Do you overanalyze art forms that prevent you from enjoying them?

[Antares]

I feel like that when I watch movies, I tend to analyze them more than let the director and the motion picture lead me where they want me to go. That's why horror movies don't "do it" for me anymore. When I hear low, ominous violins, I tell myself exactly what's going to happen, and that somehow desensitizes me. I can reasonably recognize that the Shining is a masterfully constructed piece, but it doesn't scare me. Not many films get to triumph over my constant analysis to move me and make me fall in love with its plot or characters, but some that did include Moulin Rouge and Enemy at the Gates. I feel like I'm unable to enjoy movies because of this. Nothing moves me, nothing strikes a nerve. If something does strike a nerve and get some emotion out of me, I gain an enormous respect for it.

A friend of mine really liked The Ugly Truth and recommended it to me. When I was watching it, I keep comparing the movie to other "independent woman falls in love"-esque films. I'm sure something in that film made her watch it over and over again, but to me, it's just mediocre. It didn't even make me smile, as it did for so many other. Supposedly sad films don't move me at all (such as Titanic), and I turned off The House of the Spirits. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech did nothing for me, and Obama downright annoyed me with his rhetorics. I strain to understand what made Mark Antony's speech to the plebeians (from Julius Caesar) hailed by critics as one of the greatest speeches ever, and I fail to see the charisma in Hitler.

[ya lyublyu tebya]

Horror movies almost never scare me. :( It stinks, because I love them, and I find the feeling of something fictional being that stirring that it scares the pants off of me really exhilarating, because not much can get past my "but it's just fiction!" barrier. I think it has to have a psychological element to be able to do that. "GORE BLOOD STAB HACK" just makes me giggle with glee (and scare whomever I'm watching with possibly more than the movie, itself). If it involves the characters' emotions and some good tension and buildup (not necessarily a lot quantitatively, just qualitatively), then something can really, really make me cringe and squeal. Good foreshadowing is always a plus; aahhh, I loves me the creepy foreshadowing. Realizing right before something scary happens that, "Ohhhh, that's what that was! LOOK OUT!" will have me on the edge of my seat (or clinging to whomever I'm watching with or the nearest pet or soft object).

I'm not sure if this is the same principle, but if a song has bad lyrics, no matter how good the music and the singing skills are, I can't get through it.

[kepstein8888]

With movies and TV, I have more trouble with the line between good and stupid than fiction and reality. I can suspend my disbelief if the characters are good and the story isn't lame or cliche.

Star Wars is a good example. I was willing to go along with anything until those bloody Ewoks showed up.

[nowt]

Little to no analysis required, for the poor forms; live for the analysis of the best of forms.

[BlackOp]

Watch The Wire series...I have the same issue with just about everything. This was a no BS, amazing show. It completely suspended disbelief...it takes about 3 episodes to get involved, after that it takes off and doesnt look back.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Solaris]

Antares, this sounds very familiar. I started doing the same thing as a kid, and never stopped. I'm going to go with it being due to your natural habit of seeing patterns in things. So much of media is formulaic, and it's only getting worse. I analyze commercials when I see them, because I usually wonder who in the hell they work on -- because it isn't me. Few movies push my emotional buttons; and, if they do, it's often because I'm in an already emotional state, and it touched that nerve. Enemy at the Gates was moving when I saw it, and I like Moulin Rouge (I just watched it last night even). A good film score or cinematography moves me more than the acting often does. It's hard to just turn off my brain's normal functioning and just enjoy something. Watching "blow up" movies is nice when I'm really ticked off though, but I'd usually rather go workout instead.

[Samoan Corleone]

Sometimes the more patterns and symbols I can spot, the more I'll enjoy a movie, because I'll get a fair idea of where the writer and director were going, or trying to go, with their script; what message they were trying to send. I even enjoy films deemed mediocre by critics when I spot these things, which is not to say that I'm smarter than Roger Ebert (alright, maybe at times I do ;)), just that I empaphise with the filmmakers when they leave these things.

I really got a kick out of Scarface (1983 version) the first time I saw it, and I may've overanalysed it, but I definitely thought Tony Montana represented Jesus (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

I can really only engage with horror movies that don't have some supernatural element to them (The Silence of the Lambs, Saw, Hostel), because they're obviously more believeable.

As for performances, the most recent one that really got to me was Sean Penn as Harvey Milk. Maybe it was because I'd never seen him kiss a guy or smile so damn much, but I forgot I was watching Sean Penn. Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon is my favourite performance of all time. I actually forgot he was committing a crime that I would otherwise look down on and was rooting for him and his partner in crime to get away successfully (perhaps due to the Stockholm syndrome).

[undercurrent]

I rarely enjoy movies because almost all of them have plot points that hinge on the characters doing something stupid. A good writer should be able to build an interesting story without having to depend on his characters doing something utterly stupid. When I see a movie I want to think "I'd never have thought of that!" rather than "Oh come on, don't do that! That's dumb!"

