Acting upon David's recommendation, I pursued, and finally obtained a copy of "F for Fake". I got hold of it through inter-library loan from a library in a rural area 400 miles from Sydney.
I found it a very difficult film to watch, and I watched it the first time in two sessions. But the second time I watched it I gritted my teeth and sat through it in one go. After these viewings of the movie, I then read quite a lot about this movie from several sites on the net. Apparently the vast bulk of people did not find it any easier to watch than I did, however I learnt that it was not really intended for light entertainment, but rather was intended as a masterwork of editing. Apparently this is recognised as the true value of this film:- it is a landmark in the art of editing. Because of this it has become an extremely important film for students of cinematography. The subject matter is secondary.
However, that said, David is absolutely correct in his opinion that this film is able to add considerably to this present discussion. The entire film is about, and is based upon, deception. In fact, in the film the point is made that all film making is in fact the practice of the art of deception. The purpose of what we are permitted to see is to create the impression that the film maker wishes to create.
If we reflect upon this, it is perhaps only a very short step to realise that in any avenue of life itself we base our feelings, knowledge, opinions upon that which we perceive. In other words, the opinions we form, and the feelings that something or someone can engender in us are formed from only those aspects of the person or thing of which we are aware.
If we apply this line of thought to our present discussion, it can be seen that our appreciation of anything, be it an art work or not, is based upon what we believe we know about that thing. Thus, if we believe that we are experiencing great art, to hold an opinion other than that would be contrary to human nature.
But in this discussion we have not really been addressing the ideas that apply to great art, rather, we have been considering the appreciation of things on a more personal basis. I believe that we have shown that the way in which we relate to the things that we appreciate is based in our previous life experience. To put this another way, when we encounter something for which we have an appreciation, that appreciation is rooted in some memory of the past, be it an active or a passive memory.
If we can accept this construct, then the same argument applies to these more personal objects of appreciation, as it does to the broader sphere of recognised art, the only difference is that we consider these personal objects in personal terms, whereas the more public objects of recognised art are considered in more formally specific terms.
I feel that this brings us back the that which has already been proposed here:- that we appreciate things because those things strike a chord within us. That chord can be one that has been accidentally created by life experience, or it can be one that is the result of learnt concept.
To return to our "F for Fake" movie.
Yes, that movie demonstrates very well that we can be guided , or perhaps deceived, into seeing things in a particular way.
Because of this perhaps it is now time to ask another question.
What part does knowledge play in the act of appreciation?
To take Jussi's watch story as a starting point:- is the appreciation of a genuine, certified, Watchaholic for a genuine, certified Audemars Piguet Royal Oak any greater than the appreciation of Freddy Bloggs from Nowhereville for his genuine, certified Audemars Piguet , made in China, Royal Oak?
Does knowledge sharpen appreciation, or does ignorance permit a personal response in the ignorant, as does knowledge in the educated?
|