[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 17 KB, 260x295, 0945D88D-E67E-489A-AE78-44BE438D2D2F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.18596661 [Reply] [Original]

>Because of his special awareness of his time and of the world in which he lives, the artist becomes the voice of those who cannot formulate or express their views of reality. In that sense the artist is indeed vox populi. That is why he is called to serve his own talent, which means serving his people. An artist is bound by his gift.

I want to like Tarkovsky but he’s a presumptuous asshole. This book is a collection of badly written essays on why he is a great Artiste. He also refers to himself in the third person (the author) when talking about his films. And he has 3 references in total: Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Bergman.

Fuck all the people who shill this self-aggrandizing crap

>> No.18596678

>>18596661
He kind of strikes me as modern cinematic version of Nietzsche, where he's saying a lot of the same stuff over and over again, some of it profound, some of it pretty lame, but his speech is either pretty or "complex" enough where people assess him either as a total pseud or the second coming of some filmic messiah.

I like his movies and stuff, I should read this book, there might be something in there.

>> No.18596688

>>18596661
So you disagree? What is an artist's talent? What is his vocation? What is his goal?

>> No.18596696

>>18596678
I wouldn’t recommend this book. I found it trite and uninformative. He’s a great director, but reading about some of his ideas is actually off-putting and has the potential of ruining his films. I just read the chapter on Nostalghia and I was disappointed with some of his explanations. He almost sounds like a movie critic when talking about himself. He’s a Tarkovsky fan

>> No.18596833

That's such a stupid conception of the artist.
If people cannot express what they want, how does the artist *know* what they want?

The artist is not expressing the voice of the people, he is expressing whatever he wants to express and *afterwards* the people may or may not be interested in that which he expressed.

>> No.18596869
File: 817 KB, 1816x2354, Ezra Weston Loomis Pound.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18596661
>I want to like Tarkovsky but he’s a presumptuous asshole.
What he said there (in the quote you provided) isn't bad, but it isn't original in the slightest and has been said much better by countless professional thinkers, or by virtually every major artist (which does not include film makers) themselves.

>Artists are the antennae of the race.
>Greece and Rome civilized BY LANGUAGE. Your language is in the care of your writers. [...] Rome rose with the idiom of Caesar, Ovid, and Tacitus, she declined in a welter of rhetoric, the diplomat's 'language to conceal thought ', and so forth.
- Ezra Pound

It certainly does seem like he overvalued the worth of his own writing. But I'm sure it does include something useful about understanding his films.

>> No.18597528

>>18596661
Filtered.

>> No.18598787

>>18596661
Bump for interest

>> No.18599818

>>18596833
By definition the artist expresses what the people want to but cannot. If he expresses otherwise then he is not an artist.

>> No.18599930

>>18596661
Congratulations. You discovered that all artists are inherently narcissistic!