|
I'll start by saying that all of the arts work differently, and though this is just my own unpublished, semi-academic opinion that I've written about a lot, I'll put it forth here because I think it works really well. I find that the different art genres operate differently (especially in terms of innovation) on three bases:
1) Cost: If it takes massive investments to produce, distribute, etc a certain art genre, then it's going to move glacially, very few risks are going to be taken, etc. Music is maybe the cheapest of the genres these days, which is why (even though it ranks very very poorly in the other two categories), you find genres all over the map, innovations happen very quickly and why you find a lot more subjectivity in what gets ranked as the best (even among popular publications, Rolling Stones is gonna be completely different from Pitchfork is gonna be completely different from VH1, etc). The modern situations with movies (especially Hollywood movies) is obviously like holy crap in terms of how much it takes to produce and distribute and it has MASSIVE effects on how different everything is. Even the history of movie-like things (namely, stage performances) is expensive; though it wasn't always the most expensive genre, it still took a financier. I don't know how much I need to get into how this effects innovation and static perceptions of quality in the genre because it seems so obvious. Basically all movies that anyone watches come out of Hollywood from the same few production companies, except for a few movies that are made in NYC (OMG how underground! Lol), and then there are independent films which a) still take multi-million dollar investments to make it on the map and b) don't affect Batman all that much.
2) Social-aspect: This is a very important aspect when I go on to talk about the aesthetic value drawn from movies because a) it's evolutionary, which is the hardest facts we can talk about when we're dealing with aesthetics and b) this really really affects movies specifically. Basically, people watch movies in groups (nobody even goes to independent films alone, and people generally get things on Netflix/OnDemand to watch with their girlfriend/friends/family/etc.), and people talk about movies a lot. This reason alone is why Jar Jar Banks exists. Just think about how huge that is when comparing it to genres like literature (though, the social aspect of successful literature is REALLY underrated because a lot of revenue comes from book clubs and the way that books go viral is through word of mouth because people like to talk about the latest good books they've read, and even with literature, a lot of draw comes from being potentially taught in classrooms and even though discussion there is deeper, it's still socializing and it still behooves you to not have something that doesn't appeal to both sexes, and even literature becomes popular through hipster word of mouth, which even though it is “deeper” it still has to be easy to put into words what makes it good).
This is an especially big deal in the US. Since I'm talking to wufwugy, I think I can get away with this comment without much explanation: our culture is lazy and loves Joe Schmoe and it likes things bite-sized and easy to understand. If you go to a movie that has a non-traditional ending with 3 of your friends, then at least someone's gonna be pissed off at how it was just trying to be edgy by not having the good guys win. And then that word gets out and then when you want to see a movie with 3 of your friends, you have to get something that everyone agrees on, and at least someone's going to be like “I heard that movie's weird, can't we go to something we can all agree on?” Waaaaay less people end up seeing things that try new things, that aren't idiotically easy to understand and etc.
Also, drive to your nearest movie theater on a Friday night, and what do you see? A sea full of 13-year-olds. It's no secret that you make your massive investment back of producing a film by appealing to the dumbest, shallowest group of people in the universe: young teenagers. All of these things combine to make movies naturally shallow in nature, very bite-sized and it makes innovation glacial (maybe even backwards? Lol) in this genre.
3) Popularity: I spent a lot of time on the other two things, so I'll type less words here. Movies aren't nearly the most popular art genre (ranking well below TV and music), but it's obviously on the popular side (well above literature, stage, poetry, etc.). When you're appealing to the masses, then it behooves you to cast actors that people have heard of, to take recognizable story threads and to not get bogged down in specifics and nuances of character. The goal is to make (cringe) agreeable art (which might be an oxymoron by some definitions of the word art).
You can actually break each of these categories down by genres within genres, and you'll get different results, especially for music. Club music is far more social (there's no setting more social than the club/bar) and far more popular than electronic, so what you get is the club music scene FINALLY catching up to the decade-old pop act of Daft Punk, which was already hilariously derivative of the decade-old underground electronic acts. So things move really slowly for the genres at the top of these categories. Blockbuster action films rank near the top, even within the larger genre of movies, in terms of cost, social-aspect and popularity.
When you talk about something like poetry, the entire genre is the underground, so the entire genre moves at the friggin speed of light when it comes to innovations and the entire genre is impossible to rank on any consistent basis, as the appeal is insanely subject-dependent. Like, inSANEly subject-dependent. We who spend our days watching Hollywood movies and reading genre fiction and listening to classic rock take for granted just how easy it is to compare different movies and bands and books, but poetry often appeals to such niche audiences that merely not being a minority female between the ages of 28 and 35, preferably from a Northeaster city who likes to be confused and intellectually challenged by the things they read and is less concerned about being entertained by the things they read and who is most emotionally effected by relatable characters dealing with mundane tribulations instead of exaggerated characters/dramatic circumstances/etc. then there is practically a 0% chance that you will think that a certain poet is all that good. You might be able to appreciate them, but it won't necessarily do much for you.
|