JCVD Life Lesson #3: Bourdieu vs. JCVD

“The aesthetic disposition which tends to bracket off the nature and function of the object represented and to exclude any naive reaction--horror at the horrible, desire for the desirable--along with all purely ethical responses, in order to concentrate solely upon the mode of representation...is one dimension of a total relation to the world and to others, a life-style, in which the effects of particular conditions of existence are expressed in a mis-recognizable form...[this] can only be constituted within an experience of the world freed from urgency and through the practice of activities which are an end in themselves, such as scholastic exercises or the contemplation of works of art.” (Bourdieu, “Aristocracy of Culture” 251)

What the hell does all of that mean? It’s not a bad question. What I’m going to explore here is the question of JCVD as high or low art, and whether or not such a delineation should even be considered in our JCVD project.

I was reading Bourdieu (obviously) and I couldn’t help but think of Kate and I’s little project here. There are those that have expressed shock and dismay at our goal, and there are some that mocked us until they saw us in action--we are impressive deconstructionists I do have to say (if you only knew all the observations that don’t make it to the final draft). But as I considered high art vs. low art, specifically the judgment passed immediately on a person based on the type of art they prefer, I began to be irritated by the either/or requirement of society’s approach.

That is to say, Mr. Bourdieu is pointing out above and in his article that society requires if one is to achieve an aesthetic disposition--the ability to engage and appreciate high art--the viewer must be able to appreciate form over meaning and to extract him or herself from a goal orientated approach. You watch an independent film, for example, and comment on the cinematography and lighting, but care nothing for the emotional response it elicits. A more popular example would be There Will Be Blood; aesthetically speaking it is a beautifully made movie. All the parts--the images, the words, the acting--are individually amazing, but for many popular movie-goers (i.e. those who prefer “low art”) the experience was unfulfilling and disheartening.

I would argue that in our society one is perceived to either like high art or low art. Those are the categories we try to shove people into: male or female, gay or straight, educated or not, tasteful and discerning or crass and ignorant. But why can’t particular works straddle the line? Specifically, why can’t particular works be used to demonstrate there is no line?

Take our JCVD movies; as we travel back in time to the “classics” there is a very different caliber of movie being made. But as Kate and I deconstruct the movies our goal doesn’t have to be a thinly veiled attempt at mocking “high art”. We aren’t engaging in a scholastic exercise or contemplation which is an end unto itself, nor are we sharing only our horror at the horrible parts and our desire for the desirable parts. Hopefully we’re doing both, or, at least, that is the idea. And this is worth considering, I would argue, because as a viewer a naive reaction can be enjoyed--it is exciting when JCVD takes off his shirt, does the splits and crotch-shots the bad guy--while simultaneously our aversion to particular female characters or their representations can be examined for embedded gender roles. A preference for a darker movie versus a lighter one can be considered in an aesthetic versus philosophical light: does one like sad endings because the pathos (emotional appeal) is more appealing or does one like sad endings because one has a deeply jaded and broken view of the world? Both of those questions are viable and worth answering, and both can be explored with high and low art.

And each JCVD movie, while entertaining and painful in its own right, has revealed the possibility for aesthetic detachment, noble education, and emotional enticement as existing in every work. Should students be taught JCVD instead of Shakespeare? Possibly not. But if a student wants to write an analysis paper on Bloodsport should s/he be denied only because it’s Bloodsport? If a viewer is incapable of recognizing why someone else would enjoy a JCVD movie, is that not just as much of a failure as someone who was incapable of enjoying anything else?

As the field of Pop Culture expands and explores the effects and social reinforcements of our “popular” entertainment there is the simultaneous pressure to present “scholarly academic work” while also remaining “entertaining.” We are serious academics, but it is popular culture after all. When the two are set up in opposition, however, an almost untenable tension is created that restricts movement back and forth between the two approaches. This tension also strengthens the cultural hierarchy of real art, meant to educate, from low ball stuff meant to entertain.

When I began watching the older movies with Kate, I had a slight panic attack. What in all of the known universe were we going to offer about Double Impact or Double Team? (Despite not having watched them yet, I just know those two are going to be rough.) JCVD was ripe with conversational possibilities but what could be garnered from Lionheart that wasn’t a dreadfully obvious attempt at forcing meaning? But then I read Bourdieu and I remembered: it isn’t about the themes, or the cinematography, or even the slightly dubious early acting of Mr. JCVD himself. It’s about being completely entertained by simplistic plots that don’t want to confuse you or upset you, and that simple entertainment (if we can call any entertainment simple) is not a waste of time.

In any experience of enjoyment or disappointment the possibility exists of examining one’s own personal ethical, moral, and aesthetic code. Low art can be used to achieve this as easily as, if not more effectively than, high art. It is easy to be distracted by the themes, metaphors, and allegories of high art, but low art leaves you nothing to think about or discuss outside yourself and your reactions. That can be disconcerting, annoying, and lonely, but it can also be revealing, entertaining, and humorous.

So I hope to bring an aspect of the pure gaze to our JCVD movies, an aesthetic appreciation if you will, but I hope neither the fun nor the aestheticism gets subsumed by the other.

JCVD wins!!