----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
Freelancer writes:
>GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE! Over intellectualization of art tends to kill it.
>. . .Talk to the director or DP and they tell you what
>they're doing, transferring the message of the musician's song from an aural
>to a visual medium. The director & DP conspire to do so in a visually
>pleasing and entertaining way. You might find 1 in 1000 where they're trying
>to send some esoteric message through their work. The message in 99.99% of
>the videos out there is simple and straightforward: This is our song, this is
>what we look like, this is what we're talking about in the song, now go buy
>our record. The art therein is in the lighting done for a specific shot that
>looks really cool, or some edit combination that works really well. This art,
>however, is usually wasted on those who don't notice the work that went into
>something, and are instead looking for some deeply hidden message. Or wonder
>if the director was influenced by Einstein, or Griffith, or Lynch, whoever.
>Most likely, they were influenced by Madonna, or Jackson, or REM, or
>Aerosmith....or even MORE likely, by the fact that the artist wanted a video
>& they got the label to put up $20k to throw something on film.
 
>Art is art. If you like it, it's art. If I hate it, it's STILL art. The
>influence it has over anyone nonwithstanding. People that put too much
>over-analysis into something without the benefit of asking the creator are
>usually blowing wind. Ask the person who made it, THERE"S your analysis, and
>the ONLY one that counts. If someone came up to me and said "ohh..I see, you
>were influenced by the work of Sergi Eisenstein in that video you did" I
>would simply tell them to take a hike, because the influence I had when
>shooting that day was the miserable rate I was getting and how cold I was. I
>shoot to follow a story, make it visually stimulating, and followy the
>storyline of the song...NOT to re-create the Odessa Steps.
 
>Do you see what I mean? The ONLY vision and analysis of what the
>artist/cinematographer "was trying to say" is what the artist/cinematographer
>SAYS it is..if you want to disagree with them, then have fun in your little
>world mumbling to yourself "he doesn't know what he means...he just doesn't
>know..."
 
>Sorry for the ramble, but this is a little pet peeve of mine. Get out of the
>book and into reality.
 
OK, I'll excuse ya for the ramble.
As Shawn Levy wrote, thinking he was responding to me, its true that when
you put a work out there in the public eye, it ceases to be yours, and it
can then be analyzed in any way that anybody wants.  I think that's
absolutely true in principle, and if you disagree with that, you may in
fact wish to reconsider working in any medium but home movies, because
that's the only one where you can really control what people say about it,
presumably by persoanlly getting in their faces and telling them what to
think.  If that appeals to you...
 
But I think that there are larger points at stake here, as well.  For one
thing, it is true that artists are often completely inept at discussing
their own work.  Sometimes that's because they're willfully ornery and
won't admit to doing what's there in the work, plainly evident.  Other
times its because they can be working in a larger tradition which they have
assimilated without fully acknowledging.  For instance, your example of an
overinterpretation is someone claiming a video is Eisensteinian.  Well,
whatever your objections to that , whatever you were trying for, it is
difficult to me to see how a music video could avoid some Eisensteinian
aspects, given how pervasively some variations on Eisensteinian techniques
(if not principles) have diffused through the film/video media.  It seems
to me that if you can find something at work in a video, if you can provide
a solid case to back up your claims, you've done your duty, regardless of
whether or not the artist who made it wants you to or not.  The artist's
statements about the work can be used in this contexst, but certainly need
not determine it.  It isn't as if artists don't have ulterior motives that
would favor some readings over others for purely selfish reasons, or that
anyone has any obligation to bow down before their word.
 
It's true, however, that there is no lack of bad analysis and
interpretation out there.  There are whole books written about some of the
gross extremes to which interpretors have gone in the service of their
professions (see _Making Meaning_).  We may, now, even want to distinguish
between analysis, which might be considered a more primary level of
examining the work in question, and interpretation, the level of making
some claims out of the analysis.  If we do want to break the stages down
like this, we may want to stress that if the proper degree of care is given
in the analysis phase, absurdities can be avoided in other phases.  If I
may, Freelancer, you seem to really be objecting to BAD analysis or
interpretation.  You and I would certainly agree that there is plenty of
that around.
If, however, you really are objecting to any kind of analysis apart from
sociological analysis, then we really do have a quarrel.  I didn't mean to
get up on any kind of high horse.  But, as I said, analysis is what most of
the people who subscribe to this list do for a living.  And when it is done
well, there's nothing wrong with that.
 
cheers,
PBR