Intentism.com

Recently, while watching a film, a friend of mine leant over and whispered into my ear, 'this film is so ugly'. I was surprised, not because of the impromptu interruption, but because the particular film we were watching was a beautifully shot landscape film. It was the kind of film that can usually do no wrong. It turned out we were both thinking along similar lines.

They were similar but different lines though. I thought the filmmaker, in this case making a work about a landscape, a rural community, had been wrong to exclude the voices of those who worked the land. He favoured instead a poetic neo-realist lingering long shot instead of showing what the landscape contained. Almost everyone I knew, some of them film theorists, loved this film, seduced by the poetic pace, the painterly framing, but not my friend; she saw it as ugly. When quizzed she explained that it looked like an advert, that it looked as though the filmmaker had never been there, had never really felt the place for what it was. She saw the film as an exercise in technique, nothing more. We can, I believe, connect these thoughts by asking the simple question, ‘what was the filmmaker’s intention?’ If we knew his intention we could begin to appreciate the work for what it actually is.

Here’s my theory, and this is the theory of someone who makes films and faces all the challenges that are associated with that. This filmmaker, who lives in a city, wanted to make a film akin to the films of those he admires. My sense is that he’d watched the work of Raymond Depardon or perhaps Michelangelo Frammartino, no matter, he liked a style, he liked what rural landscapes could do when framed. Maybe he saw how easy it was to create beauty from landscapes like the one he filmed. But of course these landscapes, pretty to the eye, contain just the same level of complexity as you’ll find in the city. Far from finding malleable characters pleased to appear on the flickering screen, he found survivors, people who don’t take to being pushed about. My sense is he found resistance as an outsider and people declined to be filmed or interviewed. Because of this we don’t see the wonderful interviews of Depardon; instead we get long shots of trees. Far from being a conceptual choice, it was a pragmatic reality, an awkward improvisation.

I can’t prove it of course. It’s just a hunch and will remain so forever not least because this filmmaker declined to walk the reflexive walk. There was just no evidence of him in the film at all. My friend was right I think, he’d made a ‘painting by numbers’, quasi neo realist advert for himself as a filmmaker. Does it matter? Well to me yes I think it does,because filmmakers hold our attention in a way that comes close to subliminal and films, despite all theory to the contrary, present the pro filmic event as real. If this is the case the filmmaker has a responsibility, and a big one too. How many people left the cinema after that film thinking the landscape in question was nothing but wobbling trees, time lapsed lakes and people with one foot in the grave? The film was a fetish of rural life from the viewpoint of the city.

A priori intention matters. It is one of many tools that we, as the audience, can employ to unpack the work; to work out what’s really going on. Filmmakers are in an extraordinarily privileged position when screening a film; they’re speaking directly to us, many of us, who are assembled to listen. If the message in a film gets through, it can stay with us for ever and in some cases that message can be so coded by the nuances of the filmmakers life and background that in order to understand a piece of work we need to know who they are. Next time you go to a film, if you don't do this already, ask, "Who is talking to me and what are they saying?" That should neatly give the answer to the next question, "Why are they saying it?"

Sam 

Language aside, I think the person that wrote this has the right ammount of consideration for the author.

Vittorio Pelosi has been in conversation with translator Samantha Christie regarding how intentionality might influence translation theories.

To read the conversation please click on 'Reading' above and then 'Interviews.'

You can also discuss the conversation either on the forums page, or on 'Literary Translation at UEA':

http://littransuea.blogspot.com/2011/03/translation-and-intentism-dialogue.html

Thanks to Professor Paisley Livingston we have this amusing cartoon. Sometimes  interpreting a text without regard to intention can cause miscommunication... !

A constructive and enjoyable day. Myself, Vittorio, Paisley and James met this evening for a chance to catch up and chat to eachother about what we are achieving of late and how we intend to progress. An enjoyable evening fulll of fruitful discussion and a great understanding of what we believe in. A big thankyou to Paisley for makiong the effort to meet with us coming all the way from Hong Kong. We hope to see more of eachother in the future.

I was watching a well made BBC documentary last night which highlighted Eric Gill's sculptures at the front of the Headquarters of Broadcasting House, London.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2692361145_b75cc93d16_b.jpg" height="150" style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 1px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 1px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px; VERTICAL-ALIGN: bottom; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 1px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid" />

Quite correctly it was mentionned that many people have come to believe that the sculptures represent God and man. However, it was added that the intention of Gill was to represent Prospero and Ariel from Shakespeare's The Tempest. This seems confirmed by the website:

http://www.ericgill.org.uk/Gill/

This is another instance where intention matters and has shades of the public's misunderstanding of the statue in Piccadilly Circus as Eros, whereas it represents Anteros.

Something you may find interesting...

There has been a disagreement over the showing of a portrait of Charles Saatchi. The argument of its inclsion in the show was down, according to Stuckist Founder, Charles Thomson, to the intention of the artist. Read more form Evening Standard Online:

CHARLES Saatchi likes his artists to make the headlines while he keeps a low profile but he is currently finding himself at the centre of controversy in Maddox Street.

An image of the art dealer by Paul Harvey was being used to promote the Stuckist group’s show Clowns Doing Their Dirty Work at the Artspace Gallery. But the gallery manager has taken the work down on the grounds it is "too controversial for the area".

"I do not think this painting can be seen as offensive, nor was that the intention of the artist, who wanted to make Saatchi look friendly and human with symbols such as lemons because he likes lemonade," says Stuckist founder Charles Thomson...

http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/

One story that has received a lot of press coverage recently is the shortlist of artists who have submitted their proposals for the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, London.  Models of the artists' work can be seen at present at St. Martins in the Field Church which is oppossite The Square. Can I suggest a google search for the accompanying written proposals. What is so interesting is that these avant-garde artists have had to give an account of the intention of the work. Whether this was a political decision or whether the Mayor's advisors on matters of the arts decided on this is not really the point. What is of interest is that there was felt a need for the public to know the mind behind these creative gestures.

Check out the new 'review' section of the website.

Intentist Sydney Heighington comments on the John Madejski Rooms Exhibition for Deceased Artists.

It's a thought provoking piece on a somewhat misdirected exhibition.

Watch this space for more Intentist reviews soon!

Recently, I had the opportunity to interview a couple of distinguished art critics.

The first is with Mark Irving who has a longstanding record of published articles in most broadsheets and specialist subject area magazines. The second is with Julian Stallabrass who is a Reader at The Courtland Institute and writes for many magazines including Art Monthly, Modern Painters, RA Magazine, Tate, The Evening Standard and The New Statesman. Both interviews discuss the role of intention in the arts and will appear as videos in the coming days.