A while back my friend had shared an interesting experience with me that resurfaced in my mind again after reading Lanier’s chapter 10 concerning digital creativity. Several weekends ago, she went to a Toronto showing of a documentary titled Babies by the French director Thomas Balmès. The film follows four infants from birth throughout the first year of their lives. The babies featured in the film are two from rural areas: Ponijao from Opuwo, Namibia, and Bayar from Bayanchandmani, Mongolia, as well as two from urban areas: Mari from Tokyo, Japan, and Hattie from San Francisco, USA. The film is virtually wordless and uses the collage approach, simply showing what babies do: crawl, drool, feed, cry, sleep, and repeat the process. What reminded me of this story now was this: the director was present for a question and answer period at the end of the screening, and surely, the question of meaning came up rather quickly.
“Do you think that the film serves as a commentary on parenting practices?” an audience member had asked.
Balmès’ answer was neither yes or no, but rather went along the lines of saying that it was not the intended purpose of the movie and he therefore did not wish to discuss the question at all. While I haven’t yet seen the film myself, I’m sure that it presents enough information for sociologists, psychologists, and other interested parties to draw from to answer the above question—so why did Balmès refuse to shed some light on this topic?
The answer lies in the ongoing debate about who actually owns the meaning of any given form of expression. While authors, artists, filmmakers, song writers, etc., usually have a meaning in mind when creating their work, the meaning of the said work is no longer under their control once released to the public. This, of course, was true always—it’s not unique to the digital age—and is the reason as to why one can encounter say, a feminist analysis of practically anything nowadays. Meaning is something that is engrained in the work, but is also largely assigned by the audience. If artistic creation is meant to inspire thought, isn’t it silly to expect such thought and reflection to be constrained and in line with the artist’s initial intention?
Lanier writes that every artist tries to foresee or even nudge the context in which expression is to be perceived so that the art will make sense. It is not necessarily a matter of overarching ego, or manipulative promotion, but a simple desire for meaning (137).
I would disagree. In my mind, art is a way to think, reflect, and relate as opposed to necessarily align our thoughts with those the author was intending. When beginning this blog entry, I had somewhat of a different vision of what I was going to say here, but it had instead evolved and turned out into something I wasn’t anticipating. As a writer, I know that this is not a unique occurrence, but rather a trend. Any form of creative expression is a journey that lacks a clear beginning or a clear ending. That’s probably the reason why many artists are never happy when they have to let go of perfecting their work. While the digital age certainly made the appropriation of creative content easier, allowing individuals to easily assign their own meanings and contexts to others’ work, I do not believe it to usually be a bad thing. Meaning is not static or one-dimensional, and it would be a shame try to make it such by trying to stifle creativity and restrain discussion.
Links:
Wikipedia, “Babies”
indieWIRE, “REVIEW | Cute and Shallow: Thomas Balmes’s ‘Babies’”
