Captain Marvel: A Problem with Reviews

So here is a thought, if you were to view one of Pablo Picasso’s most famous works of art, you would most likely say that the work is well constructed. Even if you did not fully appreciate it on a base emotional level, the work has object merit. Why is this? Is it because the work breaks the rules of painting? Not likely, is it because it follows them? Not all the time.

A piece of art is objectively valuable when it creates new rules that are in harmony with the old. This does not mean that the old rules are thrown away, but instead are redefined by the work in question.  In other words the work is defined by the work; the object is defined by the object.  Artwork therefore, has to be objectively valued; it has no ability to be otherwise. Though you ask what about the artist and what they bring to the work? The artist as an individual does not matter. The artist speaks through the work and the work speaks for the artist. They are one.

It follows therefore that artwork is defined by its objective nature as artwork, and not by an outside source. Why then, in the artistic medium of film do we not insist that all film be treated like art? In other words, why do we not look at films in regards to the objective nature we know they have? These questions came out of a realization I had after seeing Captain Marvel. I realized I could not review it, at least not yet. I have an option about it, though the film has not been objectively reviewed yet. The film hasn’t spoken for itself. Others have spoken for it to be sure, though it has not spoken.

            This is larger conversation for sure, and I offer these words just as a starting point. Art has value not because of what is projected on to it by the viewer, but because of what is poured into it by the artist. So again, let the object define the object, and the artwork define the artwork, in doing  so we may be able to gain a greater appreciation for the art itself and the people behind it.