Seeing “Amadeus” again at the Film Festival reminded me of a conversation I had with one of my art history professor about immortality and art. Antonio Salieri is so much obsessed with fame; it becomes his life, whereas Mozart, who does, in fact, become a legend, is much more engrossed with the art itself. What remains at the end—the image of the artist or the art itself?
Often I come across artwork for which I don’t know the artist and the art can be incredibly evocative—so much so that I am concerned with the work and not so much by the hand that made it. On the other hand, the individual artist can be fascinating, and when looking at the work of an artist I’m well aware of, I feel a deep sense of connection with the artist through the work. There are many great works of art for which we will never know the creator—especially from the days of anonymity of artists—yet we appreciate the work today. And still, biographies of great artists are selling well—Simon Schama’s Rembrandt’s Eyes or Stevens’ deKooning Pulitzer Prize winner. Perhaps it’s a symptom of the cult of personality we hold here in the US—the artist as showman and entertainer rather than a purveyor of ideas.
Are the paintings of Lascaux any more immortal than Monet's water lilies? Is a sculpture by Kara Walker as immortal as the Peplos Kore? Or do both modern pieces rely on the personalities that created them for their fame?
Perhaps, it’s the ideas they present us that hold the immortality rather than the form alone? Are there ideas without form? Perhaps art’s only role is to give form to certain ideas that then carry through to our own experiences.
Just some thoughts to consider for the next generation of film professionals heading out into the world. FTMA grads, looking forward to seeing your future work!
