Lesson 6 - Painters Painting

Sometimes, movies from the early 1970's are masterpieces that should be left untouched. Some greats worth mentioning: “The Godfather”, “Jaws”, “The Exorcist”, “All the President's Men”, and, of course, “Blazing Saddles”. Then there are movies that leave a bit to be desired: “The Exorcist II”, “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” & “Painters Painting”. My blog today will mainly critique this last film mentioned. Granted, Painters Painting is a documentary movie from the 70's and it is considered an 'art' film. But in general, I found the film hard to follow, and at times confusing.

First of all, It was difficult for me to keep track of everyone in the film, as not everyone in the film was identified with the traditional printed name on the screen. Some people were referred to in a conversation but, not clearly identified later on. Perhaps as I study more about art, these people would be more easily recognizable – but I felt there were a large number of people in this documentary. It was difficult to tell who was the critic, who was the artist and why Ellen Skull was worthy of a portrait session with Andy Warhol.

I also felt that there was an enormous amount of 'name dropping' in this film. This film had too many players on the field. There were critics, museum curators, painters, news reporters, collectors – how am I supposed to figure out who the main characters are? I was thankful for a few recognizable names, such as Leo Castelli, Warhol & Pollack, but I only knew of them because of my recent studies. I stopped writing down the names that were referenced when my counting reached in the teens.

Another negative aspect to the film was the background noise. I was distracted by a train going by Jasper Johns' apartment, as well as people talking and phones ringing while Robert Skull was trying to explain his role in the art scene. I feel that some well placed music would have better suited this documentary style film, rather than the distractions of life.

On the other hand, I appreciated the technique the filmmakers used by showing much of the film, including the interviews, in black & white. Many Hollywood films were continued to be presented in black & white, even after the technicolor process was invented in the 1930's & 1940's. It provided a more dramatic, serious effect on the screen. Perhaps, the filmmakers here were trying to portray the 'pop artists' in a more serious light. In contrast, when the actual works by the artists were presented in color, the paintings were incredibly vibrant on the screen.

Obviously, this was not my favorite film from those assigned, however, it certainly was not the worst, as I did learn many new facts and was introduced to several examples from artists I had just recently heard of such as Frank Stella,

Jules Olitski,

Larry Poons,

and finally, Barnett Newman. His quote was my favorite, and I am sure the filmmakers felt the same as they used it both in the beginning of the film and the end, “...in the end, size doesn't count, it's scale that counts... it's human scale that counts and the only way you can achieve human scale is by the content”.