[Koshkot]

Not many films get to triumph over my constant analysis to move me and make me fall in love with its plot or characters, but some that did include Moulin Rouge and Enemy at the Gates
I only think that means you have high expectations for art, which is not a bad thing. I personally view that most of what is produced by popular media these days is garbage anyway.

[plotthickens]

A music novice can appreciate the same excellent show that a musician appreciates. They experience it differently, but they both like it.

A movie novice can appreciate a formulaic piece of crap, but someone who sees the patterns does not like the formulaic nature. Instead, they can choose to complain, walk away, or appreciate other aspects -- characterization, effects, camera angles, etc.

We can choose how we perceive. I highly reccommend it.

[Geminii]

Analysis is just another mental overlay. Some films suffer from it, others are even more enjoyable.

[Ither]

We can choose how we perceive. I highly reccommend it.

I disagree. Perception is beyond conscious control. What can be trained is ones reaction to a perception.

[plotthickens]

I disagree. Perception is beyond conscious control. What can be trained is ones reaction to a perception.

:huh:



In philosophy, and psychology/cognitive sciences, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information The word "perception" comes from the Latin words perceptio, percipio, and means "receiving, collecting, action of taking possession, apprehension with the mind or senses.


I choose where my eyes focus. I choose what I read. I choose who I talk to. I choose my daily interactions.

Then:

I choose how to perceive movies: am I grumpy? Am I just going to look at the pretty effects? Do I want to get swept off my feet by characterization? Do I not care about the movie and just want to use it as a quick nap?

Parallel: If I want to enjoy a home-cooked meal, do I go eat fast food beforehand? No, I take the time to be hungry, and to relax and spend adequate time to enjoy the experience.
Parallel: If I want to rip through a pile of work in a day, do I stay up till four and eat poorly and schedule lots of interrupting meetings? No, I clear my calendar, sleep soundly, eat well, and put on some serious motivational music.

We choose how we perceive. The only passive acceptors of every passing input is babies, and even they withdraw when overstimulated... thereby choosing (even so) what they perceive.

[Ither]

I think you misunderstand. How about: Perceptions are beyond conscious control.

When you choose to, for example, focus your eyes on X, this is not choosing a perception. It is closing off the possibility of an infinity of possible perceptions that might present themselves if not focused on X. In itself this does not specify a given perception of X.

[plotthickens]

I think you misunderstand. How about: Perceptions are beyond conscious control.

When you choose to, for example, focus your eyes on X, this is not choosing a perception. It is closing off the possibility of an infinity of possible perceptions that might present themselves if not focused on X. In itself this does not specify a given perception of X.

How is choosing to perceive something "not choosing a perception"?

I want to see the sunset. I look at it. I perceive it. I have consciously chosen to perceive the sunset.

I want to see the sunset differently. I consciously choose to change my perception of it. I can look at it cross-eyed, and change my perception. I can put on sunglasses and now it's all in greens. I can slit my eyes and now it's all squinty. I can put on "On Eagle's Wings" and now the sunset is all glimmery because that bloody stupid song always makes me tear up.

How is this not conscious perception? Conscious perception determines our version of reality... including the analysis of art forms.

[Ither]

The problem is a technical one. The question is: does a sense perception necessarily contain within itself a conceptualization? I say no. You say yes.

I claim that a sense perception is perforce a perception of a particular -- this tree, this red etc. Mental perception requires conceptualization, universals.

[plotthickens]

The problem is a technical one. The question is: does a sense perception necessarily contain within itself a conceptualization? I say no. You say yes.

I claim that a sense perception is perforce a perception of a particular -- this tree, this red etc. Mental perception requires conceptualization, universals.

So you're just not touching the idea that choosing to change a perception through physical means (squinting, sunglasses, etc) is "consciously changing perception". Interesting. I'll play along.

If sense perception is a perception of a particular, what do these studies (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)say about your theory that perception is not altered by conceptualization?

[Ither]

So you're just not touching the idea that choosing to change a perception through physical means (squinting, sunglasses, etc) is "consciously changing perception". Interesting. I'll play along.

If sense perception is a perception of a particular, what do these studies (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)say about your theory that perception is not altered by conceptualization?

I'll look up the studies.

I never said that mental perception does not (retroactively) alter a sense perception (on the contrary it seems to me), just that a sense perception is non-conceptual, that if a concept/universal is involved the perception is a cognition. This is, of course, not my idea, unfortunately.

--
Quickly read the article. I think it supports my position, but right now someone else needs the computer. Will return.

[plotthickens]

I'll look up the studies.

I never said that mental perception does not (retroactively) alter a sense perception (on the contrary it seems to me), just that a sense perception is non-conceptual, that if a concept/universal is involved the perception is a cognition. This is, of course, not my idea, unfortunately.

--
Quickly read the article. I think it supports my position, but right now someone else needs the computer. Will return.



