The other day, Ghim was just saying that he couldn't understand why the group of us (Bing, Jing, and I) cannot appreciate the fantabulous arthouse masterwork that is Eric Khoo's 'Be With Me'. I can only say that appreciating it by way of understanding it, and appreciating it by way of liking it, is two different issues. I'd say I appreciate the film in that I saw what it was trying to do and say. But it doesn't mean I have to like it. I don't like it, period. Don't tell me otherwise, as you are not me. The next person to suggest anything of the sort, I will stab you with my pen and bbq you over the fire that is my rage.

That said, the debate over the film did raise some interesting points about 'Art' that I ponder about now and then. Nothing about Eric Khoo's films from here on out. Just a general thinking out loud about Art, as we call it.

***

I absolutely detest people who tell me that I should like something because it's Art-oh-so-high-class without further elaboration. It's very easy to say that because something is Art, it should be appreciated, that many people utter it so often, and I have no clue if they really have a clue about what they are talking about.

This reminds me of one of my classes in film history when we discussed Dada and Avant-garde films, the former being one of those artistic expression concepts firmly rooted in the ground that you should never ask what the freaking hell the works are about. And we watched this Impressionistic-sort of Surrealistic short film with dancing pots and pans and flashing faces, and I was going "What?", and my dear classmate gently reminded me that "You are not supposed to question what it is about! It is Dada," in manner similar to how one should never question why god created such a fuck-up world.

I call that kind of thing 'art my chicken backside'. Unbearably pretentious and exuberantly ostentatious that sort of 'art' is, and my bad that I cannot and will not appreciate them. Which brings me to my first point on the myth of the appreciation of the Arts:

• Anything new, that has not been done or is not often done, that is unusual, is necessarily creative and is therefore Art.

That is roughly what I was told with regards to Eric Khoo's greatness. I don't doubt that his film is different from mainstream, and is different for good artistic reasons, but such a reason in itself should not be as freely used to justify a piece of work as worthy of attention. Because that would imply that I can film an entire movie upside down and create the longest long-take in film history by not editing anything, and hoped to be regarded as an up-and-coming award-winning avant-garde film-maker who is trying to make a statement about Realism and looking at the world from a new (upside-down) perspective, and demonstrating that the world is really metaphorically upside down the way things are going. Which is, of course, a whole load of bull.

And then, there's the other mistaken notion that -

• just because everyone says that this work of Art is like woah, it is really like woah.

Here I have to talk about 'Be With Me' again, and so I lied earlier on when I said I'm not going to dwell on Eric Khoo.

As you should already have realised, Karen does not believe that just because everyone from New York to Pulua Tekong says that 'Be With Me' is phenomenal, Karen has to think and say the same. I don't care what the prominent New York film critic said about 'Be With Me', and I don't care that it received a standing ovation at Cannes, and I don't care that Ong Sor Feng of ST gave it 4 stars. I don't think I have to think like them, and so I don't, and I said so and care not if I will be judged as a lowly common being who cannot appreciate Art. I rather speak my mind and say it like it is than pretend so that I look good in the company of high culture people.

I really really don't think 'Be With Me' is anything worth fawning over. '12 Storeys', on the other hand, is worth fawning over. And the only explanation I can think of to explain the succcess of 'Be With Me' is that it stands out at the right time when Hollywood is trying to get out of the dread that is their woefully formulaic productions by commercialising arthouse films. In other words, it is just lucky. '12 Storeys' being, in my opinion, a much better film and Eric Khoo's best, did not gain as much attention when it first appeared 'cos arthouse wasn't in vogue at the time.

It's all about the timing, and not so much about actual artistic merits. And 'cos everyone decided to chorus woah in unison this time around, 'Be With Me' became like woah, despite it not being as woah-worthy as '12 Storeys'.

Moving on the third and last myth ...

• And because the director is like woah, his works will always be like woah!

I've already rant enough about Eric Khoo, so let's move on to a even better example - Wong Kar Wai! 'In the Mood' is WOAH WOAH WOAH. 2046 is woah.

It should be common sense that one cannot expect a good director to always be as good. But then it seems to me that most people are willing to believe the contrary, and pay for the director's name instead of the director's film, and that is how Hollywood continues to prosper. Off the top of my head I can think of Brian De Palma's 'Mission Impossible' WOAHness that was followed by his 'Snake Eyes' SHITness, and other similarly inconsistent directors like Woody Allen, John Woo, Guy Richie, and I'm sure many others. The only director whom I think continue to evolve consistently and in wonderfully varied directions is Quentin Tarantino, and that's about it.

***

And to go back to my first point about pretentious Art, it prompts one to wonder exactly what Art is. Or rather, what Art is supposed to be.

There is, as far as I know, two opposing yet related notions of Art, namely,

1. Art as self expression.
2. Art as a medium that gives form to the abstract by presenting an understood essense of Life to most if not all who see it.

The second understanding necessarily requires that the Art in question must be understood, may it be in different ways and different extents, by the other people apart from the Artist who come to appreciate it. This is mainly what I subscribe to. I see no point in creating something that is meant to convey something when no one else can understand what the something is.

That is to say, I hate Dada, and I hate self-centred avant-garde works that makes absolutely no sense to anyone but the Artist.

But one may be quick to raise the contradiction that Art should be for Art's sake, not the community's. Which I do not disagree. But I think there is a need to draw the difference between Art for Art's sake, and Art for an individual's sake.

Because calling Art a self-expression, while not mistaken, should not be taken to mean that Artists can anyhow express something nonsensical and call it Art, as the Dadas have done.

If you take the word 'expression' apart, you will realise that 'expression' doesn't stop at the point of articulation. 'Expression' is only complete when the articulation is understood and appreciated. 'Expression' is nothing when it is not understood. It is caught in binary, as all things are.

And so self-absorbed 'Art' of self-expression is not Art.

Which brings me to the main point of this whole pseudo-philosophical discussion of Art.

I also really hate it when I hear people going 'this is deep stuff' when all there really is is a pile of bullshit, and people going along with the shit because they actually don't understand shit either.