seems my reaction to these two artists and their work has kind of been all over the place, but when it comes down to it, the aspect of these works that interests me is the artists themselves. I would rather know what these artists were like, or what they had to say, then experience their art incorrectly or differently than they intended. Stan Brakhage told stories, but differently in a way than I am used to. He didn’t want to tell a story so that others could share his opinions, but he created these films so he could play with film, show others what you could do with film. Charles Burnett was a little less ‘artistic’ in a sense in that he just wanted to tell a story. He didn’t want to put hidden meaning or crafty tricks in his films because that wasn’t real to him. I have more respect for artists when they are just being straight forward with their work, and these two men did just that.