Harry Smith - Heaven And Earth Magic (Excerpt)

[marcce007]

anyone knows about the film thats about mannequins living" in an old building a do repetitive things like dance and drinking?

[landonwm]

I just saw this for the first time over the weekend at an art fair in LA. I couldn't make sense of it but was completely captivated and had to keep watching it even though I wanted to check out the rest of the fair.

IDK why you would say this is not aesthetically pleasing, other than it is plain/simple at the lowest level. The style of the images and their movement is interesting and engaging, the drawings are well done, & its even funny at times. Thats dope to me, and I wasn't even stoned!

[angryherbalgerbil]

There is no bigger philosophical picture here. Harry Smith was a booze swilled drunk with a penchant for narcotics and a large believer in the occult so any philosphy unless coneyed coherently would be lost to anyone otther than himself. This is merely some product of his abstact mind, yes it could be considered art by those who will endeavour to attach a meaning to it, but that is to miss the point (if there even is one) entirely of Smith's outlook and philosphy...

[angryherbalgerbil]

I don't think art neccessarily need aesthetic value ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder") but I do however feel it should contribute something to the human psyche weather it be a philosphy an emotion or an expression to someone other than the artist himself, as it is through art that we find our kindred bond that connects us all...

[angryherbalgerbil]

Harry Smith had a large opposition to non-transformable objects that remained in a state of functonal stasis, he detested mundane facts, rational thought or anything that could be defined, therefore to attribute a meaning to his work would imply that it is solid and has a place, only he would be able to convey the purpose of his work and therefore no one else can...

[angryherbalgerbil]

... So on that basis I would not define this as art as it is purely self-indulgent! Im quite sure that Smith would prefer his work not to be defined as it would again suggest the static. I hope this will clear up the matter

[jonesrhj]

Humans and animals presented as mechanical objects. We could be seen as such because both were created (depending on your beliefs) to perform certain tasks.

[diantonovich]

it's a bit like saying, visually, "bla bla bla bla bla bla".

Let's face it: although it is creative, it is not art, and it has no aesthetic value whatsoever.

[troublesaway]

@diantonovich you may think so sir but please dont lend the impression that we all share such a dismissive and high nosed view of aesthetic value, if otis redding where to sing, "bla bla bla" it would be the satin rope of art and soul to me. just because this guy is no otis, doesnt mean his work contains no aesthetic value, thus the beauty of art, your opinion is not the all encompassing equation of artistic value, but it is your opinion and at least you (might) have given it a chance

[diantonovich]

@troublesaway examples of high art: Michelangelo's sculptures, Bach's St. Matthew's Passion. That's high art - if you "get it", it makes you feel free, inexplicably free, you almost want to cry with joy. this stuff is like adolescent masturbation.

[troublesaway]

@diantonovich again, yr just sounding like a pompous dick (not saying you are, dont get all huffy) when you throw out names that are 500 years old because thats too safe since they have been classics way before our time. werner herzog federico fellini and david lynch are "high art" to me but you know what? when michelangelo and bach were making there masterpieces they werent considered "high art" then, because people with the attitude you are espousing turned their nose at it, just as you are

[diantonovich]

@troublesaway well i dig fellini and lynch but this shit is shit. i mean, what the hell IS this, its a bunch of random freaking shit on a black screen. it's goddamn claustraphobic and frankly it is boring. ok, tell me (and i have no way of knowing this) - is there some kind of development? any kind of climax? or is just random shit like this for 40 minutes?

[ExistentialGirl]

@diantonovich And who determines what is aesthetically pleasing? Who determines what is art?

[diantonovich]

@ExistentialGirl Well, seriously, objective quality is of course a theoretical concept, but it is possible to distinguish between "I like it" and "It is a quality work". For example, I like certain little cartoons, but I don't really think that they are a quality production; I just like it. On the other hand, Metallica is a fairly skilled group of musicians, and I appreciate their quality, but I don't really like it, its not my style. It's a feeling, but there is some consensus, and it depenends

[ibotanist]

@diantonovich I think your point was well made. The distinction between opinion and criticism becomes more and more tenuous as social media glorifies opinion and reduces the evaluation of art, music and literature to something "liked" or "disliked," thumbs up or down, or the hardly more useful continuum of 1 to 5 stars. Mass opinion is not the same as informed consensus.

[diantonovich]

@ExistentialGirl depends on people who vote. If Lady Gaga is liked by many people, I see the limitations of their taste, and therefore I don't think thier high opinion is an indicator of the quality of her art. On the other hand, art historians have a consensus that Michellangelo and Bach produced art of high quality. Having seen it, and, no less importantly, having read and understood art historian's comments about their art, I start to understand and appreciate the quality aspect of their art

[ExistentialGirl]

@diantonovich Eh, you're missing the bigger philosophical concept here, and I can see that this will go nowhere.

[diantonovich]

@ExistentialGirl ok, explain it to me. i promise to try to understand. in fact the reason i post insults here at all is because i am not understanding, but i didn't bother to formulate my commends with enough care. what is the bigger philosophical question?

[ednolbed]

I reckon Terry Gilliam must have watched this over and over...

[Habbitbit]

He's still a big inspiration to me. The scope & innovation in his work, though it may seem simple today, is hard to beat. The anthology alone is a landmark.

[leoszt]

gonna buy it... on VHS, of course

[NorthernElumination]

Can you find this on netflix? I'd love to see all of it

[Synthetrix]

I have this complete on VHS. Harry was a big inspiration to me in my youth.

[personna9]

This will be screening in Ann Arbor Mi this weekend as part of the Ann Arbor Film Festival. The soundtrack will be performed live by Flying Lotus. 3.26.10

[igotchalk1]

@personna9 it was SO good!

[69KalKal]

interesting sound use-BG's

[Nathan007able]

This was his greatest work by far; was highly useful in my creative writing classes asking students to immediately respond to what was going on in their heads while watching it. Harry was all about uncovering true self-awareness through art. Boy does this make me miss him.

[orionion]

that was blissful in a disturbing way... pure stream of consciousness

[diantonovich]

@orionion more like a stream of regurgitation!!

[doseiaisha]

i would be laughing my ass off at how random this was if it wasnt so creepy

[Vampireopossumaster]

Goddamn, I'd love to see this film but man, I don't wanna pay 50 bucks for it. Does anyone know a cheaper way to see this?

[qrstrex]

i'm so glad you posted this!!!!! amazing

[LivelyLorikeet]

Well, it's avant-garde, to say the least!