Eddie, 9/11

Commentary, today, is important. It is given much attention from the production side, which used to be the artist but are now often big companies. Commentary is important to the producers because it provides valuable strategic information. Knowing the comments of consumers help formulate future plans that would better promise revenue.

Revenue is actually the key word here, because all art now exist both in a commercial form and a traditional art form. Summer blockbusters existing side-by-side with art house films, and this would be otherwise fine if the bigger, more prominent commercial brother did not eclipse its art brethren to become the representative of the entire medium.

With profit as a goal, the commentary is given an all-important role. It is the holy beacon for what will sell and what will not. The resulting dependence on commentary then gives the layman a powerful hand to sway the direction of future products. Movie studios will not follow-up with a sequel to a commercial bomb, and the choice of director for a new film is not the most artistically accomplished, but the most publically acclaimed. But should the director dare defy the gospel of public commentary with high artistic ideals in mind, the studios may well hire a different person into the directing chair. Artsy aesthetics are allowed only as a luxury. What this demonstrates is the commentary’s modern reign over authority. Authority is now subordinate to market reactions and commercial art is selectively bred to yield the greatest amount of praise from the people.

So how, then, does this affect the art-oriented half of the equation? If commercial films have ascended to the default form of film in people’s minds, so too would the people judge films with commercial standards. That is, films that yield a hearty profit are honored as a success, whereas those that do not earn astronomical sums are shunned as failures. Art films are not predominantly concerned with profit, and are thus stamped with a badge of incompetence. The often-heard sentiment towards art films is that they are obscure, dense, pretentious and hold style over substance, since no one understands them or watches them, so the director must not know any better. Substance here is measured by money-generating potential. In the example of films, mass-produced art, made to serve the mass audience, has realized Benjamin’s great fear: the worth of traditional art is diminished and the art forced into morbid obscurity.