Cate Blanchett sees you, Tilda Swinton. And Cate will out-Tilda any day of the week! For the record, I think both Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton are perfectly strange aliens and I’m perfectly capable of believing that their home planet sent both of them down here to rule the human race. Anyway, here’s Cate on the cover of the December issue of W Magazine – you can see the absolutely crazy and Tilda-esque slideshow here. Cate appears on W Mag to promote Carol, which is probably her best bet at an Oscar nomination this year after Truth bombed at the box office (and the reviews weren’t great). You can read the full W Mag piece here. Some highlights:
Cate on male artists & their obsessions: “I read about this artist who left his girlfriend for four years. He wanted to make art away from any distractions, but he came home with four matchboxes filled with dust. He was so obsessed with her and with art that he ended up creating nothing. Every time I start a project—and I certainly felt this way with Carol—I have to embrace the fear that it might be a disaster. I like that feeling of consequence.”
She’s not perfect: “I am not perfect. The wheels are constantly falling off… When Andrew and I decided to run the theater company, in 2008, I didn’t think I’d have a movie career to go back to. But that was okay: When I consider the characters I might play, I find turning points to be very interesting. There’s a line from the novelist Jeanette Winterson: ‘What you risk reveals what you value’—and that’s always stuck with me.”
The controversy over lesbian relationships, on-screen and in life: “Art is supposed to be a provocation, not an education. In 2015, the point should be: Who cares if I had lesbian relationships or not? Call me old-fashioned, but I’ve always thought that my job as an actor was to raise and expand the audience’s sense of the universe… And I have always found criticism interesting. Like art, film should never be absolute or bow to a market survey of ‘correct intentions.’ ”
“Art is supposed to be a provocation, not an education.” I’m not sure how I feel about that. Why not both? Why can’t some art be educational and some art be provocative and some art can be both? And at this point, some of us are tired of endless provocations. That’s like the Madonna/Lady Gaga School of Art: all provocation with little to nothing to say, no “there” there. And I also take issue with the idea that artists and filmmakers should never, ever “bow” to political correctness or whatever. I mean, I understand that she’s saying artists should be free to explore whatever they want free from censorship, but sometimes I feel like artists confuse “censorship” with criticism. You make your “art” and sometimes people are going to think that it’s stupid or weak or insubstantial, and that’s life. That’s not a “market survey of ‘correct intentions.’”
Photos courtesy of W Magazine.
Funny. The purpose of an education is to raise and expand our sense of the universe.
+1
+2
+3
+4
Big words and grand theory. And perfectly appropriate!
@Greenieweenie: Can you give us a rundown on what your sense of the universe is?
I like “market survey of correct intentions”! Good snark!
As I see it, art is a vicarious journey into the intention of both the artist and the subject of the story they are telling. As you say, Kaiser, this can be educational, or provocative, or enlightening, or or or. It’s not a reductive binary.
Looks kinda try-hard to me, but that’s “provocation”
Ugh. She is so pretentious and takes herself and her “art” so seriously. She reads and interprets art someone else has created. She looks pretty or not, depending on the character. She has the lines written for her, the story is created for her, the film is directed for her, the costumes are made for her, the scenery, location and everything else is selected by someone else. She has some talent in reading out someone else’s work. There is creativity involved, but please. Her job is to raise and expand the audience’s view of the universe? What a pompous ass she is.
I agree…
Hahahaha…soooo true. Woman, you are not important. Have several seats.
Nope, sorry. Nope.
Education expands your horizons and – speaking metaphorically – that is your view on the universe all and everything. And art is always slightly educational wether it is provocational or less provocational.
@GNAT: Amen and Bravo!.
Merciful Zeus!…Blanchett is pretentious!. LOL!.
Nope, GNAT and Jules, not good.
Blanchett might sound slightly pretentious but essentially art does expand the audience’s view of the univers (= possibly everything). And if you limit the meaning of “education” to “formal education” or “degree” then Blanchett’s statement makes a lot of sense! Indeed theatre is not solemly obliged to teach you so that you get a better degree at school. Nope, that is not what theatre or art is for. But art and theatre do have an impact on people and that impact does educate them in some ways.
I’ve always had that feeling about Cate as well, pretentious. “Her job is to raise and expand the audience’s view of the universe? What a pompous ass she is.” Exactly. I wasn’t aware she was an expert above everyone else. I have seen too many interviews w/her over the years where she makes these absolutist statements which I find arrogant and ignorant. One interview in particular was bashing Americans, her father is American btw, as some do as one monolithic, horrible people. Yes, Cate, we’re all the same, all 350 million of us. byre standards, I guess we’re supposed to think all Aussies are Crocodile Dundee and Mel Gibson?
@ thinkingaboutit
Try to find your definition of “ecducation” then. Because depending on what kind of definition of “education” you mean then Blanchett sounds either pretentious or rather intelligent.
See my posts above and below.
She was the artistic director of the Sydney Theatre company for 5 years, which involves considerably more than putting on a costume and reading some lines.
