I think these are great points that also somewhat simplify what I perceive to be Rhodes' point. Of course, as you say, great art isn't sabotaged by introspection. Quite the opposite, you're totally correct. But in this case, where you talk about the artist's own inclinations, some might make a similar statement to imply that introspection must lead to an evaluation of how he views race, which would then lead to a change in how he draws characters and casts actors that has to do with race. And if he doesn't, then he's somehow failed to progress. That's where I think this gets thorny. If he arrives there naturally, then that's great, but if no story emerges and he chooses to broaden his horizons in other ways, that's great too. To force something that isn't there out of some external pressure would not be good, and it would be unlike an artist like Lynch, which is all I see as Rhodes' point. After all, with The Return Lynch made what is one of his deepest, most thoughtful, most human works. It's not like the man hadn't progressed "where it counts."enumbs wrote:
I don’t believe that great art is in any way sabotaged by introspection. Lynch’s life and thoughts have certainly influenced his work, even as he draws from his subconscious. If he is influenced by the BLM movement to some degree, and starts seriously thinking about why the characters he envisions are almost exclusively white, then that is surely a good thing? Art is an expression of how one relates to the world, and a developing sensibility is an inevitable part of that.
I am wary of people who use the phrase political correctness and complain about diversity, but especially in this instance, when we are not talking about a cynical corporate mandate but the artist’s own inclinations. Was it ‘PC’ when Lynch made Fire Walk With Me, and decided to focus on the inner-life of a female sexual assault victim, rather than continuing to use her as a MacGuffin and a catalyst for the plot?
Good art is generally the product of open and inquisitive minds, and your suggestion that Lynch ignore the world and refuse to broaden his aesthetic seems entirely wrong-headed to me. It is that approach which leads to art becoming “boring, lame, and disappointing”.
You must admit that in these days there are a lot of decisions that do come across as empty or forced, the result of the phrases that you admit you are wary of. You make an excellent point about FWWM. When Lynch made FWWM, it seemed bold; when Tarantino made Kill Bill, it also seemed bold - I don't recall anyone referring to it as PC in those times, but I do remember some ridiculous acquaintances saying that they couldn't take women seriously in an action role. Today, I feel one can easily sniff out the real from the fake. And almost all of the fake is definitely "boring, lame and disappointing." All's I'm saying is this is indeed a two-way street.
Edit: Sorry, just saw Soolsma's request to maybe put this in a separate topic.