As for the idea that art is 'mostly' made for an audience, I think most of the time it explicitly is (most artists do want positive feedback and so many either completely or at least somewhat cater to what they believe is expected of them....which is their business and not mine or yours or anybody else's)
But then there are artists who only sort of cater to an audience. Maybe even barely, considering ones definition of audience. I often think of a quote of Jim Jarmusch that goes along the lines of 'I have no idea if anyone is ever going to be interested in the kind of movies I make....but I want to see them, so I have to assume there must be others out there that do as well'
Some artists cater to this 'audience' of one. They live with the hope that maybe it is more than just them, but they can't let they discourage the from the path they are on. Art for many who deal in more experimental or abstracted or unconventional forms are frequently a leap of faith for the one creating them. And for some out there, ie me, we find a beauty in the defiance of pursuing this vision even if no one ultimately cares.
So this notion of 'who cares about transgression', it is an absolutely essential element of what art is and how it moves forward. Even transgression that ultimately fails Even transgression that is only for transgression sake. Transgression is what allows the hope that there are other ways of doing things outside of the box the rest of the standard audience (ie Corax) would prefer it to stay inside of. Even when it doesn't work, it offers a route for future attempts that might. That might be transformative. Thst might even be what ultimately creates a new box for people to try and keep art inside of.
As for the whole idea of artifice in cinema, and how it is used to evoke empathy, I don't really see how much of what I said is in opposition to Yarns posts. It was mostly just an addition to it. But arguers got to argue I guess. Got to eventually get ones money's worth from those lucrative philosophy courses
But then there are artists who only sort of cater to an audience. Maybe even barely, considering ones definition of audience. I often think of a quote of Jim Jarmusch that goes along the lines of 'I have no idea if anyone is ever going to be interested in the kind of movies I make....but I want to see them, so I have to assume there must be others out there that do as well'
Some artists cater to this 'audience' of one. They live with the hope that maybe it is more than just them, but they can't let they discourage the from the path they are on. Art for many who deal in more experimental or abstracted or unconventional forms are frequently a leap of faith for the one creating them. And for some out there, ie me, we find a beauty in the defiance of pursuing this vision even if no one ultimately cares.
So this notion of 'who cares about transgression', it is an absolutely essential element of what art is and how it moves forward. Even transgression that ultimately fails Even transgression that is only for transgression sake. Transgression is what allows the hope that there are other ways of doing things outside of the box the rest of the standard audience (ie Corax) would prefer it to stay inside of. Even when it doesn't work, it offers a route for future attempts that might. That might be transformative. Thst might even be what ultimately creates a new box for people to try and keep art inside of.
As for the whole idea of artifice in cinema, and how it is used to evoke empathy, I don't really see how much of what I said is in opposition to Yarns posts. It was mostly just an addition to it. But arguers got to argue I guess. Got to eventually get ones money's worth from those lucrative philosophy courses
You entered the thread and went off on the idea that genre should constrict art at all and rather violently (figuratively, not literally) suggested that audiences who expect movies to meet their expectations should be run over like speed-bumps(!). You offered an aesthetic objection radiating with moralizing contempt for the very middle ground that would make the discussion I propose possible (i.e., the idea that there is a middle ground, that it is a dance, and that audiences are owed something).
You've been dragging the discussion to the extremes, instead of considering the very resource for transgression that genre provides (you can't cross a line unless the line has already been drawn). And so you have been arguing to the alleged autonomy of the work of art so that you can try to claim that artworks need not care about their audiences (they are independent). When you've admitted that we do need a guardrail to push-back, you've returned with talk about artists who themselves don't make art for anyone but themselves (well, these guys are independent!). You have attempted to mitigate the experience of reality(ies) that people get out of art (and which draws them to art), by attempting to deflate it out of existence by arguing that we only egoistically feel for avatars representing ourselves.
If you look to the original post in this thread you will see that I have noted that genre provides a resource for transgression--again, I have offered no brief for genres as unchanging Platonic Ideals. All this transgression business is besides the point. Again and again, I have asked "so what?". Yes, films transgress.
So, again, the idea here is to consider the rules of expectation definitive of "reality" implicit within genres and sub-genres, to consider these as default starting points, a sandbox for artists to play in. When we reach for genre, we're reaching for equipment that has been on the playground for generations. It's no surprise that artists make use of these features to tell stories so that they don't have reinvent the whole wheel (what is the tone?, what counts as real?, what are the stock characters?, what sort of resolution is initially expected?, what sort of motivations do we expect?).