Oh, well. Nothing to do with me. I know too much, and too little, to want to get into the Film business.
But I still claim that there is no such thing as an original 'oeuvre'. Never has been. Because for an 'oeuvre' to be successful in any way, it needs to communicate through what an audience knows or thinks it knows already. What the audience already knows about a 'work' is implicit in it's ability to vibrate the audience in some way - that is, a work must always reference what has gone before, otherwise it can have no 'meaning'.
The distinction between 'reality' and fiction was easier to smudge in the days of linear presentations. But in the non-linear life which we now lead (and have always lead), it becomes more difficult to control the psychedelic experience of life, and to divide what is real from what is not real.
The drone operators in Arkansas, directing drones in Afghanistan that kill people, play a video game. An extreme and trite example perhaps. IMO the next 10 years will be spent arguing about what is real. As ever ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
In almost the same way, an artist's -- if we want to start throwing insults around - oeuvre cannot be singular because communication require some overlap in "vocabulary." (I spare you the standard ATinNM discourse re: Piercean semiotics¹) The desperate search for "originality" by western artists -- including film makers -- is a Modern (Post-Modern?) obsession, not a necessary aspect, part, or property of Art tho' it may be a necessary aspect, part, or property of the currently existing Art business.
¹ You're welcome.
ATinNM:
such that you can jump off a bride and fly
for the uxurious amongst us, that rings so true... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
The desperate search for "originality" by western artists -- including film makers -- is a Modern (Post-Modern?) obsession, not a necessary aspect, part, or property of Art tho' it may be a necessary aspect, part, or property of the currently existing Art business.
mmm, chewy...
PNing a bit, but i see it a bit differently.
first of all, one may seek to be original in a manner that belies desperation, more of a quest for calm.
but if you sub novelty, then i agree.
just to carry a tradition on without undue embellishment, now there are many artists content with that, even making a living.
the art business makes more off of novelty, as the public rewards that more highly, as it reflects and accompanies the deconstruction of the past that is presently accelerating.
i would submit that the 'sweet spot' for a career artist is when he or she knows that the fans want something not too different from the last offering, but leaving room for evolution.
the worst would be to have to stay a step ahead of a zeitgeist that was slipping away faster than you can run, or conversely to have such a rigid fanbase that they wouldn't show up unless the artist were faithfully cloning their own pasts for them, with little or no room for growth, because that would be confusing and make them feel superannuated. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
