;~}domino harvey wrote:Don't, nobody take the bait
Is that a quote from something?
Not really fair to rrenault, I think. The context for "pure ignorance" was film students not being taught (not learning) to value Renoir and Vigo, as well as Wong Kar Wai and Coppola, but also Renoir and Vigo. (I think).Brian C wrote:I wasn't directing my comment at you - sorry for the misimpression. I was responding to rrenault's clear implication that dom's admiration of Wenders was based on "pure ignorance".
Non-humanists are very much concerned with socially relevant concepts. Humanism and its antitheses are themselves just intellectual positions that differ on the centrality of human agency and value. And Oscar Wilde was a considerable humanist.Michael Kerpan wrote:I guess if "aestheticism" is equated to "purely art for art's sake, with total disregard of the significance of contents" (Oscar Wilde in Importance of Being Earnest, perhaps?) and humanism is equated to "concern with socially relevant content with total disregard to artistry" (???) -- then the two concepts could be antithetical. ;~}
Well yes, this^^. I wasn't saying an interest in Wenders in and of itself indicated "pure ignorance". That was not my intention.Michael Kerpan wrote:Not really fair to rrenault, I think. The context for "pure ignorance" was film students not being taught (not learning) to value Renoir and Vigo, as well as Wong Kar Wai and Coppola, but also Renoir and Vigo. (I think).Brian C wrote:I wasn't directing my comment at you - sorry for the misimpression. I was responding to rrenault's clear implication that dom's admiration of Wenders was based on "pure ignorance".
Oh I didn't mistake those for your positions for a second, Michael. I've been reading your posts for too long to make that mistake.Michael Kerpan wrote:What is a "non-humanist"? (not a term I've ever encountered).
I did say "Oscar Wilde in Importance of Being Earnest" (with a perhaps) -- not in his work in general.
I hope it was clear that _I_ do not, in fact, think humanism and aestheticism were any sort of real-world opposites. ;-} (Only opposites if you rig the definitions in the first place).
Do you accept that this is your own, idiosyncratic definition and not a historical one? I hope so, because it's untrue in any other sense (humanism has no relation to either the physical or the quotidian; it's about a quality of mind and a sense of value; also bear in mind, Christians created the idea).rrenault wrote:Well humanist art essentially means art that's not metaphysical or transcendental. The artist's concerns are grounded in the physical realm. Now humanist art can certainly have an existential bent to it, and it often does, but it's largely concerned with the quotidian I would say. It doesn't necessarily relate to "warmth" with respect to one's characters. So with that said, Fassbinder and Chantal Akerman, for instance, are definitely humanist fillmmakers, whereas Kieslowski is not. Antonioni is tough to determine, due to what Luc Moullet would call his misanthropy.
Mostly I'd say they're just poorly thought-out. I get the sense that he makes up his arguments as he writes them.knives wrote:I don't intend to be rude, but your definition is such a word soup that honestly I thought you were going to call Akerman and Fassbinder aesthetics. I mean right there now you have to define metaphysical and transcendental since as I understand the terms they apply to Akerman as much as humanist. By memory at least this has even more strict confusion since you have someone like Ozu who (rightly) has been called a humanist and a transcendentalist. Again not to be mean, but your definitions and distinctions seem arbitrary to the extreme.
This misrepresentation verges on outright cruelty: both Welles and Tarkovsky were constantly striving to make more films, but couldn't attract the funding or clearance to launch (or complete) all the projects they had to abandon or delay. And both filmmakers raged against the frustration and injustice of that state of affairs, so characterizing those intolerable constraints as airily 'waiting for their muse' does both a gross disservice.rrenault wrote:Granted, Tarkovsky and Welles were precisely the kinds of artists who would sit around waiting for the muse whereas Godard, Rohmer, and Renoir were the opposite.