Sunday

I wonder if you agree with the quote above by Billy Wilder? It runs thus: "An audience is never wrong. An individual member of it may be an imbecile, but a thousand imbeciles together in the dark - that is critical genius". I put it up there because it was interesting, and you may be getting a lot more Wilder in the coming weeks, but I don't think I agree with it. I'm not so keen on the idea of 'timeless' art: that survives the ages and appeals to all people, at all times, in every country. I don't like the idea that we will know what good art is just by how long it has survived. You might think I'd hold the opposite view seeing as I study Classics, but that studying has rather shown me how random and unreasoning the process of survival has been. We have texts today simply by chance, not by selective transmission, as some would like to believe. I personally don't trust people in general, and over time, to make the right choices in regards to art: what to keep and what to throw away. We simply don't know what masterpieces we might have lost. Our opinions about what good art is have been shaped since birth - when we see a film are we really evaluating it objectively? Is there really any criteria for art? These questions are a bit mundane, I know, but they are worth asking every now and then. With film, I fear there are a lot of movies people consider great, but haven't ever watched. The classic example is Gone With the Wind. I thought this was a fairly bad movie. But how are we to consider the innovations and originality of the time that now to us seem dull? It's a tough question. Maybe the best option is to go with Wilder, or Scott Adams who says art should be judged by its intentions (although how are we supposed to know the author's intentions?). I'm not sure.