Consider a person you know really well. Say you see them in a situation where they're publicly putting on airs somehow. You, knowing who they really are, may be able to diagnose them of pretension, and that would be true!
Even though I'm only quoting this part, overall I must say, excellent point and well argued. Even though a person "putting on airs" is dealing in things of a completely subjective nature, if they KNOW they are faking it, then the fakery is indeed an objective fact.
I can extend your argument into art itself. If someone knowingly cobbles together nice-looking fluff in order to make money, without actually intending to deliver any sort of message, they are objectively being pretentious and objectively making fake art, regardless of whether or not someone else finds actual meaning in the result. In that sense, to the person enjoying it, it is NOT fake art, and even if they are told it was just slapped together, it likely would not destroy their enjoyment and the meaning they find in it.
So yes, fakery is an objective thing which can make pretentiousness a fact for the person engaging in it knowingly, and anyone who is aware of the truth.
Of course, pretentiousness still remains as a subjective judgment as well. An artist could indeed be putting sincere effort into depth and cultural relevance, and it could come across to others as schlock, because the depth and cultural relevance are still value judgments. In this scenario, the original intent becomes irrelevant.
Now I see an interesting difference between "art" and pretentiousness here...
1) If someone is purposefully being pretentious as you described, then that act can't be denied by an outside observer who was previously fooled by it, because it is truly an act. It is objectively pretentious.
2) On the other hand, if someone sincerely creates art with personal meaning, and it comes across to an outside observer as pretentious, the observer has to admit it's still art.
reply
share
zephyr_cape (2979)
7 years ago
Yeah that's the thing, because we don't know if the director/creator is actually interested in their work "seeming deep", or making money off of gullible plebs or whatever, I always default to giving them the benefit of the doubt. I think people who make things usually pursue ideas because they're genuinely interested in them. At least fundamentally. Certainly ego, lust for fame, money, for the work to be seen as brilliant or whatnot can be deeply ingrained and play into what a person creates, but it takes a lot of labor and sacrifice to bring an idea to fruition and you pretty much have to be genuinely interested and curious to make it happen.
Say something seems like it's attempting to convey a profound message or emotion, but the message is by and large understood to be trite, or the outcome very obviously does not work as intended, let's say meanwhile the creator is 100% into it and feels its successful and genuine, there is something to comment on there. Let's say for example, the films of Neil Breen, or Tommy Wiseau maybe: if you believe those movies were made as a sincere, serious movies, maybe they fall into this category. But those movies miss the mark by so far they authentically work as comedy, so no one will talk about them being pretentious.
I would just argue that "pretentious" is just too loaded with certain connotations and based on too many assumptions (which, unpacking those assumptions would actually be worth talking about!,) to make it almost ever a good choice in talking about art. Or even just, there are better and more interesting ways to talk about what's going on with a movie.
reply
share
zephyr_cape (2979)
7 years ago
My hunch is that people want to call this flick pretentious because it asks a lot of open ended questions, and ultimately puts a lot of heavy imagery on us and asks us to figure out what to do with it all—in the closing scene, the guy puts the crystal on the thing and laughs, and it's almost like he's laughing at the audience, right? Like the joke's on you man, just even TRY to figure this shit out man! And you walk out of the theater with that feeling, and it feels like someone just played a trick on you. So the natural reaction is to be like, hey man fuck you for dumping this on me -> Defensive mode -> "What a bunch of ~pretentious~ bullshit
reply
share
Frogarama (12942)
7 years ago
Or even just, there are better and more interesting ways to talk about what's going on with a movie.
I agree with this. It's probably why I don't consider pretentiousness to be inherently negative, or even to be inherently "criticism." To go back to Empire Strikes Back, I think the pretentiousness it conveys helps to sell the emotional impact. We want to believe that Yoda is a wise old sage even though the things we hear him say are pretty shallow. "Do or do not, there is no try," it's a famous quote but the phrase is pretentious and meaningless. To aim for a goal and then fail is defined as trying, which is separate from complete inaction without even an attempt. Most of the rest of what he says just refers to harnessing fictional magic, but yet Yoda still stands as a symbol of wisdom... And his quote can still be interpreted as "trying isn't good enough, try again..." or something like that.
But even the word "pretentious" has such a stigma to it these days, if I found something to be that way, I would instead find myself describing it, comments like "I feel it missed the mark" or "I feel like the artist was a little self-absorbed about the message he/she was delivering." I like to be specific and really describe what I mean.
reply
share
zephyr_cape (2979)
7 years ago
Yeah those are good, because then the next thing is what did you think the mark or message was supposed to be, and if it didn't hit the mark, where did it end up instead and how did that happen. And then without making huge leaps to all sorts of unknowable assumptions it actually becomes a real commentary! There's a sort of scoff in the word though isn't there? It practically always implies that something/someone is false and deceptive, and that's kind of an attack on character, like saying there's a quality of lying involved, and people tend to take offense to accusations like that.
Meanwhile, isn't all art, just by taking experiences and ideas out of life and translating them into one way or another exaggerated, styled, signified new expressive forms, entirely one big fluffed up deception? Isn't art always to some extent a fabrication? So where does that innate pretending cross over into pretense? It’s all just playing. The game has to make a player mad enough to say ok this is going too far, I’m not having fun anymore and so we need some new rules. And then they bust out the word and draw a line, and the line goes right where it will keep them from getting hurt. At the same time they won’t be able to have any fun either. Holy shit I'm losing my mind rn
reply
share
Frogarama (12942)
7 years ago
Meanwhile, isn't all art, just by taking experiences and ideas out of life and translating them into one way or another exaggerated, styled, signified new expressive forms, entirely one big fluffed up deception? Isn't art always to some extent a fabrication?
EXACTLY! Earlier I considered getting into this and explaining that I feel all art is pretentious to a certain degree, but there just wasn't a good time for it. Now you've done it for me in a very reasonable way. Your statement here is the true heart of the matter, and another example of why I don't find the word pretentious to be inherently negative criticism.
This stuff applies to both the creators and the observers. Yes, we pretend that a fictional movie matters. We pretend that a painting matters. We pretend that symbolic dance, poetry, and music mean something. We love and hate these things (as ALL art has its lovers and haters), and these creations effect us if we let them, but in the end, none of them truly matter.
The only works that actually matter are non-fiction, historical, educational materials, which are straightforward. This also discounts any stylized work based on a non-fiction account.
reply
share