I like the story about the artist. I want to read the entire story. It’s an interesting idea.
Also, yes; art needs to make you question things. Doesn’t necessarily need to be provocative; but if you question, if it makes you feel something (negative or positive) it allows you to learn more about yourself and what surrounds you.
agreed 🙂
Yep.
“he came home with four matchboxes filled with dust.”
BUT THATS ART!!!!!
I went to a modern art museum once and there was a blue blanket on the floor. Looked like it was stolen from KLM. “the oceans of the world” or some crap like that. But I guess I just don’t understand ART!!
Mr wif and I walked into a room at the museum once, and it was a wall, decorated like a room, with a chair, Bowl of cereal, and country music playing. I don’t know why but it made both of us feel icky and sad, and we just wanted to leave. The fact that someone could make something that made us feel anything that strongly, I consider that art. He manipulated our bodies and emotions and made it do something beyond our control… I will never forget that piece. I wish I took note what and who it was…
I recently read a story about how some cleaning lady throw an “art piece” into the trash because it looked like random stuff lying on the floor.
I love the ones of people marveling at the ladder in the center of the room, when it was really just a utility man changing a lightbulb…
My friends and I have been saying “BUT IT’S ART!” for all kinds of crap for ages.
We all normally speak German but we are saying it in English (I actually don’t know why). I can’t remember who started it, but is such fun when we say it simultaneously.
Ugh, she is so try hard, fake and annoying!
I am getting sick of “artists” being all up their own arses.
Well I think art can be both but it does not have to both at same time. And it can be neither if it is a more of a emotional experience.
I guess it’s up to the artist if she/he wants to be provocative, educative, both or none. And by none I mean, just make the watcher feel light. If she chose only one segment, I can only wish she’s good at it.
Have to disagree with Blanchett, because art does not have limitations like this. It’s basically self- expression, and therefore highly individual. It can be a lot of things to a lot of people, and we, the audience, decide about that, not the artist. The artist’s intention doen’t necessarily equal the way of perception. My impression is, she’s trying really hard to come over as an ‘intellectual’, but somehow misses the mark. There’s no such thing as art in itself, it’s always related to the person creating it- but as we know from her working with W.Allen, she clearly sees art as a value in itself.
The only person who gets to decide what something is about is obviously the artist themself.
Personally, I don’t really think that most artists necessarily have the intention of either provoking or educating. And that is a good thing, because focusing on something like that and having it hanging over your head while you try to produce something would likely squelch your creative spirit in a heartbeat. Most of the artists I know simply create. If their work provokes or educates, then great! But it’s not what they are thinking about while they work.
Good one! If you set out to ‘produce’ something that provokes, educates, disturbes etc., chances are, you limit your creative expression. You THINK too much, making art an product of your mind rather than a process of letting creative impulses take over.
Perfectly stated.
I would say for most artists the art is a form of self-expression, only the medium is different.
They cannot not create art because it would be like not living. I agree, they don’t set out to educate or provoke, but they want to be understood and sometimes that turns into those things.
Art is subjective. Art only being provocative is her interpretation.
If it doesn’t push your buttons, it really isn’t art. It’s entertainment.
I disagree with Lady Gaga’s product being described as art. It’s just screeching provocation, and the songs are some lame early 90s syncopation.
Her view of art is so simplistic. There doesn’t seem to be much intelligence or reflective thought behind that pretty face. It seems acting success has narrowed her world or perhaps that’s all she’s good at. Cate is not well rounded and pathetically uninformed. Sigh. She should not speak. Ever.
Yes to it all! Big sigh!;-)
I agree with her. Pretty sure she means everything is focused on social justice and pc liberalism anymore. She’s not talking about pseudo pop provocation like gaga and madonna either. Those would be a market survey definition of provocative anyway.
She’s talking about an internal experience the viewer has with art. Not a prescribed provocation based on what society may say is edgy.
I don’t find her try hard in this instance. I think she’s right. Maybe it’s still refreshing in Europe and other places but film in the usa is contrived pc tropes at this point. Yes art can be educational but that’s not what’s happening in the industry at this time. It’s fake and self congratulatory under the guise of social progress or equity.
Hail, no! SWINTON sees all before Cate finishes her moon dust tea in the morning. But I would really love to see a character-off between those two, if there were such a thing. I see your Orlando, and I raise you a Bob Dylan! My Isabella of France will trample all over your royal, cambric ruff, Lizzie!
Great suggestion! See that Hollywood??? Make it happen!
She has nothing on Tilda, Tilda is not forced or contrived unlike her.
Agreed that she is no Tilda. But, once in a while, in the right lighting, she does give me an Annie Lennox in a “No More i Love Yous” kind of way…
Cate dear CATE
so now the story has changed to who cares if i did… I hate this game that celebs play…. Tilda would have been like yes a longtime ago…. who cares really… but THERE IS NO ONE like tilda
I think Blanchett forgot to define what she means with “education”.
I use “education” in a very broad meaning.
