One major focus of our discussions in class has been Tateh and his transformation over the book from a street artist into the rich filmmaker Baron Ashkenazi, and how that is reflected on and changes his art. Some people in the class have made the argument that even though his financial status, and his position of power, have changed, this doesn't reflect on the intentions, morality, or validity of his art, and I disagree with this statement. The reasons why The Baron makes films are vastly different from why Tateh was making silhouettes at the start of the book, and the difference between these reflects on the art, as well as on Tateh himself, so much that it's almost like he is a seperate person by the end of the book.
I think that the fundamental difference between Tateh and his art at the start of the book, and the Baron at the end of the book is the type of art they make, and how they make it. Tateh starts out making silhouettes by himself, and since he is only attempting to support his family and make a living for his family, pretty much everyone would agree that this is fine. Everyone would still call what he makes art, especially since all of his silhouettes are unique.
The next step that Tateh takes in his career is selling multiple copies of his flipbooks to the store, and this was where we first started to discuss this in class. The flipbooks are not unique, and while they are not just products rolling out of a factory like Ford's cars, the removal of uniqueness takes something away from them, and commercializes them. However, I would still say that what Tateh is doing is good, and still moral in some sense, as he is still doing all of the work in making the flipbooks.
However, at the end of the book, we see Tateh as a prolific filmmaker, who is a lot more wealthy and capable than he was at the start of the book. This is where Tateh, or as he is now known, the Baron Ashkenazi, crosses the line. Films, even early films back in the 1910s, were expensive, big projects, that dozens or hundreds of people worked on. Tateh, gaining the wealth of the films that 'he makes', is exploiting all of the people that also worked on the films. This is the commercialization of art that I view as wrong, even if that art has 'good' themes, or promotes a good message.
I think that the fundamental difference between Tateh and his art at the start of the book, and the Baron at the end of the book is the type of art they make, and how they make it. Tateh starts out making silhouettes by himself, and since he is only attempting to support his family and make a living for his family, pretty much everyone would agree that this is fine. Everyone would still call what he makes art, especially since all of his silhouettes are unique.
The next step that Tateh takes in his career is selling multiple copies of his flipbooks to the store, and this was where we first started to discuss this in class. The flipbooks are not unique, and while they are not just products rolling out of a factory like Ford's cars, the removal of uniqueness takes something away from them, and commercializes them. However, I would still say that what Tateh is doing is good, and still moral in some sense, as he is still doing all of the work in making the flipbooks.
However, at the end of the book, we see Tateh as a prolific filmmaker, who is a lot more wealthy and capable than he was at the start of the book. This is where Tateh, or as he is now known, the Baron Ashkenazi, crosses the line. Films, even early films back in the 1910s, were expensive, big projects, that dozens or hundreds of people worked on. Tateh, gaining the wealth of the films that 'he makes', is exploiting all of the people that also worked on the films. This is the commercialization of art that I view as wrong, even if that art has 'good' themes, or promotes a good message.
Exactly! No matter how likeable Tateh is, or how satisfying it is that he’s found a way to support and protect his daughter, it doesn’t change the fact that this man started out as a proud socialist who wanted to change class relations in America and he turned into the quintessential capitalist, making mass produced feature films and living it large in Hollywood. Even the location, Atlantic City, shows how far he’s drifted from his original ideals – Atlantic City is all resorts and rich people. I feel like Tateh at the beginning of the book wouldn’t set foot in a place like that except to burn it down. But the new Tateh, the one who allows his art to be, like you say, corrupted, by his new country, has no problems with vacations at Atlantic City.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know. I want to like Tateh, I really do. It’s just … this bothers me.