eyeboogers wrote:Everyone has the right to express their informed opinion. If f.ex. you are an experienced reviewer, film scholar, director, screenwriter etc. it gives your opinion a heck of a lot more weight than those just expressing their gut feeling. Everyone is not as "right" as others when it comes to art. Some people don't see the forest for the trees, because they are not trained to do so.
But it's art, so it really is all about gut feeling. This isn't science or engineering. There's no rule book, nor is there any standard.
The audience performs their own intuitive, emotional response to art. If they choose to further dissect their reaction and share it with others, so be it, but the relationship between artist and audience requires no training. There appears to be a tinge of elitism in what you're saying, as though reactions that are not of either academic or institutional origin can be devalued and disregarded, or at the very least regarded with less significance than the critically appraised dissections.
That seems rather unlike the sort of thing that an artist like David Lynch would encourage. I'm guessing he's more of a two party, single layer relationship kind of guy when it comes to this stuff.
Single layer relationship: Artist and Audience - Someone creates an emotional work, and then someone else receives it and experiences their own emotional reaction.
Infinite layer relationship: Artist, Audience, Critic, and Qualifier(s) - This multi-layer relationship seems like the beginning of endless layers of certification, if you think about it. I say this because for someone to reside in the position of "worthy critic", doesn't it imply that a higher authority has deemed them qualified to critique? Who decides whether or not a person sufficiently meets the expectations for this role? And who in turn decides whether the qualifier is qualified to qualify the critic at all?
As to your claim that I have not thought this through, perhaps you are right to some degree, as I've spent my life and energy on creating art instinctively, without regard for critical dissection or analysis. The reception of art is intertwined with personal views, feelings, and opinions, and while I'm always open to seeing something from a new perspective, the idea that one could convince me that something is bad when I feel that it is good, or vice versa, is doubtful.
My simple perspective on this could be boiled down to: "One does not require training when it comes to art, for it is emotional and purely subjective."
Your example regarding feeling ill and seeking out a plumber versus a doctor does not apply. Engineers must be trained to build structurally sound buildings, and surgeons must be trained on safe and effective procedures. Of course one does not hire an architect to heal the sick, doesn't that go without saying? In the context of this discussion, we are not talking about who is fit for the role of architect, but whether or not we think the architect's building is beautiful or hideous.
What you seem to be implying is that one must set aside their natural and intuitive reaction in order to supplement it with a learned one, and that does not make a good case for your argument, because in relation to Twin Peaks Season 3, you could be seen as saying, "Those who love it have the correct reaction as they are informed, while those who do not simply don't have the training to properly appraise it".
This is potentially in line with the many statements made in Season 3's defense that amount to: "If you don't like it you don't get it".