Blog #4: Empire

 From reading Smith’s review, I didn’t quite know what to visualize in my mind when thinking about what the film Empire by Paul Sietsema would look like. In her opening remarks, she described it as “funky yet obscure.” The word “funky” gave me a false hope that the video would be striking and exciting with a unique and musical rhythm and even a bright aesthetic. My anticipating thoughts were not met as the video was slow, dark, eerie and one that I actually found quite painful to watch–the word funky definitely did not come to mind. Smith did make it clear that this film is not for every audience member, she stated, “It helps if you are nearly as versed as Mr. Sietsema in the theories and influence of Clement Greenberg, the most powerful American art critic of the 20th century, or immersed in experimental film.” If our class hadn’t just had a prior discussion about Clement Greenberg, I would have been completely lost. Was this perhaps a part of Sietsema’s goal?

The title of the film Empire offers some clarity as it gives viewers a word to keep in mind while seeing the various images unfold across the screen, guiding certain connections to be made. With footage of Greenberg's art-filled apartment and the Rococo palace, the idea of an Empire can be seen by the immense influence Greenberg by his opinions on what works he valued, similar to the value given to ones decorating the palace. Both hold a lot of power over what society will also see as valuable. Sietsema’s holds his own kind of power over the audience by making his film almost unreadable to just any viewer–it excludes. He makes his point about power and empire perhaps not as much by the content of his film but by the way it makes viewers feel left out. 


Right after the film I felt frustrated and irritated by what I had just watched for 24 minutes, but now that I've had some time to reflect, I think these feelings leading to inaccessibly and exclusion from the inside language of the film makes the concept of Empire come across even more strongly.


Some questions I still have: When it comes to art and artworks that become well-known, is it the viewers and audiences that give them their power by going to see the works and spending money on purchasing them, or the critics? We've seen how critics influence the art people go visit, but at the same time, the viewers still hold their own judgments on what they will recommend to their peers and see again. Today, in galleries worldwide, Abstract Expressionist styles can be found, similar to the ones that Greenberg praised in the 20th Century. Is it Greenberg's original influence on the artworks he favoured that caused certain styles to be popular today, or is it the audiences who are still resonating with these kinds of works causing such a
lasting effect?




Comments

Popular Posts