Here are some more:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Aaaaaand here's where I ask you to define "conscious":
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Merle]

Strangely, I find that I can't really answer the question - I think I have always approached Art that way, from when I was very tiny - I have never experienced art, or literature or film etc as an immersion in another world; I have only ever approached it critically. I think my mind works in terms of comparisons, I've noticed this a lot lately where I worry that I'm annoying the others in my seminars by my little tic of stating out loud "like *so and so*" - it's not something I do consciously but it obviously helps me locate concepts and thinkers etc within the map (spider chart?!) of intellectual history in my head. I think it is my natural way of assimilating knowledge - my approach to Art I think springs from that - I've never not done it, and yet I still find Art, in all its forms, is the most important thing in my life... so I suppose an answer to your question would be that it doesn't spoil it.

Relatedly, I really have no time for any kind of Art that strives to be 'realistic' - I find it both horrifically uninteresting, and at the same-time hopelessly deluded and dis-honest. (perhaps a dislike of this kind of Art, is the result of thinking about Art that way). My favourite kinds of Art deal quite openly with their mimetic and fundamentally un-realistic function. I get enjoyment out of really terrible films almost as much as I do from really excellent ones... mostly because what I enjoy in terrible films is the awareness of generic conventions etc etc

You mentioned emotional reactions as if eliciting an emotional reaction is the raison d'etre of Art - that Art's function is to move. I disagree completely (perhaps purely as a result of my personality) - I find I am immediately suspicious of any Art that seeks to move me emotionally. Even a film which I had an extremely forceful emotional reaction to (such as Waltz With Bashir), while I emotionally fell it was an excellent movie - intellectually I doubted, and doubt, its merit because it relied almost exclusively on emotional force and manipulation to make its point.

[nextsttp]

I feel like that when I watch movies, I tend to analyze them more than let the director and the motion picture lead me where they want me to go. That's why horror movies don't "do it" for me anymore. When I hear low, ominous violins, I tell myself exactly what's going to happen, and that somehow desensitizes me. I can reasonably recognize that the Shining is a masterfully constructed piece, but it doesn't scare me. Not many films get to triumph over my constant analysis to move me and make me fall in love with its plot or characters, but some that did include Moulin Rouge and Enemy at the Gates. I feel like I'm unable to enjoy movies because of this. Nothing moves me, nothing strikes a nerve. If something does strike a nerve and get some emotion out of me, I gain an enormous respect for it.

A friend of mine really liked The Ugly Truth and recommended it to me. When I was watching it, I keep comparing the movie to other "independent woman falls in love"-esque films. I'm sure something in that film made her watch it over and over again, but to me, it's just mediocre. It didn't even make me smile, as it did for so many other. Supposedly sad films don't move me at all (such as Titanic), and I turned off The House of the Spirits. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech did nothing for me, and Obama downright annoyed me with his rhetorics. I strain to understand what made Mark Antony's speech to the plebeians (from Julius Caesar) hailed by critics as one of the greatest speeches ever, and I fail to see the charisma in Hitler.

It is the same with me as well!

1. Cannot enjoy a Sci Fi film without picking it to pieces.

2. Horror films do not scare me, even when I watch them in the middle of the night all alone.

3. Cannot stand most jokes and most films have no emotional impact on me either! I sometimes even feel like laughing when I see these tearjerkers :)

4. Cannot stand commercials and they really irritate me and sometimes I make up my mind to never buy these products at all.

But having said all that, I do bring myself to enjoy most films and there is always that very rare gem out there that pokes a hole in your heart. But I think that I can count them on my fingers really!

[Storm]

Odd, the analysis of art is the reason I love art. Once you know the patterns and themes that are utilized in the arts, you can use them to more clearly see what the creator is trying to do. And, when they break a "rule" you can fully appreciate its significance.

Sometimes though, it's nice to turn that part of your brain off and just go along for the ride - it has to be really good though for that to be possible.

[plotthickens]

My peeps and I play a game. When we walk into a movie where we KNOW it won't make sense, we smack each other on the foreheadhead (open button) and insert the chip labeled "SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF". There! All fixed!

Unless it's REALLY STUPID movies, then you may burn out your chip halfway through and have to switch out for another. Which is funny, because usually we'll all be going for a new chip at about the same time.

[miyukisama]

I find humor in stupid and simple movies/songs/artworks. Me and my INTJ fiancee always come up with funny remarks. XD

Ohh, and zombie movies are hilarious.

[interpolate]

Yes. I find that vocal music isn't able to affect my mood the same way instrumental music can because of my compulsion to scrutinise the singing.

[Mader]

I am thinking of paintings and sculpture here.

If it is pretty, I can feel myself drawn to it, feeling the pretty garden or mountain.

However, some "modern" art, I just don't get. I have taken classes to study this art, I have been to the museums in Europe, but some art just leaves me out in the cold. I look at it, I study it, and all I get is 'huh'. I wish I could fix this, but the information just doesn't compute.