Art seems to explore human capability and the ambiguity of reality. We are becoming more and more socially and conceptually fragmented every morning we wake. There are few grand theories that hold strong anymore.
This generation is quite unique, as I assume all have been. Is it true that our connection with reality is less strong and apparent than that of our parents? I was born when the Cold War ended and when “post-modernism” was supposedly just a young lad. What is my mind if not a product of others’ thoughts surrounding the history of our world and our relationship with it?
Must we symbolically kill our ancestors in order to move toward progression? In an urge to create innovative ideas and movements, must we first look up to their ideas and then grow tall above them to the point where we sweep them under our feet with the rest of history’s dust? Has our birth alone spilled ignorance onto them?
Jorge Louis Borges had something interesting to say about the present author: “Gracias al autora presente, porque por eso podemos leer con mas atención, y encontrar ideas y conceptos nuevos, las autoras del pasado.” What this means is that present authors and artists recreate the identities of their historical influences and furthermore, this crafted recreation gives us an opportunity to see these influences with a fresh eye, to view them with a new perspective that is consequently (and necessarily) more profound.
What is the relationship between film and reality?
Film as representation of reality, whether black, white, grey, or colorless. Andy Warhol claimed the truth to not be out there in the world, yet instead residing in the areas where he plays with modes of representation; there is a truth, and it is here in the abstraction.
Oscar Wilde had an interesting idea that suggested that reality, instead of influencing fictitious art, is actually created by it. In the way that Sartre reversed the temporal order of essence and existence, claiming that existence truly corals and births essence, Wilde does the same with the concepts of fiction and reality. It is thus fiction, made up stories, and the imagination, that not only precedes, but also directly influences what then happens in the real world. Reality copies fiction, not the other way around.
Do value discrepancies and human profundity really exist?
Experimental film works only with aesthetic material, form and texture, while narrative-driven stories take the back seat or even the dark unopened trunk in these forms.
Is there always (or ever) truth in the conceptual creator (author, writer, director, painter, sculptor, etc.) that is inevitably incapable of being translated, bound to be lost and misunderstood through the limits of communication?
I listened to an interview with Quentin Tarentino just days ago and he was talking about his script-writing process and how he ignores sub-textual elements for the most part. Yet there exists a dense world of subtext in nearly all of his works, a universe to explore behind the dialogue. Hm. And His unique mixing of genres seems to be working in this day and age.