Education is provocation, too. Education provokes you to re-estimate your ideas and to acquire new ones, too.
Art without any kind of “educational impact” would be utterly bland and boring. Art doesn’t have to be provocation. I think art is very free in what it is or wants. Art is allowed to do many many things: if somebody intends something or if it is the perceivers interpretation or the artists intention that counts. All fair.
But art that doesn’t touch you in any way is less than litter on the floor and I claim that wouldn’t be art then. And things that don’t touch you can’t “educate” you in any way.
Perhaps Blanchett used a more narrow idea of education because then her statement would make sense.
If you take “education” as “formal education” or “academic / vocational education” then Blanchett’s statement makes sense. Art isn’t there to make you more formally educated or to improve your school grades. When a theatre company gives a modern interpretation of a shakespearean piece then this needn’t be intended to improve the understanding of younger pupils who read this piece for the first time in school. In that sense art needn’t be educational. Theatre performances of classic pieces don’t have to give pupils a quick-and-easy access to some piece. (Though they often do and are often planned that way.) But they don’t have to.
Agreed. I can be both depending on the project. Relying on provocation becomes just a marketing tool to get noticed and nothing else.
You’re talking about titillation. Big difference.
Art is difficult to define and I haven’t found one description that truly convinced me. Art can be provocative and that can lead to education if questions are asked and some answers found, but when it becomes about the provocation it also becomes self serving and I hate that. “Artists” then come up with this line of thought that the audience is just to stupid to get it and I find that really dismissive and rude. Basically they can get away with anything bc it’s “art”. But because films create content, as I see it, there’s a responsibility when they put something out in the world and that should imply some thought on the message and how that contributes to something else beyond vapid provocation.
When you are making the films that Cate is doing you can call it whatever you want but it is a business and there must be an audience, otherwise it just about vanity. It’s not like she is doing these independent marginal projects for the sake of art. She annoys me because she presents herslef like being above everyone else, bc she is an “artist”. Tilda doesn’t dwell in this sort of bs, she actually dismisses approaching acting like this precious thing. I love her, but not pretentious Cate.
I agree with this.
> “Art is supposed to be a provocation, not an education.” I’m not sure how I feel about that. Why not both? Why can’t some art be educational and some art be provocative and some art can be both?
I appreciate both traditional and innovative art. But progress in art was always achieved through innovation and provocation.
After all, it is hard to believe now that impressionism at some point was practically a revolution in art. The same with abstractionism. Now they are mainstream.
The same with music , you can almost feel the progression of Tchaikovsky – > Rachmaninov -> Stravinsky, but from one to the other there is a leap, a provocation, definitely.
You have to know the traditional art and traditions, they provide the fundament to build upon and connection to the history . But ultimately art is all about innovation, doing things in a new and different way.
Being brow-beaten or humiliated into appreciating something as stupid as a matchbox full of dust as art totally misses the whole point of art. Art is something you should look at and it evokes emotion. It evokes pleasure, sadness and wonder. I once stood in front of Vincent Van Gogh’s Self-Portrait With Grey Felt Hat – http://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/s0016V1962 – for about 20 minutes absolutely mesmerized. I thought “how did he do that????” I could not believe thick strokes of bright paint could capture the form and expression of the human face that beautifully.
Sorry Kate but having your picture taken wearing weird costumes with birds and wire cages and bubbles is not art. It takes no talent to stand there being dressed up and made up by a flock of psuedo artsy fart-catchers.
“Art is supposed to be a provocation, not an education.” I’m not sure how I feel about that. Why not both? Why can’t some art be educational and some art be provocative and some art can be both? And at this point, some of us are tired of endless provocations. ” Oh.
Good luck with that new Lucy bio-pic. I’m sure it’ll be an artful provocation. And I’m thrilled to see how children keep some movie stars so grounded.
“Art is supposed to be a provocation, not an education.”
Art can also simply be beautiful for the sake of being beautiful. For instance, does a piece of music *have* to “mean” something for it to be worthwhile? I think that if a piece of art—visual or otherwise—needs an explanation in order to be appreciated, it has failed on some level. I know that some things need an explanation to be *fully* appreciated, but if it can’t stand on its own at all it’s probably lousy art IMO.
Art can be both. If someone came to my house after FOUR YEARS of finding themself, with a box full of dirt, I would be educated enough to not them in my front door, and provoked enough to tell them to blow said dirt up their arse.
This whole argument is a red herring.
The idea that art should “elevate and instruct” is a Victorian one. It stifles creativity horribly. The idea that art should provoke is also Victorian, and is just as stifling. It’s adolescent. Both attitudes are actually the same attitude: that the artist is above the common run. Whether you’re standing with a megaphone on a soapbox or painting yourself with glue on the same soapbox, it’s all the same. “I am better than you and shall either tell you what to think or scandalize your puny brain.”
As soon as an artist thinks they’re inherently better than their audience, and therefore should either educate or shock the Muggles, they’ve lost what art is. Art is an exploration, not a destination.