Ooooh, shiny! (Seems to be a theme this semester)

"Argue film is art? Yes I can."

"Better than paint?" you demand.

"The forms, they quite differ,

(Your back, it grows stiffer)

The problem? Your attention span."

Benjamin’s assertions about the inherently commodified nature of film, as well as its tacit inferiority to painting as an art form are a little frustrating to this film professional. I believe in his dismissal of film as an absorbing but ultimately passive experience for the viewer, he does not consider the capacity of someone to view film with a critical, engaged eye any more seriously than he considers that someone could view paintings passively, glance at them and not become engaged. “Let us compare the screen on which a film unfolds with the canvas of a painting. The painting invites the spectator to contemplation; before it the spectator can abandon himself to his associations. Before the movie frame he cannot do so. No sooner has his eye grasped a scene than it is already changed. It cannot be arrested. Duhamel, who detests the film and knows nothing of its significance, though something of its structure, notes the circumstances as follows: ‘I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.’ The spectator’s process of association in view of these images is indeed interrupted by their constant, sudden change.” I would contend that this is a flaw of consumer as well as product. When viewing a painting, one is still beholden to the image the artist presents. One can engage with that, make associations and analyze as they see fit. One can do the same with a film, but perhaps just at a more rapid pace. The filmmaker is asking the viewer to engage with a much more rapid set of images than the painter, but both artists must contend with their audience’s choice to engage. Perhaps it is a function of generation gap. I know that my brother (age 6) can process visual information at a speed that I cannot, but he has a corresponding difficulty in paying attention to one thing at a time. Conversely, my mother offers things a great deal of attention and focus one thing at a time.

It is when Benjamin begins looking at the roles of reception and criticism that he hits a stride that the modern thinker can really appreciate. He says “Reception in a state of distraction, which is increasing noticeably in all fields of art and is symptomatic of profound changes in apperception, finds in the film its true means of exercise. The film with its shock effect meets this mode of reception halfway. The film makes the cult value recede into the background not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but also by the fact that at the movies, this position requires no attention. The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one.” (p.240-241). One wonders what he might say if viewing the habitual multitasking of today, or the lack of engagement necessary to be a critic of anything in the modern blogosphere. If everyone’s opinions and distribution channels are equal, how can we learn to value discernment and respect for an educated, considered viewpoint? Likewise, what can artists do to engage their audience’s full attention?