incoherent train-of-thought thinkyness (part 1?)

[permetaform]

Been pondering several things that cross vidding, fandom, and classes so setting them down here, might be part of a series.

Note: I'll probably not have much time to answer comments, but feel free to chatter in this post. =)

"Reception theory proposes that meaning does not lie in the film but is the result of a 'cooperative enterprise' between the producers/exhibitors of the movie and those who choose to recieve it. [...] The viewer does not impose any meaning whatsoever upon the text. Rather, the film guides the viewer's responses, initiating 'performances' of meaning. [...] Viewers 'realize' the text according to their own interests, but in order to enjoy the movie, they collaborate with the text in such a way that the spectators' interests and those of the industry coincide."
~ Dennis Giles

The argument goes on to address how a "good" movie is essentially when the creator and the audience are aligned. It's a "viewing contract" between the producer and the consumer...and how levels of 'good' is a measurement on how one aligned with the audience the product is made for. (which actually has been addressed in several earlier rants that's been revolving around in LJ)

[suelac talks more about author/audience; again, a discussion that's been revolving quite alot recently, in various forms. For more discussion, and frankly for more coherent discussion, metafandom is an awesome source]

This is particularly interesting however when speaking of the "low" arts; people know them as "bad" arts because of the lower quality workmanship in the art itself. In the art world, this is known as film. In the film world, this is known as the horror flick. In the horror genre, this is known as the slasher movie. And so on and so forth. (In fandom, this would probably be what is known as the FF.N fic)

However, *because* it is bad, it's easier to see cultural patterns and anxieties in the demographic that creates and consumes the art. It's directly tapping into that animal-hind-brain, the cores of recognition.

NOT that more sophisticated art doesn't tap into the same hind-brain, that same core of recognition, just that in the "low" arts the hopes and fears and anxieties of the demographic is more on the surface. In the "low" arts, it's less covered with style and craft and skill; thus the cultural Id is more easily observed.


Are all stories just a re-negotiation of trauma? Possibly. All stories are written to tell that essential something, even though the excecution of the telling may be shoddy. And that essential something is in the most lauded fic (though these fic may be of questionable critical quality) and is usually a gut-punch of some sort of angst.

I've been turning over in my head the almost essential quality of angst to the more effective fic, even if they end on a happy note. Even beyond the narrative necessity of tension and a factor unresolved; *why* is it so necessary? Notice, the novel form didn't really gain in popularity until relatively recently in history. It is perfectly *possible* for the happy PWP to be the dominant form in an art genre; just look at the Classical period of B/W Hollywood. Or in other words, what I'm trying to point out is that the angst in stories is not necessary because there are genres of stories that support stories without angst; and the more popular current genre requires that angst.

Granted, there's also other reasons why the novel form is successful. There are also other possible reasons why angst is successful.

What I'm pondering here, however, is angst's popularity in relation to comedy. Or the drama/comedy discussion. Comedy is oft noted as being *harder* to achieve; argued so because it's harder to touch the 'happy-places' of people...and I've noticed that the most successful comedic acts are instead very close to people pain-centers as well.


So. Are all stories just a re-negotiation of trauma? There's a term Freud uses for trauma called Nachtraglich Keit, which speaks of the return of the memory of trauma and realizing that it *is* one. Because *during* the trauma one can't realize the traumatic nature successfully, and still have one's wits about oneself enough to survive. As a survival tactic, the theory goes, one has to make the traumatic into the mundane; and by making it mundane one can survive. (think of soldier during and after a war) It's only later, after arriving to a place of safety, where a reminder might trigger the traumatic event, which can then most easily worked through via symbolic imagery.

In particular, symbolic imagery is necessary; because it's difficult for the mind to directly face and work through it's issues, or rather perhaps because it might be easier to work through the issues obliquely because to survive the traumatic event in the first place one has built walls and defenses to block it away. As an analogy: to heal, sometimes the wound needs to be brought to the surface and aired, but the scabs directly on the surface are too thick sometimes to be broken off from the center (that is, without further damaging the skin directly underneath), so the scabs are picked at from the edges.


Sometimes I wonder if artists aren't instinctually resistant to letting go of their trauma/insanity; because the traumatic is the source of their art and thus the source of their success. In particular, here I'm thinking of Korn (post-success), and perhaps maybe Van Gogh. Or maybe artists in general, who *has* to work closely with that abyss of trauma to be able to tap into new stories which are *effective*.

Not that I don't think some artists haven't managed to be saner because they've worked through their issues via their art. But what happens when the issue is finally confronted, and yet one still wants success? What happens when one's artistic source, one's emotional angst, is resolved?

The only thing I can come up with if one finally manages to work through one's issues on any particular subject is to turn and find yet another issue to work through; because otherwise that original issue will be dwelled on and revisited to an unhealthy degree, and in effect *re*-traumatizing oneself, or perhaps falsely traumatizing oneself. (::coughAnneRicecough::)

So, that means either self-induced insanity by way of obsessing over an imagined personality flaw to produce art, or to start at ground zero with a new style or another emotional angsting point.

Which, huh. That possibly explains Fellini. Or some artists I follow who don't have consistent work, because they're always zooming off into new artistic directions once they've established ability in what they've attempted before.