art


Kandinsky also thought that “painting should aspire to be as abstract as music.” His paintings began to be designated by their correlation to music in the form of impressions, improvisations and compositions and named according.

Gus Van Sant VS. Lars Van Trier

We are prone to making comparisions, blame it on a liberal arts education. We call Lebron James the black Margret Thatcher (freedom of labour markets under the guise of private corporate incentives, HOLLER). These are two directors with three names. One of them made a great TV show about a haunted hospital and a bunch of high art films waltzing around in meangingful dresses; the other one made a bunch a films that have been about the romance of junkies and some street guys who were good at math. We are preferential to one Gus. But first Lars.

What is the story? To make something to challenge us as the audience is fine, but there should be joy in overcoming that challenge, something we are better for. In the Element Of Crime or in Dogville there was none of that beyond the feeling that the director was making a statement. Statements are great. But in making them the audience should feel the joy of having pushed the rock up the hill, knowing that the misery of it was worth something. Dancer in the Dark was not about that, neither was nothing else we have seen of his.

Vague imagery, congested dialogues, heavy handed symbolism is really 11th grade stuff maaaaan. Look at Gus Van Sant. He is doing things: giving imagery and voice to the boys in Columbine, giving life to the last few days of Kurt Cobain in there retarded junkie realness.

So we, being the judge and jury in this particular face off – Gus Van Sant wins!

BONG BONG

bonus exclusive:

Upon the third viewing on Inception (infer from this the quality of Dubai nightlife) it continues to blossom underneath the complexity and elegance of the writing, direction and acting. Inception goes deep. The film manages to straddle a thin border of the sophomoric ideas of “it was all a dream,” and “what is reality,” while staying on the right side of these questions leaving behind the heavy handed symbolism of Matrix and opting instead for the genuine discoveries of catharsis. It has called the masses to consider their dreams, it has left the audience to the wilds of our own subconscious, it has asked us to seek out the answer left at the end and rewarded us with only more questions and interpretations. But really, none of this matters as much as the experience of the film: the shattering stares of the estranged wife, the all white war zone, Paris folding on top of itself, We are left with the shared dream of Inception.

Thus far the film been compared to all sorts of films; but the one closest to its heart and most intrinsically related; and one of the finest of the last decade, is The Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. The differences are in the aesthetic, low-tech indie vs. super sleek cool, the devices in which we are enabled to reach the sub-conscious of our protagonist, memories vs. dream; but really we are dealing the same thesis: the most powerful element in the world is an idea. It has the power to change a man and define his entire existence. In Inception the idea is that this world is not real. In Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind the idea is (to a degree) of love lost. In life we are forced to fight through the gauze of memories and dreams to level ourselves against the facts, to rationalize our fantasies against the slow march of time; to level the power of the singularity of our belief against the overwhelming proof of the opposite. This is the Sisyphean task of sanity; we must do it every day or be lost to the shores of the unconscious. The way in which these films tango with this Thesis is Herculean. And if there could be a conclusion to the comparison it is that an Idea, no matter the complexity, easily simmers away the fat and leaves us very alone in the consideration of its outcomes. Where ESOTSM is squared up in it’s dealing with Clementine and Joel – Inception leaves us with a bit more, a subtext to the film that can only be applauded for its absolute elegance.

Mol inhabits a space beyond the wife. In some interview or the other Leonard Dicaprio is hanging around looking gorgeous in his slicked back hair and talking about Fellini and 8 ½. Leo can do as he likes, but when he gets to talking about Fellini eyes spastically role. But for now we can entertain those elements. He is the director, Fisher is the audience, Eaves is the lead actor, Saito is the money (“I bought the airlines, it seemed cleaner” is all time gangster), Adrian is the writer; you get the idea, so on and so forth. On the third viewing we paid particular attention to this and there is so much going on the film it hard to forget this element to it. And we see the end as the catharsis from the art and the ability to create without being destroyed by which we are trying to create. So give Leo his Fellini comments, it works brilliantly within the story. There is more, but let that unfold later.

Barry Reigate

In for the money
Original silkscreen print
80 x 60 cm
Printed on 410 gr. Somerset satin paper

The childlike black smudge hides a darker reality, money, a taboo subject in relation to an artist’s practice. The title thus embraces the base subject matter of an underlying secret and at times sinister objective, of an artist’s intentions. In For The Money is at once simultaneously playing with fun and a darker undertone in regards to art and commerce.

`

Pieter Hugo

Next Page »